NOAA HPCC Network & Advanced IT Program

FY2007 Proposal Guidance

  | Themes/Topics | Format | Reports | Schedule | Evaluation Criteria | Network Working Group |

  The NOAA High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Office, that is funded by the Environmental Modeling Program,  requests proposals from NOAA Line, Program and Staff Offices for FY2007 projects within the themes described below.  All completed proposals must be submitted no later than November 2, 2006 to your NOAA HPCC Network Working Group (NWG) regional representative.

The primary goal of the NOAA HPCC program is to foster information technology research and development that supports the NOAA mission.  The program encourages research projects that enable NOAA to provide greater access to its vast holdings of real-time and historical information to customers in a more complete, more usable form, and in a much more timely manner through the increased use of advanced technologies and for NOAA researchers to access NOAA’s R&D High Performance Computing System (RDHPCS).  Another goal for HPCC networking, collaboration, visualization, analysis, and disaster response projects is to improve technology for access to critical data, information and unique resources in a manner that increases mission effectiveness and furthers NOAA's service to the nation.

With this in mind, the NOAA HPCC Office and NOAA HPCC Network Working Group (NWG) have prepared the following guidelines and specific instructions for the upcoming HPCC IT Research and Development proposal process. This guidance document outlines a process similar to that used last year and reflects some modifications and clarifications as a result of the lessons learned from prior years and the evolution of program goals.  Writers familiar with the process should take note of the more significant requirements.  Proposals must be submitted in the NOAA standard Microsoft Word® format (Times Roman 12).  Progress and Final Reports are required.  NOAA IT security requirements must be addressed when describing the proposed solution.  All potential recurring costs must be itemized. The working group will strictly enforce the requirements in this proposal guidance.  Please read this entire document and/or contact your regional manager.  Successful (i.e. funded) proposals from previous years may be reviewed at the new NWG website:  http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cnsd/hpcc-nwg/

 

 

Themes/Topics

The Themes and Topics for FY2007 proposals are:

1. Remote Usage of NOAA High Performance Computing (HPC) -

Next generation networking and follow-on tools and technologies capable of supporting remote usage of NOAA High Performance Computing

2. Advanced Networking Technologies -

Innovative infrastructure supporting the NOAA Enterprise Architecture

3. Technologies for Modeling, Analysis, or Visualization -

Modeling frameworks for high performance computing activities

Enabling applications to efficiently access or use large datasets at a distance.

4. Disaster Planning, Mitigation, Response and Recovery -

Access to NOAA products & models using Geographic Information System (GIS) format

Information support for emergency managers

Advanced mobile field information access and distribution

5. HPCC Technology Transfer -

Implementing successful HPCC prototype projects at other NOAA locations

All of these areas are critical to NOAA's information technology infrastructure. This fiscal year, the HPCC proposals should avoid basic networking and connectivity projects and focus on those that tackle innovative and technically challenging solutions for resource and information sharing.  They should expand to take advantage of the opportunities offered by advanced next generation network technologies and support the NOAA Enterprise Architecture (EA).  A document on NOAA EA can be found at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/NOAAstrategicITplan_Architecture2005.pdf

Remote Usage of NOAA High Performance Computing (HPC)

One of the highest priorities this year is to find methods for NOAA researchers to use NOAA Research & Development High Performance Computing System (RDHPCS).  This system is composed of three sub-systems which are located in three geographically distinct locations in Princeton, NJ, Boulder, CO, and Gaithersburg, MD.  Proposals under this theme should focus on tools and technologies, including networking, that assist researchers in using the resources of two or more of the sub-systems to take advantage of the added compute capacity.  These tools should be flexible, extensible, and scalable but at a minimum be able to ensure that the connection between the sub-systems is secure.

Advanced Networking Technologies

Proposals submitted under this theme should focus on next generation networking technologies and applications.  The NOAA HPCC program will be looking for an integrated approach to all connectivity projects in this area and expects regional and national coordination of wide area network designs.  It will require the identification of an advanced networking partner that supports a high performance connection to one or more of the national high speed backbones. This could include Internet working with the existing UCAID/Abilene, DoD/DREN, NASA/NREN, or DoE/ESnet backbones or any emerging national optical networking initiatives such as National Lambda Rail and the New Internet2 Network.  However, peering and routing policy issues between these networks must be addressed.  Special attention should be given to the existing relationship NOAA has with the UCAID Abilene network.  Proposals may also include solutions that prepare NOAA for access to the next generation of national high speed backbones by implementing essential high performance infrastructure upgrades needed for participation in advanced network projects.  These should be leveraging an existing or proposed NOAA Internet2 connectivity project and, where applicable, should be designed as a shared NOAA resource.  Advanced networking technologies would include proposals seeking to develop revolutionary applications that require the utilization of high end networking capabilities such as IPv6, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM), dynamic optical switching, multicasting or quality of service.  This new generation of applications would have bandwidth and/or network service requirements not commonly available over the existing commercial Internet.

The NOAA HPCC Office recognizes the need to support some shared infrastructure expenses and to fill in basic information technology gaps in order to ensure that adequate resources are available for completing HPCC projects.  However, proposals addressing the more innovative focus areas will be given the highest priority among projects.  Some examples might be prototyping differentiated services, data multicasting, audio/video streaming and multicasting, innovative web-farm implementations, network security, virtual private networking, self-defending network designs and advanced network protocols.  All new infrastructure proposals must be consistent with the NOAA Enterprise Network Architecture (EA).  A document on NOAA EA can be found at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/NOAAstrategicITplan_Architecture2005.pdf

Another area of interest is the advancement of secure wireless technology within NOAA.  Combining data connectivity with user mobility and security will provide the capability for NOAA to better support the scientific mission and the requirements of the mobile workforce of the future.  Benefits from WLAN projects would extend beyond just user mobility and productivity to enabling portable high speed self-configuring LANs.  NOAA would be able to realize the productivity gains of integrating WLANs with hand-held terminals and notebook computers to transmit real-time information to centralized hosts for processing and receiving products and information from centralized host activities. 

Proposals for projects that simply provide access to new or otherwise here-to-fore unavailable data sets or seek to implement private telecommunications, computing or storage resources will be deemed as "not appropriate" and will not be evaluated.  Proposals that request basic computing or networking components as part of a larger development effort will be evaluated on the uniqueness of the technology or application solution being proposed relative to HPCC goals and must clearly justify the need for any additional hardware or software resources.  Projects should leverage and share existing HPCC computing and networking resources where possible.

Technologies for Modeling, Analysis, or Visualization

These are advanced enabling technologies that cover a wide range of possibilities including applications sharing, scientific whiteboarding, distributed data integration and session indexing management.  Successful deployment of these technologies will require the cooperation of multiple sites and perhaps the introduction of advanced communications protocols.  These would be modern network based applications that demonstrate new techniques for working with NOAA data and information.  Proposals should look to develop tools that are extensible, scalable, and available for easy deployment throughout NOAA.  Forward looking proposals that utilize the advanced features of the NOAA Abilene network infrastructure or the emerging Lambda Rail infrastructure are encouraged.

Applications and tools proposed under this theme should be designed using a framework approach that enables the software to be integrated with other related packages and interfaced with major off-the shelf software products.  Development should allow for the inclusion of the broadest range of potential users and the initial target group for using and supporting the development must be identified.  Plug'n'Play modules that work with existing products are encouraged.  The working group would discourage standalone applications that are being considered to meet the requirements of an individual program or organization.  Efforts seeking to develop frameworks for modeling, visualization, or analysis applications and tools are encouraged.

Frameworks provide a structure within which components can be added or upgraded without the complexity of rewriting the model.  By bundling a large amount of reusable code, it saves time for the developer.  Frameworks are designed with the intent of facilitating software development, by allowing designers and programmers to spend more time on meeting software requirements rather than dealing with the more tedious low level details of providing a working system.

The Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF) is an important example of component modeling.  It is supported by government, including NOAA, and university groups to foster a flexible and interoperable software infrastructure for numerical climate & weather prediction along with other Earth science applications.  A component is a unit of software composition that has a coherent function, and a standard calling interface and behavior.  Components can be assembled to create multiple applications, and different implementations of a component may be available.  In ESMF, a component may be a physical domain, or a function such as a coupler or I/O system.  Proposals in this field would serve to enhance the current ESMF either by adding new physical models and computational enhancements such as parallel communication.

Proposals that explore the use of leading-edge E-government framework technologies such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) and standard schemas such as Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language (ebXML), Web Services Description Language (WSDL), Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), and Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) within NOAA are encouraged.  A resource for general government use of XML can be found on the XML.GOV site that was established to facilitate the efficient and effective use of XML through cooperative efforts among government agencies.

Applications that take advantage of the emerging computer grid technologies such as that employed by The TeraGrid project launched by the National Science Foundation are encouraged. These grid applications would use the Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) built on the Open Grid Services Infrastructure (OGSI) that is based on an integration of Grid and Web services concepts and technologies.  The Globus Alliance focuses on the research needed to build computational grid infrastructures and develop applications that use grid services.  The MEAD expedition was a major project within the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) that developed and adapted a cyberinfrastructure that enabled simulation, data mining, and visualization of atmospheric phenomena.

Disaster Planning, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

Disaster response in IT refers to a suite of capabilities (innovative information access, user interfaces, and applications) which support the response of the Federal government, especially NOAA and its customers, to natural and man-made disasters.  Hurricanes, floods, oil spills, and even the terrorist attacks on September 11th required NOAA to respond rapidly.  The report Computing and Communications in the Extreme: Research for Crisis Management and Other Applications provides additional background on this subject.  This provides an opportunity for research into technologies that can better serve NOAA missions in this area.  Projects that seek to transition NOAA products and services for use within the emergency management community are encouraged.

Proposals submitted under this theme may focus on tools or software applications that convert non-spatial data to geographic information system (GIS) compatible data; expedite the transfer of spatial data (e.g., meteorological, hydrological, coastal, terrestrial, oceanographic, etc.) to coastal professionals or emergency managers; enhance analyses used for disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities; or increase the compatibility of and access to data between federal and state emergency management agencies, coastal zone management agencies, and other federal agencies or organizations that provide emergency support functions.

This request for proposals specifically targets projects that will develop innovative tools, user interfaces, mobile technology, and applications that will expand emergency management capabilities by incorporating real-time and/or historical data; utilize advanced forecasts, impact modeling, and decision-support technologies; or provide quickly accessible data for rapid decision-making capabilities that include, but are not limited to, evacuation planning, emergency protective measure implementation, search and rescue operations, debris management, human and tactile resource estimation/allocation/deployment, damage assessment (e.g., bathymetric data used for establishing baseline scenarios in primary navigation channels to assist with post-disaster damage assessments), vulnerability analyses, and hazard mitigation planning.  Proposals may also include an augmentation of existing technologies or applications.

Projects that advance mobile network capabilities within NOAA and seek to better integrate field activities during disaster response and homeland security situations are encouraged.

HPCC Technology Transfer

This theme encourages proposals for projects that will extend the utilization of previously funded and successful HPCC networking projects within NOAA.  Each proposal is limited to a maximum of $20K.  This would include such things as packaging of an application for easy installation by others, minor modifications or modest site specific changes needed to implement a concept for another organization and help applying the application or technology within a different environment.  It should be viewed as a way to help others utilize and enhance existing prototypes and demonstrated capabilities.

It is not an opportunity to deploy duplicate hardware and COTS software within your organization or to implement a successful technology throughout the entire organization.  The transfer should not include additional application or technology development.  Proposals should clearly explain the technology being transferred, how it is to be applied in the new environment, and the benefits.  The title of the original HPCC funded networking project must be referenced within the proposal.

These proposals must have at least two investigators.  One of the investigators must be from the group or organization receiving the technology transfer and the other investigator must be from the project that originally developed the technology.  This should encourage close collaboration and ensure a successful transfer.

Note: Proposals submitted within this category are evaluated as those proposals in the other themes, using the same “Evaluation Criteria” in this document.  However, they are not given specific scores.  Technology Transfer proposals meeting the conditions of this theme and meeting the evaluation criteria receive a simple yes or no recommendation by each member of the review working group.

Proposal Format and Content

All proposals must be submitted in the NOAA standard, Microsoft Word® format (.doc). The document format must follow the outline specified in the template documents provided below. It must be no longer than seven (7) printed pages using Times New Roman 12 font.  The seven page limit includes the one Title page, five (or less) Project Description pages, and one Budget page.  Links may be included in the proposal for background information.  However, these links will not be utilized during the evaluation.  Information relevant to the evaluation criteria and themes must be in the body of the proposal.

Proposal Templates and Layout

A template document written in Microsoft Word® is included for you to download and edit.

These standards will be strictly enforced. Proposals that do not adhere to the required format, length, and layout will not be accepted. If you have any questions please ask your regional representative.

Note: Please do not edit or delete the very first line of text in the title page of the template as this is a place holder to allow easy addition of a proposal number to the submitted document.

Project Funding

The NOAA HPCC program DOES NOT fund multi-year proposals.  Projects can build on prior year accomplishments.  However, each year a new proposal must be submitted and will be evaluated on its own merits.  Remember all milestones must be reached and all deliverables must be achieved within one year.

Recurring Costs

The HPCC program recognizes that some funded proposals generate ongoing operational costs that a host organization cannot readily assimilate after the initial project year.  A successful HPCC project may be eligible for a portion of recurring costs while the principal investigator transitions to an alternate source of funding.  Recurring funds are not guaranteed, even though the original proposal gets funding.  Identify potential need for recurring costs in the original proposal submission.  This will not detract from (affect) the evaluation and associated score of the proposal.  A separate request for the recurring costs must be made each proposal year through the regional representative, and if appropriate the amount will be included in a consolidated request from that region.  Examples of the eligible recurring costs include contracts for hardware maintenance, software maintenance, or leased telecommunications services.

Recurring costs can only be requested for two years after the initial proposed project receives funding.  The year after initial funding is considered year 2 for that project and the maximum amount of funding that can be requested is 2/3 of the total annual (calculated on 12 month period which must be shown) recurring costs.  During year 3 of the project the maximum amount of funding that can be requested is 1/3 of the total annual recurring costs.  Please see the recurring cost table within the budget summary of the proposal template document.

All recurring costs must be itemized and must reference the original HPCC proposal number and title.  Authors requesting recurring costs must identify project accomplishments, any additional milestones and deliverables expected as the project continues, and the progress being made towards transition to an operational funding source.

Note:  Proposals that leverage an alternate source for funding any recurring costs will receive a more favorable rating in that evaluation criteria.  If you have any questions please ask your regional representative.

Progress and Final Project Report                                                                         

Each PI must provide to their respective NWG Regional Representative a written Progress Report on their currently funded project (FY 07).  This report will be due prior to the FY 2007 HPCC Mid-year Project Review meeting which typically is scheduled in May.  The Progress Report will include a Project Information (see below) and a Status Summary.  The Progress Report can be in the form of a Power Point presentation or Microsoft Word® (.doc), Times New Roman 12pt. font.

Each PI must provide to their respective NWG Regional Representative a written Final Project Report detailing the accomplishments for their completed project.  This will be due prior to the FY 2008 HPCC Mid-year Project Review meeting which typically is scheduled in May.  The document must follow the outline given below and should be no longer than the equivalent of three (3) printed pages (Times New Roman 12pt. font).  External links to products, references, and related information may be included in the report. 

A call to the PIs will be made to submit an electronic version of the Progress Report and the Final Project Report and must be submitted to the appropriate regional representative.  The respective document will be reviewed and discussed during the HPCC Mid-year Project Review meeting and posted on the NWG web site for future reference.

This requirement will be strictly enforced.  Investigators who do not provide these reports may not receive future funding.  A template document written in Microsoft Word® is included for you to download and edit. 

Format and Content: Final Project Report

 Project Information (Original Proposal Title Page).  No longer than one page)

·         Title

·         PI name & e-mail address

·         Co-PI names & e-mail addresses

·         Primary project theme

·         Funding received

Performance

·         List all deliverables resulting from this project

·         Provide any URLs for information products developed

·         Identify any media produced or publication made as a result of this project

·         Include information regarding who to contact for these products

·         If not complete, list any future milestones

·         List all users of the deliverables or outputs

Project Summary

·         Discuss project accomplishments

·         Share lessons learned

·         Provide recommendations for others considering similar work

·         Possibility for technology transfer

Expenditure Summary

·         Identify areas where the funds were spent

o        Getting support from University or Joint Institute personnel

o        Federal government salary charged to this project

o        Other contracted services

o        All other expenses such as equipment, software, training or travel

Future Direction

·         Describe where the project is headed next 

·         Discuss plans for further deployment or dissemination

·         Identify organizations planning to pick up operational or future development costs

·         Identify any potential follow-on activities uncovered by this project.

·         Identify other potential users of the deliverables or outputs

Publications

·         List, and, if possible, hyperlink to publications resulting from this project.

Note:  If you produced, reformatted or made available any data during this project you are required to describe it using the FGDC metadata format and make that description electronically available to the NOAA/NESDIS/CIO Office as per your line office procedures.  Please see the web pages at http://www.fgdc.gov for general information on the FGDC format or contact the NOAA FGDC representative, Tony Lavoi (tony.lavoi@noaa.gov) if you have specific questions.

HPCC Proposal Review Schedule

The schedule for the proposal process this year follows. Unless specified, all dates are in the current calendar year.

August 10th

·         NWG finalizes requirements and releases guidance document

o        Themes and Topics

o        Proposal Format

o        Final Reports

o        Schedule

o        Evaluation Criteria

o        Regional Contacts

September 7, 2006

·         HPCC releases a general “call for proposals”

September 28, 2006

·         HPCC NWG releases a reminder about “call for proposals”

November 2, 2006

·         All proposals are due to the HPCC regional representatives

·         Proposals received after this date WILL NOT be considered.

Week of December 4, 2006:

·         HPCC NWG meets to evaluate and rank proposals

December 2006

·         NWG summarizes the evaluation process and provides a prioritized list of projects to the NOAA HPCC Office for review and recommendations from the NOAA HPCC Council

·         NOAA HPCC Office reviews working group and Council recommendations

December 2006

·         HPCC Program Office provides final list of successful projects

·         Once the list is released, the NWG may be able to provide evaluator comments to the PI for their proposal.

Spring 2007

·         PI must provide a Progress Report for their current FY 07 project including, at least, an update on the milestones and deliverables.  

·         Regional representative or PI presents and discusses project at the annual review meeting.

Spring 2007

·         PI must provide the final report for their project.  In this case FY 05 (FY 06 budget reductions resulted in no funded FY 06 projects.)

·         Presented by the PI or the regional representative at the NWG project review meeting.

The Network Working Group will begin reviewing and discussing the proposals after the due date specified above.  During the fall meeting the Working Group will evaluate all proposals against the Evaluation Criteria listed below and utilizing the weighting factors as shown.  The scoring of each proposal against each criterion will be by consensus scoring of the committee. The results of the Working Group's evaluation will be presented to the NOAA HPCC Program Office. 

Final decisions regarding the funding of proposals will be made by the NOAA HPCC Office.   The NWG only provides recommendations to the HPCC Office that are used to help prioritize projects and the group will not have project funding information until after the NOAA HPCC Office releases the final list of successful proposals.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria, values and relative weights used to rank FY2007 proposals is as follows:

·         Appropriateness: How appropriate is the proposal, considering the NOAA HPCC Program Mission Goal statement and current Themes/Topics in this Guidance Document?

·         Technology: Does the proposal plan on utilizing state-of-the-art technology, or even technologies that "push the envelope" of what is currently available?

·         Scope: How wide an impact will this proposal have? Outside NOAA? On all NOAA, and the users of its data? On a NOAA campus? On a NOAA Line Office? On a NOAA organization/lab?

·         Leverage: Does this proposal take advantage of previous NOAA HPCC funded work? Are matching funds, personnel resources, or equipment proposed?

·         Cost/Benefit: Is the proposed cost of the work reasonable considering the benefits that will result?

The following relative weights and values will be utilized for each evaluation criteria above.  Each of the above criteria is given a value from 0 to 9 inclusive.  The meaning of value points is as follows:

·         0 - Does not qualify for further consideration.  Eliminate proposal.

·         1 - 3: Qualified for acceptance.  Is not particularly novel or challenging to accomplish. Infrastructure oriented.  Equipment purchase is a significant part of the proposal.  Scope limited to immediate activity.  Little collaborative aspect.  Little or no leverage from previous NOAA HPCC funds or other support (funds, personnel resources, etc.).  Cost benefit limited primarily to activity/agency.

·         4 - 5: Addresses at least one NOAA HPCC networking goal directly and clearly.  Aspects of technical risk and novelty exist.  Some elements of collaboration at least within the region or between activities and line offices.  Possibly useful for other purposes.  Small or no contribution from other sources.  Cost relative to benefit fair.

·         6 - 7: Addresses more than one NOAA HPCC networking goal directly and clearly.  Moderate technical risk and novelty.  Requires collaboration within the region or between agencies for success.  Easily applicable in other regions or organizations.  Utilizes existing NOAA HPCC investments effectively.  Contributing funds and resources from other sources.  Reasonably short time to payoff.  Reasonable return on investment (cost to benefit payoff).

·         8 - 9: Addresses more than one NOAA HPCC networking goal, as well as larger goals in the NOAA HPCC program.  Moderate to leading edge technical risk.  Clearly novel, employing existing or state-of-the-art technology in unexpected ways.  Applications throughout the agency come to mind immediately.  Technology transfer easily accomplished.  Success results in large scale collaboration with all regions and most line offices. Other agencies play active roles.  Benefits clearly exceed costs invested.

The criteria have been assigned relative weights that reflect the importance of each criterion to the HPCC program.  These criteria values may change as the goals of the NOAA HPCC program change.  Currently, the weights for each of the criteria are as shown in the following table.

The final score is obtained by multiplying the weight times the point value for each criteria then adding the products.

Example Scoring - As an example of scoring, assume a proposal that partially matches the HPCC guidelines, utilizes standard technology, only benefits part of a single lab, but is supplied with matching funds, and is relatively inexpensive.