SC Program Staff FAQs

As a steward of public funding, the Office of Science has a responsibility to ensure that we are serving the public. This includes committing to expanding participation in our sponsored activities and being intentional about supporting the participation of individuals from groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields. The PIER Plan requirement is an illustration of this commitment, and a recognition that everyone and every institution funded by SC can contribute to making access to science and scientific research more equitable and inclusive. We also recognize that harnessing a broad range of views, expertise, and experiences drives scientific and technological innovation and enables the SC community to push the frontiers of scientific knowledge for U.S. prosperity and security.

Yes. As of FY 2023 (all SC solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2022), PIER Plans are a required application element and must be included in all research proposals. In addition, any direct requests to DOE Laboratories to submit a new or renewal research proposal (e.g., Science Focus Areas, Lab base research programs) must include the requirement to provide a PIER Plan. The current exceptions to this requirement include proposals for supplemental funding and proposals requesting funding for conferences.

Note, SC implemented new requirements for applications for support for conferences in FY 2023.

Yes, other DOE Offices and Federal Agencies have initiated similar requirements within all or a subset of their solicitations. This includes DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which put in place a requirement for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Plans in FY 2021, the DOE Office Fossil Energy and Carbon Management began a similar requirement in 2023; these have been replaced with DOE Community Benefits Plans. Agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Institutes of Health’s BRAIN Initiative also initiated a similar requirement in recent years. While the title of these requirements initiated by other DOE Offices and Federal Agencies may vary, the intention and the scope are very similar to the SC requirement for PIER Plans.

An application that does not include a PIER Plan is considered incomplete and must be declined without review. If the applicant submitted the application prior to the solicitation deadline, the applicant may withdraw the incomplete application and resubmit the application with the PIER Plan before the submission deadline. This cannot be done after the closing date of the solicitation.

Final SC program policy on this matter is up to the cognizant Associate Director or Office Director. Programs may elect to reject the proposal or provide guidance to reviewers to base their review on the content in the first three pages of the PIER Plan and disregard the additional information. If a program manager identifies that the page limit has been exceeded before the application deadline has past, the program may encourage the applicant to withdraw the application and resubmit the proposal with the appropriate PIER Plan length if there is sufficient time. 

It is best to refer applicants to the SC website for PIER Plans, in particular the Things to Consider when Developing a PIER Plan page. There are many ways in which applicants can advance equity and inclusion within their research projects consistent with the solicitation guidance. Applicants should also review the guiding reviewer questions associated with the review criterion of the PIER Plan, Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research. The PIER Plan should include appropriate and sufficient information for reviewers to evaluate the plan in line with the guiding reviewer questions.

The guidance and instructions given to reviewers by the SC Program Office at the time of review should be informed by 1) the guidance language in the relevant solicitation for the PIER Plan appendix, 2) the guiding reviewer questions for the criterion, Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research, also provided in the solicitation, and 3) the Program-specific plan for evaluating proposals, which includes the Program’s guidance on scoring each application.

Reviewers should also be encouraged to read all of the Q&As for Applicants to be familiar with the guidance to applicants, as well as the Q&As for Reviewers.

No. Applications requesting SC funding to support a conference do not require a PIER Plan. However, SC established new requirements for conference proposals beginning in FY 2023. Please see the FY 2024 SC Open Call (FY 2024 Continuation of Solicitation for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program) for additional information on those requirements. In addition, see the Q&As related to conferences on the “Resource for SC Program Staff” subpage on the Office of Grants and Contracts Support website.

No. Proposals for supplemental funding do not require a PIER Plan.

Yes. Awardees are required to report progress toward their PIER Plans with the same rigor as a report on research progress in their annual research progress reports and final project report.

Yes. Applicants may include costs related to the implementation of their PIER Plan in the budget. DOE expects that the majority of costs incurred with PIER Plans will be for personnel (time and effort. All costs must conform to the applicable cost principles, institutional policies, and be properly documented in a budget justification.

Yes, all research proposals submitted by DOE Laboratories, either in response to a Laboratory Announcement or an invitational request from an SC Program Office, must include a PIER Plan. Please refer the DOE Laboratory to the general PIER Plan guidance on the SC website on what to include along with their research proposals and any additional related guidance the Program would like to provide. Likewise, please refer to the merit review criterion and associated guiding reviewer questions for the merit review of the proposal.

The length of the PIER Plan should be three pages or less so the reading and review of the Plan should not produce an unreasonable burden for reviewers. The guiding questions for review of the criterion, Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research, and the associated guiding reviewer questions should help guide reviewers’ evaluations. If you have concerns about the implementation of the required PIER Plan proposal element, please discuss your concerns with your senior office management (e.g., Associate Director or Office Director).

Every SC Program Office has its own established processes and guidance for reviewers regarding how applications should be evaluated and scored (numerically and/or adjectivally) in the merit review process. The order of importance (i.e., weight) of a particular review criterion relative to other review criteria should be specified in the solicitation (FOA or Lab Announcement), and the reviewer guidance should be consistent with the published order of importance. Programs may elect to establish a scoring rubric that provides for an overall (single) score (numerical or adjectival) to be submitted by a reviewer or programs could request that reviewers provide a score for each review criterion within a specified range of scores. These details are at the discretion of the SC Program Office provided that the consideration of order of importance is consistent with the established merit review criteria in the solicitation.

In general, SC’s merit review criteria are established as the following in descending order of importance (weight), unless otherwise specified by the Program Office in solicitation (Notice of Funding Opportunity or DOE Laboratory Call):

• Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;
• Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;
• Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;
• Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget; and
• Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research.

If a Program Office wishes to change this order of importance, it must be done at the time the solicitation language is developed and a deviation to the SC merit review regulations (10 CFR 605.10) must be requested.

Programs will need to consider the overall weight given to the evaluation of the PIER Plans relative to other criteria for the solicitation and/or merit review, along with other program policy factors when making their overall selection recommendations and decisions. Revised PIER Plans may not be requested as a condition of award, but Programs can encourage PIs to consider the merit reviewer comments when implementing their PIER Plans to help improve overall outcomes.

If the Program Office does not view the proposed outreach as a priority for funding on the overall project, similar to standard practices for research proposals, the Program Office may request a revised budget and scope as part of the award negotiation to descope the proposed outreach component.

PIs are invited to consider merit reviewers’ comments when implementing the PIER Plan or any other part of an application. The SC program manager can encourage the PIs to consider this and advise them to work with their Sponsored Research Office to secure appropriate approvals before making substantial changes to the PIER Plan or any other part of an application.

Peer reviewers should never be asked to apply program policy factors in their merit reviews; their evaluations of applications should be performed using the established merit review criteria for the review and published in the underlying solicitation. Program policy factors (all program policy factors) are for consideration by Federal Program staff only and are generally qualitative in nature. Program policy factors inform trade-off decisions by the Program Office among proposals to address program priorities when all other things such as merit are considered equal.

SC program staff are responsible for reviewing the application to ensure that it meets the requirement for including a code of conduct (or equivalent policy) and that there are protocols in place for addressing complaints and there is discussion of how the policies will be communicated to participants before and during the proposed event. Program staff should also review the application to see that a recruitment and accessibility has been included as part of the proposal.

The following guiding questions will be added to the merit review criterion on Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach, both to the SC Open Call and to PAMS:

The guiding reviewer questions:

Does the host organization’s code of conduct or equivalent policy for addressing discrimination and harassment sufficiently address all forms of harassment and include protocols for addressing complaints?

To what extent is the recruitment and accessibility plan likely to lead to participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals historically underrepresented in the technical focus area of the conference?

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the extent to which the recruitment and accessibility plan are likely to lead to participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals historically underrepresented in the technical focus area of the conference, as part of criterion on Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach. SC is working on updating both PAMS and the SC Open Call with this language.

Please instruct the reviewers to insert “N/A” in PAMS for the fifth criterion regarding the PIER Plans if they are reviewing a conference proposal.

Reviewers should evaluate the code of conduct and the recruitment and accessibility plan under the criterion on Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach.

The host institution, per their code of conduct and associated policies and procedures, is responsible for ensuring that a violation of the code/policy is effectively addressed. If the Office of Science is made aware of the violation, Office of Science actions may be determined by whether the parties involved are at institutions currently funded by the Office of Science and bound by Federal civil rights policies governing discrimination and harassment that can be further pursued.

If the conference proposal was funded under a standard financial assistance grant (vs. a DOE Laboratory award), the standard terms and conditions for annual reports and progress reports apply and the SC sponsoring office cannot request that the PI provide any specific information as part of the progress report.

The sponsoring SC office hosting a meeting should ensure that all participants are informed of SC Statement of Commitment and expectations for professional behavior. The internal SC Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Working Group is currently working on SC guidance and associated resources regarding promoting diverse participation and inclusiveness at SC-sponsored workshops and technical meetings that should be available before the end of the calendar year.