Q1: May a proposal have appendices that provide detail on individual project activities?

A: No, the proposed work should be fully described within the page limits of the required proposal elements. However, if the applicant is a certified IOOS Regional Coastal Observing System, they may include appropriate certification materials as an appendix to their application.

Q2: Due to the 20-page project description page limit, may applicants provide additional project details under subaward scopes of work?

A: No. The NOFO does not offer this option. Work described under subawards must correspond to work already sufficiently described in the proposal body.

Q3: The SF424A form in the Grants.gov system only allows for Years 1-4. How should applicants include Year 5 funding?

A: Refer to the NOFO Section IV.B.10: Since the SF-424A only has four columns for yearly figures, applicants for five years of funding MUST use and submit two SF-424A forms, as follows:

• Place the first four years on one of the SF-424A forms in Section B, columns (1) through (4).
• Total the first four years in column (5).
• Place the total from the first form (from column (5)) onto the second SF- 424A form in Section B column (1) and use column (2) for the fifth year budget figures.
• Total all five years in column (5) on the second SF-424A.

Q4: Must applicants provide letters of support? If not, can they be provided anyway?

A: Letters of support are optional and are not a required element of proposals. Applicants may include letters of support of their choosing. In particular, letters of support from unfunded collaborators may be included to verify their contribution to the project (See NOFO Section IV.B.9)

Q5: Is there a recommended template for the required milestones schedule element?

A: Yes, the U.S. IOOS Office strongly recommends applicants use this milestone schedule template.

Q6: When should applicants submit proposals into Grants.gov to ensure it is accepted by the submission deadline?

A: Although the deadline for applications is April 13, 2026, the U.S. IOOS Office strongly recommends submission at least 3 business days prior to the application deadline. After an applicant submits their application to Grants.gov, it may take 2 full business days for the application to clear and populate in eRA. An application is not considered "received" until that point. 

Q7: Is there any benefit to submitting an application early, in advance of the submission deadline?

A: Early application submission confers no advantage in the merit review process nor in the timing of award, if selected. The only benefit for the applicant to submitting early is that the applicant will have time to correct any application errors and resubmit before the deadline. (Also see FAQ Q6 under Application.) Earlier submission will allow NOAA additional time to process and review applications, thus applicants are encouraged to apply early if possible.

Q1: May the applicant include cost-sharing arrangements that aren't committed to yet? (i.e., partner engagement to come during a planning phase)

A: Yes, uncommitted cost-sharing arrangements can be included if described as such and the plan for providing final details is included.

Q2: Must the applicant submit a budget proposal for the full amount of the funding opportunity?

A: No, the applicant does not need to submit a proposal that reflects the full amount of the funding opportunity ($5,000,000 per year per proposal). The applicant’s proposed budget can be based on realistic resource needs for operating a Regional Coastal Observing System. The applicant may choose to include resource flexibility to be responsive to regional and national user needs that may emerge over the course of the award.

Q3: Are there Tier 1 and Tier 2 funding level, as seen in past funding opportunities?

A: No. There is a single maximum budget of $5 million per year per application. See the NOFO for more details. 

Q4: If the applicant does not apply for the full NOFO amount, will they be capped on pass-throughs in the future?

A: Yes, an applicant would be limited to an award ceiling at the overall amount in the proposal if awarded at that level. However, the U.S. IOOS Office may choose to enter into a negotiations process before the award is established to negotiate a higher (or lower) total award amount for a specific purpose/additional activities. Requesting an increase to the overall funding amount after the award has been established is possible, but requires additional effort/workload and is not guaranteed to be approved.

Q5: What travel must be included in the budget for participation in the national network of Regional Coastal Observing Systems?

A: The NOFO instructs applicants to “allocate travel funds for coordination meetings at the regional and national levels, including travel to the semi-annual meeting with U.S. IOOS Office staff at NOAA headquarters or other location as determined by the U.S. IOOS Office.” Applicants should include travel to the semi-annual IOOS Meetings (spring and fall), which are usually attended by the RCOS director, a deputy, and a board chair. In addition, travel to national meetings that the U.S. IOOS Office coordinates for observing systems (e.g., underwater gliders, HFR, etc.) should be considered for budget allocation when the RCOS participates in those observing systems.

Q6: How should applicants calculate the Modified Total Direct Cost for subawards?

A: The Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) may include up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (2 CFR 200.1). For applicants and recipients to apply this threshold, they must have a current NICRA, that cites the updated threshold amount (i.e., $50,000). For new and competing renewals, if the NICRA rate was negotiated prior to October 1, 2024, and allows for the administrative increases, then NOAA will apply the increases effective October 1, 2024, and recipients may utilize the higher thresholds.

Q1: May non-US entities be recipients of this funding, such as through a sub-award?

A: Yes, foreign entities may receive funding via a sub-award or contract. However, such entities are ineligible to be the primary recipient of the funding.

Q2: Should subawards be listed under Contractual or Other in the SF-424A?

A: Per NOAA guidance, the lead institution should list the total for subcontracts under 6.f. “Contractual” and the total for subawards under 6.h. “Other” in their SF-424A (see 2 CFR 200.331 on the difference between a subaward and contract). However, IOOS understands some institutions have valid reasons for listing subawards under Contractual. In that case, please provide an explanation/justification in your budget narrative.

Q1: Many specifics for field activities will not be determined during the time of the proposal submission. Should the applicant submit the information known at the time of proposal submission or wait until the project is awarded to submit more specifics (e.g., site locations) when they become known?

A: Applicants should complete one (1) NOAA Environmental Compliance Questionnaire (ECQ) as part of the initial proposal package using the required template. Indicate the general activities and techniques being proposed to the level of detail known. This will help the program office conduct the environmental compliance review and develop documentation required prior to recommending a proposal for funding. 

Applicants should answer all NOAA ECQ questions identified in the NOFO to the best of their knowledge and ability, detailing the dates, locations, and descriptions of the activities. Questions 1-14 are required, while Questions 15-64 should be completed as applicable to the proposed activities. If a question is not applicable, state that it is not applicable or N/A, but do not leave it blank. If details for a given activity are unknown, the applicant should list the activity under Question #1 and state that additional details will be provided post-award. Additional guidance can be found on the webpage for this funding opportunity (https://cdn.ioos.noaa.gov/media/2026/02/EC-for-Applicants.pdf). 

A blank ECQ or one that does not minimally list all proposed activities in Question #1 will not be considered as a completed ECQ. If a complete ECQ is not submitted with the proposal, the proposal may not meet minimum requirements. Inability or failure to provide adequate detail in the ECQ may result in a condition on the award limiting expenditure of funds. After awards are made, recipients will have an opportunity to provide more information on the proposed activities/techniques that were not adequately described and analyzed in prior documentation. Activities may not be conducted prior to NOAA completing the required environmental compliance review. Failure to provide adequate detail 4-6 months ahead of the activity or to facilitate proper review may result in delays to the activity.

Q1: Are To Be Determined (TBD) projects permitted to allow user engagement to inform and fully define a project?

A: Applicants should make every effort to have a completely described proposal and avoid TBDs where possible. However, TBD projects are allowed, particularly for cases where: the sub-award or contractor has not been identified; the specific outputs and outcome of the project depends on user/stakeholder engagement in the service delivery model; or the applicant requires the flexibility to be responsive to timely or emerging priorities identified by its users over the course of the award that cannot be anticipated at the proposal stage.

If TBD projects are included in the proposal, the applicant should provide a sufficient description of the scope of work (outcomes, milestones, cost, timeline) that will be performed for the IOOS office and merit reviewers to evaluate against the evaluation criteria. The more TBDs included, there is an increased likelihood for NOAA Grants Management Division or the eRA system to question the proposal. Therefore, the use of TBDs should be limited and judicious.

The budget narrative should include an overall cost for proposed TBD work to be completed by a sub-award or contractor. The proposal can state that the entity who will do the work can be “To Be Determined” at a later date.

Q2: NOAA encourages applicants to leverage and find efficiencies. Does this apply to the IOOS regional modeling efforts?

A: Yes. NOAA desires proposals that demonstrate a plan for consolidating modeling systems within and across geographical regions covered by Regional Coastal Observing Systems. Applicants should strive to follow the NOS Modeling Implementation Plan (see Sec. 3.2.2 and 3.2.3) and propose corresponding model consolidations. If prior model redundancies or duplications of effort exist, applicants should propose actions to eliminate them. NOAA acknowledges exceptions may be needed for public safety reasons, which should be highlighted in the proposal. See the NOFO Sec. I.B.4 for additional guidance.

Q3: What are NOAA's overarching strategic expectations and technical requirements for implementing AI and Machine Learning (AI/ML) within IOOS proposals, covering efficiency, collaboration, application, data quality, and transparency?

A: NOAA actively prioritizes AI/ML approaches to make transformative improvements in mission performance and cost-effectiveness, and encourages alignment with NOAA AI Strategy and other relevant IOOS plans. Proposals are encouraged to strategize for efficiency by leveraging collaboration and existing AI/ML assets, planning a feasible Research-to-Operations (R2X) transition, and ensuring data are "AI-ready" through data workflow efficiencies. AI/ML is primarily intended to augment and improve existing methods, not to replace foundational scientific standards. Proposals incorporating AI/ML should demonstrate that any novel AI-based quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) system provides equivalent or superior accuracy to established protocols. For transparency and trustworthiness, especially with Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative AI, outputs must be scientifically rigorous, traceable, and grounded exclusively in authoritative IOOS data to provide reproducible results by explicitly showing the original data references, source values, and visualizations used to derive the response.

Relevant applications of AI/ML may include, but are not limited to: modernization of systems, hybrid modeling, analysis of archived data, decision-support, integration and synthesis of data from multiple sources, enhancing predictive skill, classification of biological data, characterization of biodiversity, tracking protected species, and monitoring ecosystem health.

Q1: Can equipment ownership be transferred to subawards?

A: No, equipment ownership must be maintained by the lead institution. 

Q2: May new PIs and projects be added or removed from the core funding after the award is established? 

A: Requests for changing a PI on an award can be done easily via an Award Action Request in eRA. Changes to the scope of a project are more difficult and may require consultation with the IOOS office and/or a Revision Request via eRA for a change in scope.