This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
OBSERVING FACILITIES ASSESSMENT PANEL (OFAP)


Requests for use of LAOF in small and large projects are reviewed by the Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP), which acts as an independent advisory body to the NSF LAOF partner organizations. The OFAP is composed of a pool of up to 18 scientists with broad-based experience in observational studies of the atmospheric and related sciences. The OFAP is administered by NCAR/EOL and convenes twice annually, in the spring and fall. The role of the OFAP is to conduct reviews of field project plans and designs early in the project cycle, and to provide objective input and recommendations on issues associated with operational and technical challenges linked to facility support requirements. OFAP recommendations are provided to the relevant Facility Managers and shared with the requesting PI as well as the NSF Program Officers. The overall goal of the OFAP process is to optimize support of NSF-sponsored observational science to assure that the scientific objectives of each campaign can be accomplished successfully.


The feedback and technical evaluation presented by the OFAP, together with feasibility analysis studies and cost estimates provided by the NSF LAOF partner organizations, are taken into consideration before a final decision is made by individual NSF Program Officers whether to support a project or decline funding.


OFAP Charge: Evaluation of Project Proposals Reviewers are asked to evaluate each request on the basis of the following criteria:


1. Importance/Uniqueness of Project Although the intent is not for the OFAP to supplant or second-guess the normal peer-review process for the scientific proposals associated with a facility request, the evaluation of a facility request can only be reasonably accomplished in the context of the overall scientific plan.


2. Experiment Design


Special consideration is given to the entire program perspective, the adequacy of the plan for hypothesis testing or problem definition, the readiness and structure of the program, strengths/weaknesses of the experiment design and its adequacy to achieve the stated scientific objectives.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147