Request for Letters of Intent (LOI)

2026 IOOS 5-Year Proposal | Gulf of America Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS)

GCOOS is preparing its next five-year proposal to NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for the funding period July 2026 – June 2031. We invite project ideas from GCOOS members and stakeholders across the Gulf region—spanning public, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors—for inclusion in a single, coordinated proposal.

Our goal is to advance the implementation of the GCOOS Strategic Plan 2020-2025 and Addendum to the Build-out Plan, strengthening a robust and resilient ocean observing network throughout the Gulf of America.

All submissions must adhere to the specified Letter of Intent (LOI) requirements; incomplete or non-compliant submissions will not be considered for inclusion in the GCOOS IOOS proposal. Each LOI will undergo a formal review to determine its suitability for integration into the full proposal. Project teams selected for inclusion will be notified and provided ample time to prepare and submit the required official documentation—such as the approved budget, SF424A budget form, budget justification, and letters of support—through their institutional offices, once NOAA releases the official request for applications. For reference, current GCOOS-funded projects and principal investigators can be found here.

Proposal Development Timeline

(subject to change)

• LOI Announcement: Sept. 9, 2025
• Informational Webinar & Q&A: 1-2 p.m. ET (Noon-1 p.m. CT) Friday, Sept. 19
• LOI Submission Deadline: Oct. 17, 2025 (by 5 p.m. Central Time)
• LOI Review Period: Oct. 20–31, 2025
• Notification of Inclusion in GCOOS Full Proposal: Nov. 1, 2025
• Deadline for Completion of PI Proposal and Sub-award Package: Nov. 30, 2025
• Anticipated GCOOS Proposal Submission to NOAA: Dec. 31, 2025
• Anticipated Project Start Date: July 1, 2026

Solicitation Overview

We are seeking Letters of Intent for projects that focus on:

• Observing platforms and sensors
• Modeling
• Education and outreach

Projects must align with the GCOOS Strategic Plan and demonstrate:

• Relevance to at least one GCOOS key focus area;
• Regional scope or contribution to a regional-scale enterprise (sub-regional efforts will be considered if complementary);
• Commitment to implementing IOOS-NOAA data standards and QARTOD manuals;
• Clear stakeholder engagement strategy with measurable outcomes;
• A sustainability plan for continued operation beyond the funding period.

LOI Informational Webinar and Q&A

On Friday, Sept. 19, GCOOS Executive Director Dr. Jorge Brenner hosted an informational  webinar and Q&A session on the LOI and the process that GCOOS will follow when deciding on projects for inclusion in the 2026-2031 IOOS Proposal.

Review Criteria

LOIs will be evaluated by the GCOOS Board of Directors and Senior Leadership using the following weighted criteria:

Weighted Review Criteria for LOIs

1.) Scientific and Technical Merit: 30%

To receive a top score of 5 for these criteria, the Letter of Intent must clearly and comprehensively address the following five key elements:

• The project will be beneficial to a broad spatial coverage of the GCOOS region (i.e., two or more states);
• The project demonstrates a credible scientific and technical approach to meet the objectives;
• Objectives are clearly written, methods are sound, and there is a clear work plan and realistic timeline;
• The project team must be comprised of competent members with relevant education, scientific, and technical experience to complete the work described within the LOI;
• The project must have clear data management strategy that explains how the data or model will be shared with GCOOS.

Projects that fail to address all these required bullet points should not receive full credit under the Scientific and Technical criteria.

Suggested evaluation criteria:

5 points: Excellent – The scientific need and technical approach for the proposed effort are well articulated and includes clear objectives, adequate methodology, and milestones. The project will be beneficial to a broad spatial coverage of the GCOOS mission area (i.e., two or more states). The project team members are well qualified to complete the proposed work. The data management plan articulates how the team will share data or models.

4 points: Very Good – The scientific need and technical approach for the proposed effort are well articulated and includes clear objectives, adequate methodology, and milestones. The project will be beneficial to a smaller spatial coverage of the GCOOS mission area (i.e., one state or a specific locale). The project team members are well qualified to complete the proposed work. The data management plan articulates how the team will share data or models.

3 points: Good – The project team addresses at least three bullets within the review criteria but did not fully address all the criteria.

2 points: Fair – The scientific need for the proposed effort is articulated; however, the objectives and/or methods are not fully developed and need clarification.

1 point: Poor – The proposal does not provide enough information to effectively determine the objectives, methods, and/or work plan and timeline. The proposal effort does not effectively address the data management plan requirements.

2.) Innovation and Efficiency: 15%

Project should improve, develop, or support observations, models, and/or data services. Institutional expertise and capacity deliver cost-effective projects in an efficient way.

Suggested evaluation criteria:

5 points: Excellent – The proposed effort is innovative in its approach and will contribute to the overall GCOOS effort and the proposed effort will build upon the infrastructure, expertise, and experience already in place; thereby creating economies of scale to deliver the new/improved proposed data, model or service (i.e., faster or cheaper than a startup operation).

4 points: Very Good – The proposed effort is innovative in its approach and will contribute to the overall GCOOS effort or the proposed effort will build upon the infrastructure, expertise, and experience already in place; thereby creating economies of scale to deliver the proposed data, model or service (i.e., faster or cheaper than a startup operation).

3 points: Good – The proposed effort is innovative or efficient, but more information is required to determine if the project team can complete the objectives outlined in the proposal.

2 points: Fair – Project team will need to make significant changes to address deficiencies.

1 point: Poor – The proposed effort is neither innovative nor efficient in its approach.

3.) Stakeholder Engagement: 30%

Letters of Intent must clearly demonstrate the extent to which end-users have been involved in the proposal’s development, as well as how they will be actively engaged throughout the project’s execution. Project teams are expected to include partners who can ensure that data delivery, services, and activities are aligned with the needs of a substantial user base. Evaluation of LOI will focus on the depth and continuity of end-user involvement—from initial proposal design to meaningful participation during the project lifecycle, including potential roles as co-investigators.

Suggested evaluation criteria:

5 points: Excellent – End users contribute direct funding or in-kind support to assure that the project achieves success. End users are key members of the project team and contribute to the design and implementation of the proposed effort as demonstrated by supporting documentation. There is a clear engagement strategy between the project team and the user group(s).

4 points: Very Good – The end users do not contribute funding or in-kind support to the project. End users are key members of the project team and contribute to the design and implementation of the proposed effort. There is a clear engagement strategy between the project team and the end user group(s).

3 points: Good – LOI describe how end users will benefit from the proposed effort being funded but end user is not a key member of the project team.

2 points: Fair – End user(s) listed in the LOI.

1 point: Poor – No end user listed in the LOI.

4.) Budget Feasibility: 15%

The budget must provide a clear breakdown of annual expenses by category, including both direct and indirect costs, and specify the institution’s indirect cost (IDC) rate. All proposed costs should be appropriate and proportional to the scope and scale of the work to be performed.

Suggested evaluation criteria:

5 points: Excellent – Budget is reasonable for the work proposed and the project team is leveraging other funding sources (i.e., greater than 50% of the requested budget) to support the effort.

4 points: Very Good – Budget is reasonable for the work proposed and the project team is leveraging other funding sources (i.e., less than 50% of the requested budget) from other funding sources.

3 points: Satisfactory – Budget is reasonable for the work proposed but does not include other funding sources to support the work.

2 points: Fair – Budget is lacking some key elements which should be addressed.

1 point: Poor – Budget does not seem reasonable for the work being proposed.

5.) Sustainability Plan: 10%

The project team has outlined a clear strategy for sustaining observations or models beyond the conclusion of the funding provided by GCOOS. This sustainability may be achieved through alternative support from state or federal agencies, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs, or by leveraging funding from other complementary sources.

Suggested evaluation criteria:

5 points: Excellent – The proposed effort describes how they will leverage GCOOS investments to sustain their project after the (5-year) grant period. The project team clearly shows they have evaluated funding and investment opportunities to maintain their observing, modeling, or related activities. This can assure GCOOS investments last beyond the grant period.

OR

5 points: Excellent – The proposed effort is a capital improvement or development project that will allow for improved data collection, data process, or data sharing that requires no additional funding after the project period. The proposal clearly demonstrates how the improvement will allow for ongoing internal or external support.

3 points: Good – The project team has identified future funding opportunities to which they will apply to maintain their observing, modeling, or related activities; however, the sustainability plan is not well formed, and exact details are not well documented.

1 point: Poor – Standalone project that did not sufficiently address the sustainability requirement or has no other potential for project funding other than GCOOS.

Submission Instructions

Submit your LOI via email to 2026mainaward@gcoos.org by Oct. 17, 2025, by 5 p.m. CT.

All documents must use 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Graphics count toward page limits.

Required Components:

• Title page (1 page). Includes proposal title, PI information, and total budget. Indicate if the proposed work is a continuation of a current or past award.
• Scope of work (4 pages): Identify how the proposed work aligns with GCOOS strategic focus areas, goal, objectives, methodology, specific environmental, economic and social benefits to stakeholders, and what products and services that will be delivered with timeline.
• Budget estimate and sustainability plan (1 page): Budget estimate using the federal categories and specifying the institutional Indirect Cost Rate will provide reviewers with an understanding of the cost for the proposed effort. The estimate also includes how the investment will be sustained with opportunities to maintain their observing, modeling, or related activities models beyond the conclusion of the funding provided by GCOOS. However, this is not the official budget for your project. After the LOI review, PIs will be notified if they are included in the overall GCOOS proposal. Once notified of inclusion in the GCOOS proposal, official documents, including an official budget and budget justification that has been approved by your sponsored research or administrative team will be requested. A plan to mitigate losses of equipment should be included and insurance will be requested for funded proposals including the maintenance or purchase of observation assets valued in more than $150,000. Budget table:

• Stakeholder engagement plan (2 pages): Describe the end-user engagement strategy. Describe coordination and communications between project team and end-user groups and how you will promote continuous engagement in project activities.
• Data management plan (2 pages): Plan should address the creation of metadata, data format standardization, data QA/QC, data access, data storage and processing requirements, and data archival. All real-time data shared to GCOOS must have Quality Control flags submitted with the data. Real-time data providers must meet, at minimum, Quality Control/Quality-Assurance of Real-Time Oceanographic Data (QARTOD) standard standards outlined in the QARTOD manuals provided by IOOS.
• Resumes of PI and listed co-PIs (2 pages each).
• Literature cited (no limit).