A: There is no explicit requirement in the LOI instructions to document cost share, matching funds, or in-kind contributions.

However, given the emphasis on committed resources and partnership strength in the program materials, applicants who are prepared to identify anticipated cost share at the LOI may wish to do so.

If cost share is included in the LOI, we recommend providing a brief description of:

• The source of support (institutional and/or third party);
• Whether the contribution is cash or in-kind;
• The estimated value, if known, and

The role the contribution will play in project execution.

A: No. The LOI serves as a screening mechanism for the VPR rather than a final proposal.

Applicants should treat any cost share identified at this stage as preliminary and subject to the University’s normal review and approval processes.

A: No. There is no minimum cost share or matching requirement identified in the program materials. However, reviewers are directed to consider the strength of partner engagement and committed resources when evaluating proposals.

• For AI Moonshot, applicants are encouraged to document matching funds, in-kind support, partner personnel, data, testbeds, and other committed resources.
• For HERFP, “Utah industries + matching funds” accounts for 20% of the review score, and applicants are asked to describe committed cash or in-kind support.

Reviewers appear to be addressing the quality and credibility of the committed resources and partnerships, rather than whether a proposal meets a specific cost share threshold.

A: An industry partner is explicitly required for the AI Moonshot Award tier, which requires a meaningful academic-industry partnership.

For other opportunities, partnerships are encouraged and can strengthen a proposal by providing expertise, resources, deployment opportunities, or community impact.

Until we have additional guidance, applicants should assume that:

• Industry partners are strongly encouraged and, for the AI Moonshot, required.
• Community and nonprofit organizations can likely strengthen a proposal and may contribute resources or in-kind support, but applicants should be cautious about relying on them to fulfill an industry partnership requirement.

A: In short, a ”load-bearing” partner is one whose involvement materially strengthens the project’s ability to achieve its proposed outcome, not simply one that provides a support letter.

Applicants should focus on demonstrating that partner contributions are meaningful, committed, and integral to the project’s success. Examples include:

• Cash contributions or matching funds;
• Dedicated personnel or technical expertise;
• Access to facilities, equipment, datasets, or test environments;
• Participation in project governance or implementation;
• A clear pathway to deployment, commercialization, or community impact.

A: Based on the program materials, the primary consideration appears to be the project’s benefit to Utah and the substance of the partnership rather than the physical geographic location of the partner.

Both the AI Moonshot and HERFP programs emphasize Utah impact, Utah relevance, economic value, public benefit, commercialization potential, and outcomes for Utahns.

Applicants should focus on demonstrating:

• How the project benefits Utah’s economy, workforce, communities, or public services
• Why the partner is important to project success and what tangible resources, expertise, or deployment pathways the partner contributes.
  

A: Neither the LOI nor the NOFO prescribes a specific format. LOI applicants may wish to briefly describe any significant institutional, third-party, cash, or in-kind contributions that strengthen the project’s likelihood of success.

For applicants invited to submit a full proposal, we recommend clearly identifying leveraged resources and describing:

• The source of the contribution (institutional, industry, nonprofit, government, etc.);
• Whether the contribution is cash or in-kind;
• The estimated value, if known;
• The specific resource being provided (personnel effort, equipment, facilities, datasets, software, testbeds, student support, etc.); and
• How the resources contribute to the project execution, deployment, commercialization, or community impact.
• Describe leveraged resources in a way that clearly supports feasibility, deployment, or impact
  

A: Yes. Existing resources may strengthen a proposal, but applicants should distinguish between leveraged resources and formally committed cost share.

A: Yes. Existing investments may demonstrate capacity, momentum, infrastructure, or partner commitment.

However, prior investments should not automatically be characterized as cost share.

A: Generally not, unless specifically authorized by the sponsor and applicable regulations.

A: Subject to institutional approval, examples may include:

• Faculty effort
• Graduate student support
• Specialized facilities
• HPC resources
• Core facilities
• Startup funds
• Administrative support
• Cloud computing credits
• Pilot deployment sites
• Data access infrastructure

A: Yes. The review materials emphasize meaningful partner commitment, leveraged resources, deployment pathways, and demonstrated capacity. Institutional cost share is one way to demonstrate commitment, but not the only way.

A: Strong

• Industry partner contributes personnel
• Existing facilities support research
• Deployment site identified
• Student workforce component
• Clear Utah benefit

Weak

• Generic support letter
• Unspecified future commitment
• No deployment pathway
• No evidence of partner engagement

A: When a proposal includes committed third-party resources, such as cash contributions, personnel effort, equipment, datasets, test environments, or other in-kind support, investigators should use OSP's Third-Party Cost Share Commitment Form. 

It should be signed by an authorized representative of the contributing organization and uploaded into eProposal as part of the supporting proposal documentation. The form documents the third party's commitment but does not require formal OSP approval.

A: Institutional cost-share commitments should be:

1. Identified during the proposal development stage
2. Outlined using OSP’s Cost Share Approval Form
3. Uploaded into eProposal, prior to submission of the Document Summary Sheet (DSS)
4. Departmental commitments are reviewed and approved through the DSS review and approval process. VPR-level commitments are reviewed and approved through the DSS review process and documented by OSP approval.