Programs

• Home
• Programs

Guidelines for the submission and selection of Visiting Researcher Award Proposals

Current guidelines as from May, 1st 2020

The Visiting Researcher Award is intended to cover, fully or in part, the costs associated with a visit made by an experienced researcher, based at a research institution abroad or in another state of Brazil, to a research institution in the state of São Paulo, for a continuous period that does not exceed one year. The main objective is to promote collaboration between researchers for the development of research projects which are either already in progress or about to be started at the Host Institution.

Requests for Visiting Researcher Awards must be submitted through the on-line system SAGe (“Sistema de Apoio à Gestão”), available at: www.fapesp.br/sage. Within SAGe, under the “Guides” link, it is possible to find documents that explain how to register users and how to request the registration of institutions.

For further information on the Visiting Researcher Award, please contact FAPESP at https://fapesp.br/en/contact.

1) Purpose and characteristics (back to index)

1.1) Purpose

The Visiting Researcher Award is intended to cover, fully or in part, the costs associated with a visit by an experienced researcher, based at a research institution abroad or in another state of Brazil, to a research institution in the state of São Paulo, for a continuous period that does not exceed one year. The main objective is to promote collaboration between researchers for the development of research projects which are either already in progress or about to be started at the Host Institution.

1.2) Characteristics

a) For this type of support opportunity, no funding is granted for the research itself.

b) FAPESP will not accept the submission of a proposal in which the Principal Investigator is the Visiting Researcher himself or when the Visiting Researcher is based at an institution in the state of São Paulo.

c) Visits made for the sole purpose of establishing contacts or other activities aimed at the elaboration of future research projects, with or without the collaboration of the Visiting Researcher, are not considered admissible.

c.1) However, when included together with the research activities described in item 9.2.e, such additional activities can add value to the proposal.

d) Visiting Researchers will not be supported when the purpose of the visit is exclusively for teaching, dissertation/thesis examination, and duties on hiring committees or for participation in scientific events.

d.1) However, when added to the research activities described in item 9.2.e, such activities can enhance the proposal.

e) Repeated visits by the same Visiting Researcher may only be supported in exceptional circumstances, and will only be eligible to receive partial support.

e.1) Visits by the same Visiting Researcher in consecutive years will not be supported.

e.2) It is assumed that the Visiting Researcher has systematically carried out research activities at his home institution between two consecutive visits.

f) In the case of very short visits, support will always be only partial.

2) Duration (back to index)

Up to 12 consecutive months, non-extendable.

3) Submission date (back to index)

Applications may be submitted to FAPESP at any time throughout the year. Due to summer holidays in Brazil, applications submitted between October and January may take longer than usual to reach a final decision.

4) Definitions (back to index)

a) Principal Investigator (PI): is the researcher who assumes responsibility for the preparation and submission of the proposal and for the scientific and administrative coordination of the project, if approved by FAPESP.

b) Host Institution: is the institution that hosts the research project and, in general, will be the institution where the Principal Investigator is based. The Host Institution must assume commitments with regard to the storage of and access to materials and equipment and provide institutional support for the research project.

c) Visiting Researcher: is an experienced researcher, based at a research institution abroad or in another state of Brazil, who will visit a research institution in the state of São Paulo, for a continuous period that does not exceed one year, in order to collaborate on the execution of research projects which are either ongoing at the Host Institution or are about to be started.

5) Application requirements (back to index)

5.1) Principal Investigator (back to index)

a) Have no outstanding responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., have no pending progress or financial reports, nor late reviews to be submitted). Proposals for which the PI or the beneficiary has unfulfilled responsibilities with FAPESP, which are overdue by more than 60 (sixty) days, will not be reviewed.

b) To hold a PhD or equivalent title.

c) Demonstrate an outstanding research record.

d) Demonstrate having access to the necessary resources to make the proposed research plan feasible.

e) To be a formal employee of the Host Institution.

e.1) Accreditation on a postgraduate program at the Host Institution does not configure employee status nor does it waive this requirement.

e.2) FAPESP might accept, under certain conditions, an affiliation that does not configure employee status. This association, however, must be robust in terms of commitment to the academic activities of the Research Institution of the State of São Paulo. In such cases, prior to the submission of the proposal FAPESP's Scientific Directorate should be consulted, via the channel “ Converse com a FAPESP”, informing:

e.2.1) the nature of the institutional association;

e.2.2) number of hours per week dedicated to research which is implied in this association;

e.2.3) the associated source of funding;

e.2.4) the duration of such association.

e.3) Retired Teachers associated with an Institution in the state of São Paulo, public or private, must inform that they are so and present, at the time of the submission, a document demonstrating the nature of the institutional association.

f) Inform if the grant has been submitted to any other funding body and whether the applicant has other current grants for similar research.

5.2) Visiting Researcher (back to index)

a) To hold a PhD or equivalent title.

b) Demonstrate an outstanding research record.

c) Be based at a research institution abroad or in a state other than São Paulo in Brazil.

5.3) Host Institution (back to index)

a) Acknowledge the infrastructural needs demanded by the project, according to the information declared in the document: “Anexo II - Informação aprovada pela Instituição Sede sobre a infraestrutura institucional”.

6) Required conditions and obligations (back to index)

6.1) Principal Investigator (back to index)

Throughout the duration of the award, the Principal Investigator must meet the following conditions and obligations:

a) Have no outstanding responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., have no pending progress or financial reports, nor late reviews to be submitted). Noncompliance will lead to blocking the PI’s funding.

b) Be aware of all rights, responsibilities, and obligations specified in the terms of Grant Contract.

b.1) Noncompliance with the rules and the terms specified in the Grant Contract may imply the cancellation of the Award and the obligation to return funds already disbursed by FAPESP, in updated amounts.

c) To make arrangements so as to ensure the success of the proposed research project.

d) To consult FAPESP before accepting any financial support from any other funding body, whether public or private, for the execution of the research project.

e) Provide, free of charge, grant/fellowship reviews in his/her field of knowledge and within the deadlines stipulated, when requested by FAPESP.

f) To consult FAPESP before committing to activities that will require the Principal Investigator’s absence from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, according to the instructions available at www.fapesp.br/5928.

g) Submit Scientific and Financial Reports within the deadlines defined in the Grant Contract.

h) To make reference to FAPESP's support in theses, papers, books, conference abstracts and any other publication or form of dissemination of activities that result, completely or partially, from Grants and Fellowships from the Foundation, as foreseen in the specific clause of the Grant Contracts and described in www.fapesp.br/11789.

i) If the research project funded by FAPESP has also been awarded financial support from any other public or private source, the researcher is obligated to inform and make reference to the support, with direct indication of its source, in all forms of dissemination mentioned in the previous item.

j) Take the necessary measures to ensure that full texts of articles or other types of scientific communication, resulting in whole or in part from the project funded by FAPESP, and published in international journals, are made available through the service offered by the Host Institution in an institutional repository of scientific papers, following the open access policy of each journal. This should be done as soon as the manuscripts are approved for publication or within a period compatible with the restrictions of each journal. FAPESP Policy for Open Access to Publications Resulting from Grants and Fellowships is available at www.fapesp.br/12632.

k) Verify whether the execution of the project produces or could potentially produce results, in whole or in part, which might be the object of protection by Patent of Invention, Utility Model, Industrial Design, Software or any other form of Intellectual Property, subject to FAPESP's Intellectual Property Policy, available at www.fapesp.br/pi.

l) Be aware of and respect the guidelines contained in FAPESP's Code of Good Scientific Practices, available at www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas.

m) Ensure adequate management of data generated during the project.

n) Always use the updated versions of the rules, forms and procedures, available at www.fapesp.br and www.fapesp.br/sage.

7) Restrictions (back to index)

It is prohibited for the PI to:

a) Modify the approved research project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without prior consent of FAPESP.

b) Use FAPESP funds for any purpose other than those approved, except under the conditions available at www.fapesp.br/normaspc.

c) Make financial investments with project funds.

d) Allocate funds granted to the project for hiring:

d.1) Any individual (Natural Person) with whom they are linked by marriage, stable union or kinship ties of affinity or consanguinity. In the latter case including ascendants, descendants or collateral relationships up to the 4th degree.

d.2) Any Legal Person (corporate entity) that has as partners the grantee himself, his spouse, his relatives by affinity or by consanguinity. In the latter case including ascendants, descendants or collateral relationships up to the 4th degree.

d.3) Under any circumstances, any natural or legal person with whom the grantee maintains business, or has debts or credits.

8) Fundable items (back to index)

The budget for the proposal submitted to FAPESP must be detailed and each item justified. It is recommended to read the Guidelines for the Use of Resources and Financial Reports, available at www.fapesp.br/normaspc.

8.1) Funding for the visit

Fundable items includes:

a) Maintenance for the Visiting Researcher according to the norms described in Portaria PR nº 35/2020 and the table of values available at www.fapesp.br/valores.

b) Transportation from the place of origin specified in the proposal to the place where the Visiting Researcher will reside in the state of São Paulo, which may include:

b.1) Air or over-ground ticket, in economy class. Tickets must be purchased by the PI or by the Visiting Researcher.

b.2) Over-ground tickets or expenses including taxi or an individual transport service operator, from the Visiting Researcher's residence to the departure airport and from the arrival airport at São Paulo to the place of residence in the state of São Paulo and vice versa on return. These expenses must be explicitly granted in the Grant Contract and in accordance with the Guidelines for the Use of Resources and Financial Reports, available at www.fapesp.br/normaspc.

c) Travel insurance, only for Visiting Researchers coming from abroad, according to the current value.

8.2) Research Overhead

There is no Research Overhead for this type of support opportunity.

8.3) Non-fundable items

a) In the case of Visiting Researcher Awards, there is no provision of funding for the research project itself. The PI must demonstrate that other resources are available for funding the actual execution of the proposed research.

b) Other prohibitions concerning the use of funds granted by FAPESP are specified in the Guidelines for the Use of Resources and Financial Report, available at www.fapesp.br/normaspc.

9) Format for submission of proposals (back to index)

Requests for Visiting Researcher Awards must be submitted through the on-line system SAGe (“Sistema de Apoio à Gestão”), available at: www.fapesp.br/sage. Within SAGe, under the “Guides” link, it is possible to find documents that explain how to register users and how to request the registration of institutions.

In order to submit a proposal, the PI must be registered on the SAGe system. The information should be up to date and include a copy of the PI´s identification document.

9.1) Data concerning the Visit

a) The Visiting Researcher's personal data must be informed when filling out the proposal in SAGe, under the tab “Plano da Visita” > “Pessoas Envolvidas” .

a.1) In order to indicate the Visiting Researcher in the proposal, it is necessary that they are registered on the SAGe system. This can be done by accessing the option “Not registered?” on the system's initial page.

a.2) After the initial registration, the Visiting Researcher must access SAGe and fill out their complete registration on the system, using the My Data > Registration Change option. The fields marked with “*” are mandatory and a copy of the Visiting Researcher's identification document must be uploaded.

b) The title of the activity plan for the visit, in Portuguese and English, must be indicated when filling out the proposal in SAGe, under the tab “Plano da Visita” > “Identificação”.

b.1) The title must represent the theme of the activity plan. Proposals whose title contains the name of the Visiting Researcher or which are uninformative with respect to the scientific content of the proposal will not be accepted.

9.2) Required documents

The following documents are required for the presentation of the Visiting Researcher Award proposal:

a) Research activity plan to be executed by the Visiting Researcher containing:

a.1) A section describing the activities by which the participation of the Visiting Researcher will take place, including his/her contribution to the research projects funded by FAPESP which are linked to the proposal. The research activity plan should have at least the following characteristics:

a.1.i) That favors the participation of the Visiting Researcher, as a collaborator or advisor, in the execution of research projects undertaken by the PI or by the research group to which he/she belongs. These may optionally include teaching activities;

a.1.ii) The visit must be of sufficient length for the execution of the planned research activities as well as for systematic contacts between the visitor and researchers and students at the Host Institution and from other institutions that have active research groups in the same area;

a.1.iii) The timetable of the visit is expected to be widely publicized in advance by the PI, at least on the websites of the research group, department and institution;

a.1.iv) The PI is expected to make their best effort to maximize the impact of the visit on research activities within the field which are ongoing in the state of São Paulo.

a.2) A section summarizing the participation of the Visiting Researcher in research projects as a collaborator or advisor, informing, for each one:

a.2.i) The research project title;

a.2.ii) The number of the research proposal according to the funding agency, which may be other than FAPESP;

a.2.iii) The initial and final date of the approved funding for the research project;

a.2.iv) The research project summary.

a.3) A section summarizing the expected benefits of the visit.

a.4) A section containing the description of the Visiting Researcher's program and schedule of activities.

a.4.i) In addition to the research activities described in item "a.1" above, the visitor´s schedule may include: the participation of the Visiting Researcher in thesis and dissertation examination committees, ministering postgraduate and undergraduate courses and in the preparation of cooperative research projects to be submitted to international research funding agencies.

b) Curricular Summary of the PI.

c) The Visiting Researcher’s Curriculum Vitae.

d) Declaration by the Visiting Researcher with their acceptance to participate in the execution of the research project for the foreseen period.

e) Manifestation of the Head of the Host Institution, according to the model available for download at SAGe.

f) Document stating the nature of the Visiting Researcher's association with the Institution of origin: on leave with salary, on leave without salary, retired, or specify any other alternative.

g) Information, approved by the Host Institution, concerning the institutional infrastructure, according to the model (Annex II) available for download from SAGe. This should contain a description of the institutional support and the infrastructure available and to be provided for the execution of the project, including:

g.1) Academic, administrative and technical support services at the Host Institution;

g.2) Facilities;

g.3) Personnel hired by the Host Institution to support the project.

This document, which must follow the model available for download from SAGe, must be signed by the PI and by the Head of the Host Institution who has authority to guarantee the commitments contained therein, and will be attached to the Grant Contract, if the proposal is approved.

h) In the case of a complementary request which is linked to a Thematic Project, RIDC, ERC/ARC, SPEC or Young Investigator Grant, a summary of the main project and a document signed by the PI of the linked Grant must be included. The latter should specify the contribution of the present proposal to the project to which a link is requested.

9.3) Additional documents

a) For proposals in which the PI is not formally employed by the Host Institution, a document describing the terms of the relationship must be presented by the Host Institution, establishing, among other items considered necessary, that:

a.1) Any intellectual property created during the presence of the PI at the Host Institution will belong to the Host Institution; and

a.2) If there are benefits from the licensing or commercialization of Intellectual Property, inventors will be entitled to a portion of these benefits in accordance with the rules of the Host Institution and Law 10,973/2004.

10) Authorizations required by law to perform the research (back to index)

It is the responsibility of the PI and the Host Institution to request, obtain and hold all legal and required authorizations for the proper execution of the project, which must be issued by the control and inspection bodies relating to the nature of the research, when so required.

If the proposal is approved, the Grant Contract will contain a clause on the requirement that the PI and the Host Institution have such authorizations and demonstrate them to FAPESP whenever requested.

11) Intellectual Property (back to index)

FAPESP's rules regarding the intellectual property of the results of projects supported by the Foundation are described at www.fapesp.br/pi.

12) Review and selection of proposals (back to index)

12.1) Evaluation process (back to index)

Applications sent to FAPESP for different types of support opportunities are reviewed using the peer review system (www.fapesp.br/analise).

The maximum number of grants that can be granted must comply with the limits defined in FAPESP's annual budget proposal, approved by the Board of Trustees.

For the granting of a Visiting Researcher Award, FAPESP seeks to identify, during the analysis performed by the Area Coordinators (CA) and the Associate Coordinators (CAD), based on the reviews issued by the ad hoc Reviewers, those proposals which are considered to be excellent in three components: a) Plan of Activities for the Visit; b) Academic background of the Visiting Researcher; and c) Academic background of the Principal Investigator.

The review process is carried out in five stages and involves the participation of ad hoc reviewers, Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators.

The five steps of the review process are listed and described below:

a. Eligibility of the proposal and indication of ad hoc reviewers, by the Area Coordinators.

b. Analysis and issue of reviews by the ad hoc reviewers.

c. Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators.

d. Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators.

e. Decision by the Scientific Directorate and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees.

12.1.1) Eligibility of the proposal and indication of Reviewers, by the Area Coordinators

In this phase, the Area Coordinators (www.fapesp.br/1479) verify that the requirements specified in sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of these guidelines are totally met. For requests considered eligible, the Area Coordinators indicate the ad hoc reviewers to be consulted for issuing a review. Requests which are considered ineligible are sent to the Associate Coordinators for analysis and final decision. If the Associate Coordinators agree that the proposal is ineligible, it returns to the PI with a report clarifying the reasons for the decision.

12.1.2) Analysis and issue of review by the ad hoc reviewers

The ad hoc reviewers are specialists in the fields of the projects being proposed. They analyze the proposals and issue reviews that contemplate each of the criteria mentioned in section 12.1.6. Detailed reviews form the basis for the subsequent steps of the analysis.

12.1.3) Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators

The Area Coordinators analyze the proposals based on the reviews issued by ad hoc reviewers, issuing a recommendation to the Scientific Directorate. The Area Coordinators are only responsible for the evaluation of proposals which fall within their field of expertise.

12.1.4) Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators

The Associate Coordinators examine the proposals and compare the Area Coordinators´ recommendations with the reviews issued by the ad hoc reviewers. In particular, they verify consistency with FAPESP's excellence benchmarks and whether all the criteria in section 12.1.6 and, if necessary, those in section 12.1.7 were considered during the analysis. Any discrepancy is debated with the Area Coordinators, and a final recommendation is issued to the Scientific Directorate.

Evaluations by the Associate Coordinators take place separately for different major fields of knowledge.

12.1.5) Decision by the Scientific Directorate and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees

Based on the analysis of the Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, the Scientific Director makes the final decision. When there are doubts or there is a mismatch between the Coordinators' recommendations, the proposals are discussed with the Associate Coordinators before the final decision is taken. The Scientific Director's decision is submitted for analysis by the Executive Board, who will deliberate “ad-referendum” of the Board of Trustees.

12.1.6) Review criteria

In the analysis by the ad hoc reviewers (section 12.1.2), Area Coordinators (section 12.1.3) and Associate Coordinators (section 12.1.4), the criteria used to classify the proposals are listed below and appear on the Reviewers review form.

Each process is reviewed considering three components: a) The Activity Plan for the Visit; b) The Academic background of the Visiting Researcher; and c) The Academic background of the Principal Investigator.

a) Activity Plan for the Visit

a.1) Contribution of the Visiting Researcher's visit to the host group´s research activities.

a.2) Adequacy of the proposed timeframe for the visit.

a.3) Proposals including collaboration in research projects funded by funding agencies take priority.

a.4) Adequacy of the infrastructure offered by the Host Institution.

a.5) Other activities to be carried out by the Visiting Researcher (participating in thesis and dissertation examination committees, ministering postgraduate and undergraduate courses, participating in the preparation of cooperative research projects to be submitted to international research funding agencies, among others).

b) Visiting Researcher's academic record

b.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and/or technological output. Important elements for this analysis are: publications in journals with a selective editorial policy; books or book chapters; patents in which he/she appears as an inventor; other intellectual property instruments; research results effectively transferred and adopted by companies or the government; and any other information that may be relevant.

b.1.i) The fundamental document to be considered for the analysis of this item is the Visiting Researcher's Curriculum Vitae presented with the proposal.

b.2) Demonstrated experience in research projects related to the subject of the proposal under analysis.

b.3) If the Visiting Researcher has previously collaborated with the host group and what results already exist.

c) Principal Investigator’s academic record

c.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and/or technological output. Important elements for this analysis are: publications in journals with a selective editorial policy; books or book chapters; patents in which he/she appears as an inventor; other intellectual property instruments; research results effectively transferred and adopted by companies or the government; and any other information that may be relevant.

c.1.i) The fundamental document to be considered for the analysis of this item is the Curricular Summary (www.fapesp.br/5266) presented with the proposal.

c.2) Demonstrated experience in research projects related to the subject of the proposal under analysis.

c.3) Demonstrated ability to train researchers, with an emphasis on recent activity in student supervision.

12.1.7) Deficiencies most frequently observed in proposals for Visiting Researcher Award

When analyzing proposals for a Visiting Researcher Award, the most common deficiencies are:

a) About research activities:

1. The activity plan is poorly prepared.

2. The expected benefits of the visit are not significant.

3. Insignificant visitor participation in research activities.

4. The proposed timeframe is inadequate for the activity plan.

5. Excessive cost considering the expected scientific or technological contribution.

6. Inadequate Institutional infrastructure.

7. Request undermined by the short duration of the visit.

b) About the Visiting Researcher:

1. Scientific or technological output that does not attest to significant achievement as a result of his/her research activity.

2. Insufficient experience in the area of the research project(s) in progress (or about to be started) to which the proposal is linked may compromise its viability.

c) About the Principal Investigator:

1. Scientific or technological output that does not attest to significant achievement as a result of his/her research activity.

2. Insufficient experience in the research area in which the research project(s) is inserted may compromise its viability.

3. Ability to train researchers is not evident.

12.2) Time frame for evaluation (back to index)

The expected average duration of the review process for this support opportunity is 75 days, if there are no unusual incidents such as inquiries or requests concerning the documentation provided, or problems with the reviewers.

a) This number represents an average. Therefore, this does not mean that applications that are submitted 75 days prior to the estimated start of the grant will necessarily be evaluated within this time frame.

b) Requests for a Visiting Researcher Award will be sent to two or more ad hoc reviewers. For this reason, the review process may take longer than expected.

c) Proposals submitted from October to January may suffer an extra delay due to the summer holidays in Brazil, and FAPESP´s partial suspension of activities during this period.

d) For each type of funding, a typical period of time necessary to complete the review process is estimated. FAPESP takes responsibility for making every effort to observe this time limit. The Foundation cannot, however, guarantee that this condition will be always fulfilled, since FAPESP’s top priority is to ensure the quality of the review and selection process.

e) Peer reviews are the most important part of the review process. Since all applications are sent out for peer reviewed, it is not always possible, despite FAPESP´s efforts, to ensure that the reviews will be submitted within the regular review deadlines.

f) Furthermore, reviewers frequently ask for clarifications before submitting their final review and occasionally FAPESP itself may decide to send the application to additional reviewers if it considers that the submitted reviews are insufficient to make a well-founded final decision.

g) Nevertheless experience shows that, in most cases, the average time to complete the evaluation process is within expectations, as can be checked in www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/analise.

h) Considering the above and in order to allow for appropriate planning, FAPESP strongly suggests Investigators to submit their proposals up to 6 months prior to the desired starting date of the visit.

12.3) Appeals for Reconsideration (back to index)

FAPESP guarantees to the applicant, the right to a new review of the application. This should be based on a well-founded request for reconsideration of the initial decision. Further information can be found at www.fapesp.br/reconsideracao.

13) Scientific Reports (back to index)

a) The Scientific Report must be presented on the date specified in the Grant Contract.

b) The Scientific Report must describe, succinctly and completely, the visitor's activities and the benefits of the visit regarding the development of the research project(s) which the Award is linked to.

c) Proofs of prior disclosure of the visit must be attached, when this has been described in the proposal.

d) The Scientific Report must be submitted electronically via SAGe, as described in the “Submissão de RC” manual, available at SAGe, under the link “Manuais”.

14) Financial Report (back to index)

a) The Guidelines for Use of Funds and on the Financial Report are available at www.fapesp.br/normaspc.

b) The Financial Report must be presented on the date specified in the Grant Contract. Guidance on submitting the Financial Report is available at www.fapesp.br/prestacaodecontas.

c) FAPESP allows the PI to appoint SAGe account users who support them in the preparation of the Financial Report. Detailed instructions on the preparation and submission of the electronic Financial Report, as well as on the indication of support users, can be found in the Researchers Support Manuals, available at the link "Manuals" at SAGe.

15) Amendment to the Grant Contract (back to index)

a) By signing the Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator officially acknowledges that the funding provided by FAPESP is sufficient to enable the execution of the approved visit, barring unpredictable circumstances.

b) For this reason, investigators are advised to sign the Grant Contract only after having assured themselves that the items and amounts in the budget approved by FAPESP are, under normal circumstances, enough to fully guarantee the successful execution of the project.

c) In the case of uncertainty, it is recommended that the investigator does not sign the Grant Contract and immediately submits a well-founded request for reconsideration of the approved budget. This will be analyzed by FAPESP.

d) It is understood that circumstances may arise which were unpredictable at the time of the initial award and that these may require changes to the agreed conditions. For this reason, FAPESP accepts that requests for changes to the award are admissible and may be made by means of an Amendment to the Grant Contract, under the conditions detailed at www.fapesp.br/565.

---