5G Assured Integration Collaborative R&D (SNPN): UK Historical Opportunity Guide

5G Assured Integration Collaborative R&D (SNPN): historical reference

This page records the SNPN: 5G Assured Integration (CR&D) competition operated by Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The competition is closed. The official UKRI opportunity page labels it “Closed,” and the linked Innovation Funding Service (IFS) competition page says that it is no longer accepting new applications. No later cycle is announced on those official pages, so this page keeps the completed competition as a historical reference rather than presenting it as an active grant.

The official closing deadline was 1 April 2026 at 11:00am UK time. That date is retained in the page metadata because it is the real deadline for the archived cycle. It should not be read as a current invitation to apply.

At a glance

The £18.5 million figure was the portfolio budget, not an automatic award for every successful applicant. The IFS guidance set the requested grant for an individual project between £2 million and £4 million, while limiting any single organisation to £3 million. The funder also reserved the right to adjust allocations and stated that a high-scoring proposal might still not be funded because the competition had a fixed limit.

What the competition was designed to fund

The call addressed a system-level gap in advanced connectivity. The official brief described a problem in which valuable UK connectivity components were not yet being combined into complete, procurable solutions. Its focus was therefore not a standalone radio component, a new software feature, or a large commercial deployment. It was the non-recurring engineering, interoperability testing, and verification needed to combine multi-vendor Core, RAN, and supporting hardware or software into a coherent end-to-end system.

The target outcome was an assured 5G Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN) solution suitable for early market evaluation. An SNPN can give an adopting organisation control over a private network supporting operational technology, industrial processes, or infrastructure operations. For this competition, assurance had to be demonstrated with evidence rather than asserted in marketing language. The guidance called for technical evidence such as reference architectures, performance reports, security reports, interoperability results, and validation in a representative or operationally relevant environment.

Projects were expected to integrate UK-anchored advanced connectivity technologies and components at technology readiness levels 4 to 7. The work could cover interface alignment across disaggregated network elements, secure multi-vendor interoperability, resilience, system-level performance, energy efficiency, or the integration of IT and OT technologies using Wi-Fi or 5G. It could also address industrial and infrastructure use cases, including advanced manufacturing, defence, ports, and nationally significant infrastructure.

The competition explicitly prioritised rapid integration and technical validation. It did not fund work focused solely on early-stage component research, a single component without system integration, a project without multi-vendor interoperability, or a large-scale deployment and commercial rollout. Proposals also needed reusable technical evidence or reference architectures and a credible connection to end users or adopter stakeholders.

Eligibility and consortium requirements

This was a collaboration-only competition. The lead organisation had to be UK registered and had to be one of the following:

• a small, medium, or large business;
• a research and technology organisation (RTO);
• an academic institution;
• a charity;
• a not-for-profit organisation; or
• a public sector organisation.

The project also had to include a small, medium, or large business and a Systems Integrator with clear accountability for overall system design, multi-vendor interoperability, and security and resilience assurance. This systems-integration responsibility was more than a nominal consortium role: the integrator was expected to own the architecture and be accountable for making the combined system work across supplier boundaries.

Every funded organisation had to carry out its project work in the UK and intend to exploit the results from or in the UK. Other organisations could participate without claiming grant funding. The official guidance allowed non-funded partners from the UK, the European Union, and other countries, with non-UK partners permitted to work from their home countries and exploit results outside the UK. This distinction mattered: an overseas organisation could be part of the team, but it did not automatically qualify for UK grant funding.

For a funded collaboration, the lead and at least one other organisation had to apply for funding, explain why the collaboration was necessary, and describe how it would operate. One partner could not account for more than £3 million or 70% of total eligible costs, whichever was lower. Each partner was invited into IFS by the lead, entered its own project costs, and completed its own Project Impact questions.

The planned project had to last 18 months, start on 1 August 2026, and end on 31 January 2028. Projects had to start on the first day of a month, and the guidance warned applicants not to begin work before Innovate UK approved the Grant Offer Letter. Subcontractors were permitted, including overseas subcontractors where the application explained why a UK supplier could not be used and provided evidence of the alternatives considered.

Funding was offered under the Research, Development and Innovation Streamlined Subsidy Scheme. For commercial or economic work, the guidance listed maximum funding rates of 70% for small organisations, 60% for medium-sized organisations, and 50% for large organisations. Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could share up to 30% of total eligible project costs. Depending on organisation type, eligible research costs could be funded at up to 100% or, for Je-S registered academic institutions, 80% of full economic costs. Those figures were rules for the closed competition and should be checked against any future Innovate UK call rather than reused automatically.

Technical scope and expected evidence

A credible proposal needed to explain the complete system boundary. That could include user devices or industrial equipment, RAN elements, transport, the 5G Core, orchestration, management, monitoring, security controls, and the interfaces joining those layers. The point was not to list every possible technology. It was to show which components would be integrated, where supplier boundaries existed, which interfaces created risk, and how the consortium would prove that the system behaved as one operable solution.

The official scope required non-recurring engineering for multi-vendor integration. Practical work could include interface mapping, configuration and automation, test-harness development, performance baselining, fault injection, recovery testing, security verification, and documentation of a technical reference architecture. The application needed to connect these activities to measurable results. A useful plan would define traffic conditions, latency or throughput targets, availability assumptions, security properties, failure scenarios, test data, and acceptance criteria before the consortium began testing.

Validation had to take place in a representative or operationally relevant environment. The guidance gave the Digital Catapult Stand-alone Non-Public Network Lab as one example, while also allowing suitable industrial infrastructure or recognised testbeds. The project had to explain how it would engage with validation, assurance, and testbed environments, and how those engagements would produce evidence of interoperability, performance, security, and integration readiness.

The end-user connection was equally important. The proposal needed to show that the system reflected real operational requirements and had market relevance. An industrial adopter could help define the environment, constraints, and acceptance tests. A public infrastructure operator could clarify resilience and procurement concerns. A specialist assurance or research partner could make the test method repeatable and the resulting claims defensible. The consortium shape should follow the evidence the project needed, not simply satisfy a partner-count expectation.

The application process used for this cycle

New applications cannot be submitted to this closed competition. For historical context, the IFS application was divided into four sections: Project details, Application questions, Finances, and Project Impact. The lead applicant had to invite the project team, provide the project title, start date, duration, research category, summary, public description, and scope explanation. The IFS instructions said not to include website addresses in application answers.

The scored questions covered the need or challenge, approach and innovation, team and resources, market awareness, outcomes and route to market, wider impacts, project management, risks, added value, and costs and value for money. Applicants also had to answer unscored questions about location, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export licences, and Trusted Research and Innovation. The application required a project plan or Gantt chart and a risk register as PDF appendices, with additional appendices permitted for approach and team information under the stated page and file-size limits.

Before submission, the lead was responsible for checking that the information was correct, that the proposal met the eligibility and scope rules, that every section was marked complete, and that all partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions. A submitted application could be reopened before the deadline, but it had to be resubmitted before 1 April 2026 at 11:00am.

The published competition timeline was:

• 3 March 2026: competition opened.
• 9 March 2026: online briefing event.
• 1 April 2026 at 11:00am: competition closed.
• 6 May 2026: applicants invited to interview.
• 27 May 2026 to 1 June 2026: interview panel period.
• 3 June 2026: applicants notified.
• 1 August 2026: planned project start.

Applicants who reached interview were expected to give a presentation, send the attendee list and presentation slides by the stated invitation deadline, and optionally provide a written response to assessor feedback. The interview presentation had to use Microsoft PowerPoint, last no longer than 20 minutes, and contain no more than 21 slides. Successful applicants then went through project setup and mandatory checks in IFS before funding could begin; unsuccessful applicants could view assessor feedback in their IFS portal.

What a strong archived proposal would have demonstrated

The strongest proposals for this cycle would have connected four things clearly. First, they would have identified a real integration barrier: incompatible interfaces, uncertain security boundaries, inconsistent management, difficult deployment, or a lack of trustworthy performance evidence. Second, they would have assigned one accountable systems integrator and given each partner a concrete technical responsibility.

Third, they would have made assurance testable. Instead of saying that the network was secure or resilient, the proposal would have defined the threat model, test environment, baseline, failure cases, recovery expectations, and evidence owners. Fourth, it would have shown how an adopter could use the results: a technical reference architecture, integration report, test results, operating documentation, and a credible route toward evaluation or procurement.

The call’s emphasis on evidence also meant that “early market evaluation” should not have been treated as a publicity demonstration. A serious evaluation plan would have covered installation, configuration, monitoring, updates, incident response, access control, maintenance responsibilities, and feedback from the intended operator. The project was not required to deliver a large commercial rollout, but it did need to reduce the uncertainty that prevents an adopter from evaluating an integrated SNPN solution.

Status and source of truth

This page is intentionally marked as a historical reference. The closed cycle’s real deadline remains 2026-04-01 in the front matter, while historicalReference = true prevents it from appearing like an expired live listing. The official UKRI page and IFS competition page are the source of truth for the programme name, status, funding, eligibility, scope, dates, and application process. They currently show the competition as closed and do not announce a subsequent round. Anyone looking for a new opportunity should search current Innovate UK competitions rather than submit through this archived entry.

Official links:

• UKRI funding opportunity page
• Innovation Funding Service competition details