NSF 24-598: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) 2026-2027 Cycle
NSF Mid-scale RI-1 funds design or implementation of mid-scale research infrastructure, with preliminary proposals due in 2026 and invited full proposals in 2027.
NSF 24-598: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) 2026-2027 Cycle
NSF Mid-scale RI-1 is the kind of opportunity that sits between a normal research grant and a huge national facility build. It funds design activities or implementation projects for research infrastructure in the mid-scale range, which means the proposal has to do more than describe a scientific idea. It has to show a real infrastructure need, a credible operations plan, a user community, and a reason the work should be supported at the national level.
For the 2026-2027 cycle, the next practical milestone is the preliminary proposal due on 1 September 2026. If NSF invites a team forward, the full proposal deadline is 8 February 2027. That invitation-only step is important: this is not a program where every strong preliminary idea automatically becomes a full proposal. Teams need to use the preliminary stage to prove fit, scale, and readiness.
Key details at a glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Opportunity | NSF 24-598: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) |
| Agency | U.S. National Science Foundation |
| Program type | Grant, standard grant, continuing grant, or cooperative agreement depending on category |
| Cycle | 2026 preliminary competition leading into the 2027 invited full-proposal round |
| Preliminary proposal due | 2026-09-01 |
| Full proposal due | 2027-02-08, by invitation only |
| Project types | Design activities and implementation projects |
| Project scale | Design: $400,000 to under $20,000,000; Implementation: $4,000,000 to under $20,000,000 |
| Anticipated program budget | $100,000,000 per competition |
| Eligible proposers | U.S. higher education institutions, eligible non-profit research organizations, and certain consortium structures |
| Review focus | Scientific merit, need for the infrastructure, management, training, accessibility, and broad community value |
What Mid-scale RI-1 actually funds
The NSF defines research infrastructure broadly. It is not just a building or a large instrument. It can be a combination of facilities, equipment, instrumentation, computational hardware or software, large-scale datasets, and the human capital needed to run and use them well. That matters because the program is meant to support the full operational reality of infrastructure, not just the purchase order.
The solicitation supports two different kinds of work. Design activities are for the planning and development work that should lead toward a future mid-scale implementation project. Implementation projects are for acquisition, construction, or other work that directly creates or upgrades infrastructure. In either case, NSF expects a project that serves a broad scientific community and advances a real research need.
This is why the opportunity is attractive to multi-institution teams and to organizations that already have a strong pilot or local platform. NSF is looking for infrastructure with enough maturity, scale, and demand to justify an investment that is much larger than a normal lab award, but still below the level of a major national facility.
Who should consider applying
Mid-scale RI-1 fits organizations that can point to a concrete gap in the research ecosystem and explain why solving it requires shared infrastructure. The best fit is usually a team that has already done some combination of the following:
- Run a successful pilot system or prototype service.
- Built a research platform that has outgrown single-lab use.
- Identified a recurring bottleneck in user access, data throughput, measurement capacity, or instrumentation.
- Gathered evidence that multiple institutions or disciplines would use the same infrastructure.
- Thought through staffing, maintenance, governance, and user support, not just initial buildout.
The solicitation explicitly seeks broad participation, including geographically diverse institutions, EPSCoR jurisdictions, emerging research institutions, and minority-serving institutions. It also encourages accessibility planning for persons with disabilities. In practice, that means reviewers are likely to respond well to proposals that show who will benefit, who will operate the system, and how the team will make participation easier for a wider range of researchers.
This is not the right venue for a small one-off instrument that belongs in a lower-cost mechanism, and it is not the right venue for a project that is really a full major facility in disguise. NSF is drawing a line in the middle of the infrastructure spectrum, and your proposal should sit clearly in that band.
Design vs. implementation: the biggest strategic choice
The first decision is not budget. It is category.
Design activities
Design activities are for teams that need structured work before a build can happen. That can include requirement gathering, site and user analysis, architecture planning, technical tradeoff studies, governance design, and readiness work for a later implementation proposal. A design award can be a smart move if the community need is clear but the technical and operational path still needs proof.
Design activities have a lower minimum request than implementation projects and can still request substantial support. But they are not a back door to a future build. NSF says a successful design award does not imply a future implementation award, and you do not have to have received a design award in order to submit an implementation proposal later.
Implementation projects
Implementation projects are for projects that are ready to move. These can include acquisition, construction, commissioning, large shared datasets, cyberinfrastructure, and the staffing needed to make the resource real and usable. If your project has a mature design, a known user base, and a clear operational model, implementation is the stronger path.
The practical difference is reviewer expectation. Design proposals are judged on whether the planning work will produce a credible, implementation-ready path. Implementation proposals are judged on whether the team can actually deliver a durable infrastructure asset and operate it well.
Eligibility and submission rules that matter early
The organizational eligibility list is broader than many NSF programs, but the proposal limits are still strict.
Eligible submitting organizations include U.S. institutions of higher education, certain U.S. not-for-profit non-degree-granting research organizations, and consortium structures described in the solicitation. Some federal agencies and FFRDCs can participate through the consortium pathway, but they do not submit as ordinary standalone leads. For-profit organizations may contribute as subaward or subcontract partners, but they are not eligible to submit as the lead.
There is no title-based restriction on who can serve as PI, but there is a hard limit on how many proposals one person can lead in a given competition: no more than one preliminary or invited full proposal as PI or co-PI. That means institutional coordination matters. If two units want to pursue related ideas, they need to decide early which team will lead.
Other rules in the solicitation are easy to miss if you only skim the summary:
- No letters of intent are required.
- Preliminary proposals are required.
- Full proposals are by invitation only.
- Collaborations should be structured as a single proposal with subawards, not as split or parallel lead submissions.
- The solicitation includes a separate spreadsheet for reviewer-selection information that must be emailed in addition to the normal collaborators-and-affiliations information.
- Build America, Buy America requirements apply to covered materials unless a waiver is approved.
That last item matters for infrastructure teams. If your project uses steel, manufactured products, or construction materials, the sourcing plan is part of the compliance story, not an afterthought.
How the 2026-2027 timeline works
The timeline has two clear stages for this cycle.
The first stage is the preliminary proposal due on 1 September 2026. That submission has to do enough work to convince NSF that the concept is eligible, important, and ready for deeper review. The preliminary stage is where you prove that the infrastructure need is real, the project is in the right scale band, and the team can manage the complexity.
The second stage is the invited full proposal due on 8 February 2027. Only invited teams can submit at that stage. That full package is where NSF expects the deeper architecture, management plan, community value, budget detail, and documentation that support a serious infrastructure award.
The reason to treat the preliminary round seriously is simple: it filters the field. Teams that are vague about project scope, misclassify their category, or look more like a conventional research grant than an infrastructure program are likely to struggle long before the invitation stage.
What a strong Mid-scale RI-1 proposal usually shows
A competitive proposal should make it easy for reviewers to answer four questions quickly:
- Is the infrastructure need real and important?
- Is the project the right scale for Mid-scale RI-1?
- Can the team build and operate it?
- Will the infrastructure benefit more than one narrow group?
To answer those well, the strongest submissions usually include:
- a clear statement of the bottleneck or missing capability,
- evidence of existing demand from users or collaborators,
- an architecture or design that is credible and maintainable,
- an operations and governance plan that does not collapse after commissioning,
- a training plan for students and early-career personnel,
- accessibility and participation planning,
- and a budget that matches the chosen category instead of stretching into the wrong one.
It also helps to write like an infrastructure operator, not just a scientist. Reviewers need to see how the resource will be commissioned, maintained, supported, measured, and sustained. If the proposal only explains what the system could do in theory, it will feel incomplete.
Common mistakes that can sink an otherwise good idea
The most common failure mode is scale mismatch. Some teams pitch something that is really an MRI-sized acquisition, while others try to shoehorn a major-facility concept into a Mid-scale RI-1 budget. Both lose clarity.
Other common problems include:
- trying to submit a full proposal without an invitation,
- missing the one-proposal-per-PI-or-co-PI rule,
- treating design work like implementation work or vice versa,
- leaving out the operations and staffing story,
- ignoring the reviewer-selection spreadsheet or other single-copy requirements,
- underestimating the compliance burden around procurement and Buy America,
- and failing to show who will use the infrastructure beyond the proposing institution.
Another subtle mistake is overfocusing on technical novelty while neglecting service quality. Mid-scale RI-1 is not just about whether the machine, system, or platform is clever. It is about whether the research community can rely on it.
FAQ
Is this a grant for individual researchers?
Not really. It is a research infrastructure program. Individuals can lead, but the project has to serve an infrastructure function for a wider research community.
Can a consortium apply?
Yes. The solicitation explicitly allows consortium structures, including informal consortia submitted by an eligible lead organization with co-PIs from at least two eligible institutions.
Does a design award guarantee an implementation award later?
No. NSF says a successful design award does not imply future implementation funding.
Do I need a letter of intent?
No. The solicitation says letters of intent are not required.
Is the full proposal open to everyone?
No. Full proposals are by invitation only after preliminary proposal review.
Official links and next steps
- NSF solicitation: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/mid-scale-ri-1-mid-scale-research-infrastructure-1/nsf24-598/solicitation
- NSF Research Infrastructure Guide: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/lfo/lfo_documents.jsp
- NSF Build America, Buy America information: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/build-america-buy-america
If your organization is considering this cycle, the best next step is to decide whether the idea belongs in design or implementation, then build the preliminary proposal around infrastructure need, user community, and operational realism. That is the part reviewers will remember.