NSF 26-505: National Quantum and Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NQNI) Program

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

NSF 26-505: National Quantum and Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NQNI) Program

NSF launched NSF 26-505: National Quantum and Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NQNI) in 2026 as an active funding opportunity aimed at building a national network of user facilities in quantum and nanotechnology. The solicitation is targeted at U.S.-based higher-education-led facility models and places a strong emphasis on open access, workforce development, and infrastructure that can serve broad external communities over time. This is not a small equipment grant, nor is it a pure research award for a single laboratory team. The NSF framing is facility-scale, network-scale, and service-scale, with a budget design that reflects this infrastructure ambition.

The opportunity is significant for universities, research centers, and coordinated consortia that already have strong technical capabilities in fabrication, characterization, and quantum/nanoscale systems and that can credibly plan for long-term external user support. The program page and solicitation signal that the goal is to strengthen national capacity in high-priority technology domains (quantum, semiconductors, AI, manufacturing, biotechnology) through a network model rather than isolated facility investments.

Key details at a glance

This is a direct alignment with NSF’s preference for infrastructure funding in strategic sectors where national coordination has outsized impact. The solicitation also notes that the program is expected to select a network of university user facility Sites and later a Coordinating Office to synchronize collective impact. That design is a key distinction: it rewards institution-level planning, user access design, and workforce integration.

What this opportunity is really funding

The NQNI program description is clear that this is not a one-off project. It is a competition for a network of university user facility Sites, not just a short research campaign. Proposals are evaluated on their ability to serve current and anticipated user needs in quantum information science and engineering, nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology.

The key deliverable is not only instrumentation. The program text repeatedly returns to the same practical points:

• external user access should be real and scalable,
• external users need pathways to training and facility use,
• and proposals should show how facilities integrate with education and workforce development.

From the full text, the solicitation also encourages multi-partner ecosystem thinking (“network of networks”), including potential coordination with other national stakeholders and facilities beyond NSF funding streams. This is a clue that reviewers are likely to reward proposals that show interoperability and strategic integration rather than siloed facility expansion.

That orientation matters in practice. A facility with excellent hardware but weak external user architecture is unlikely to align with the program’s direction. In contrast, a proposal with solid technical depth plus an explicit plan to serve broader user communities, including pathways for training, outreach, and community college/technical college partnerships, is much more in line with the stated program intent.

The program explicitly supports open-access models and emphasizes that external academic users should pay the same fees as internal users. This pushes teams to think about transparent pricing and governance from the start, not as an administrative afterthought.

Why this fits a 2026–2027 planning cycle

Even though the 2026 deadline in the solicitation is finite, this is still a strategic opportunity for teams planning for 2026 and 2027 because it is infrastructure-based and intended to shape medium-term national capacity. The timing implies three layers of prep:

1. Immediate proposal work for the current deadline,
2. Near-term implementation and reporting for awarded sites,
3. Follow-on competitive cycles (if additional competitions are launched for evolving needs).

The posted program page lists this as an active opportunity with a 2026 timeline and substantial anticipated awards. For organizations already in planning mode for 2026 grant cycles, this is one of the rare NSF calls where preparation is not just about writing; it is about proving a service-ready ecosystem.

Compared with smaller research-only funding, this one has a “systems mindset.” That means your preparation should be structured around:

• governance and operations model,
• access policy,
• workforce linkage,
• and long-term scientific relevance.

If your institution is trying to compete for one-off project funding, this program is likely too broad. If your institution is trying to justify a national facility strategy, this is the right format.

Eligibility and proposer fit in practice

The solicitation states that proposal-eligible entity categories are those in NSF PAPPG I.E. Unaffiliated individuals are not eligible to submit, and PI eligibility is explicit:

• PI must have a tenured/tenure-track role or a full-time paid research appointment
• at a U.S.-based campus of an eligible IHE at the submission deadline.

That PI requirement eliminates some common applicants who assume any principal investigator profile is eligible. It is not enough to have strong technical leadership if role status is not aligned with NSF definitions.

The limit of one proposal per organization and one proposal per PI/co-PI is strict in this solicitation. In teams with multiple sites, this is where many lose momentum: proposals are prepared in parallel before submission channels and consortium structure are synchronized. To prevent avoidable compliance risk, teams should settle lead submission architecture before budget drafting.

The solicitation also says proposing institutions can include partnerships with other IHEs as subawards or collaborative awards. This is important because the program is explicitly regional/network-oriented. A multi-institution model is possible and encouraged, but leadership must remain clear and compliant.

How to prepare a competitive submission (application workflow)

Because this is a technical infrastructure grant with a strong policy overlay, application quality depends on sequencing. A practical sequence that aligns with NSF rules is:

1) Clarify your submission route and technical fit

Choose and document whether you are applying through Research.gov or Grants.gov for the same solicitation. Both routes are valid, but the required instructions differ, especially on form behavior and submission support. Use the route where your institution has stronger compliance and administrative support.

Then map your facility’s core rationale to the solicitation’s expected outcomes:

• How does your site expand national-scale capability in QISE and nanotechnology?
• What external user needs are underserved today?
• How will your network design remain open and usable beyond your own campus.

2) Build the Letter of Intent (required)

The LOI is required and due March 16, 2026. The solicitation requires it, so teams that skip LOI preparation do not move to a full submission path.

The LOI should be concise but complete enough to signal: concept, leadership, user access design, and a credible network rationale. It is not just a formality; it is your first alignment check against eligibility and program intent.

3) Finalize the full proposal narrative

Full proposals are due May 14, 2026. This second milestone is where competitive differentiation happens:

• Explain the facility strategy: facilities to be funded, technical capability, external access pathways, and workforce impact.
• Explain the network logic: why these partners and not others; how collaboration improves user outcomes.
• Explain budget realism: link costs to operations, instrumentation, training, and measurable outcomes.
• Explain governance: who leads, what governance is used for shared facilities, and how fairness across user categories is handled.

4) Verify structural compliance before final submission

Do this before final upload to avoid return/rejection:

• Check PI role and appointment status at submission time,
• ensure one-proposal-per-PI and one-proposal-per-organization constraints,
• include only compliant forms and required references,
• confirm cost-sharing language is not misrepresented (it is prohibited as a required or assumed rule in this solicitation).

What to include in the proposal (and what to avoid)

A recurring weakness in infrastructure proposals is unbalanced focus: too much on equipment, too little on operations. The NSF language around NQNI suggests the reverse:

• External access policies should be central.
• Workforce pathways and training partnerships should be concrete.
• Regional coordination with collaborators should be explicit and operational.

Avoid making the proposal read like a pure lab expansion memo.

Include and emphasize

1. External use strategy: who your users are, how they gain access, how requests are processed, what makes access sustainable.
2. Technical differentiation: what fabrication/characterization capabilities and expertise are distinctive, and why they matter now.
3. Partnership architecture: existing and planned partnerships with other IHEs and technical institutions.
4. Workforce development: links to educational outcomes, outreach, and formal training.
5. Sustainability: staffing and governance over 5 years, not just first-year launch details.

Avoid weak patterns

• Submitting a site-only narrative with no broad-user model,
• Understating operating costs because the budget appears to focus only on hardware,
• Assuming matching funds are required,
• Missing LOI/proposal sequencing,
• Ignoring that full review expectations include national-level impact and not just local excellence.

Review expectations to prepare for

The solicitation uses National Science Board criteria plus additional program-specific requirements. For practical planning, this usually means reviewers care about both rigor and execution realism.

A competitive submission should not only ask “why this technology matters” but also “how it will be used, by whom, and sustained.” This is where many otherwise strong research proposals underperform. Reviewers are likely to prefer clear evidence-based claims:

• current demand for your facilities,
• realistic staffing and operations design,
• open-access user model with practical rules,
• and concrete training pathways.

Because this is a networked infrastructure solicitation, they are also likely to reward teams that can avoid siloed claims and describe how they connect to larger U.S. facility ecosystems.

Common mistakes and compliance traps

Use this as a risk checklist. If your draft triggers any “yes,” pause and fix before submission.

• Missing LOI due date: LOI is explicitly required. A late LOI or no LOI can undermine eligibility.
• Wrong applicant structure: if PI requirements are not met, the proposal may be found ineligible.
• Misapplied cost sharing: the solicitation explicitly notes voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
• Overly narrow scope: proposals that appear as single-division internal upgrades without external user pathway can be judged outside program intent.
• Submission confusion: unclear whether submission is being handled through Research.gov or Grants.gov procedures for your institution.
• Unclear external-user fee model: the open/shared infrastructure model expects a transparent and published approach to user access.

The most expensive mistake at scale is often not technical, it is administrative. One institution may do excellent technical work but fail because governance and compliance details do not pass the NSF threshold for this call.

Practical timeline and internal plan

Since this opportunity has two clearly stated milestones, the simplest internal timeline is split into sprint blocks.

1. Now to early March 2026

   • Confirm institutional eligibility and PI status,
   • finalize site-level concept and partnerships,
   • draft LOI.

2. Mid-March to early April 2026

   • produce full internal draft,
   • set budget and compliance map,
   • assign internal reviewers from research administration and legal/compliance.

3. April to early May 2026

   • revise for clarity and reviewer readability,
   • verify links, attachments, and required sections,
   • run final administrative compliance pass.

4. Mid-May 2026

   • final submission window,
   • include backup artifacts for system delays,
   • capture confirmation records.

This timeline should be adjusted based on your internal proposal support capacity and whether partner institutions are submitting coordinated components.

FAQ

Is this only for universities that already have quantum infrastructure?

Not necessarily. The program is for university user facility Sites with strong technical capability, so mature facilities are generally stronger candidates, but the broader eligibility and partnership language allows for network structures where institutions can share complementary strengths.

Is this a one-time program or recurring?

The 26-505 solicitation version is clearly published with active status and specific dates for this round. The opportunity page may eventually host future versions; this current solicitation should be treated as current and time-sensitive for the 2026 cycle.

Are cost share commitments required?

No. The solicitation text says voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Can non-academic institutions submit?

The solicitation references NSF PAPPG categories for proposers and notes unaffiliated individuals are not eligible. Confirm the exact organizational category under NSF guidance before submission.

What is the ideal applicant profile?

Best fit teams are those with strong facility leadership, external-user planning capacity, and realistic operations and workforce planning for multi-year sustainability.

Official links and next actions

Use these official NSF pages directly:

• Program page: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/nqni-national-quantum-nanotechnology-infrastructure
• Full solicitation: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/nqni-national-quantum-nanotechnology-infrastructure/nsf26-505/solicitation
• Research.gov submission information: linked from NSF pages
• Grants.gov if using grants route: linked from NSF pages

For final compliance before submission, check the exact solicitation revision date and confirm whether any updates were published after your concept has been drafted. Because NSF links can include procedural addenda, re-open the solicitation right before submission to validate any late changes.

If your team is at an early stage and not yet ready for the May deadline, use the LOI and budget discussions to decide whether to submit a full entry now or prepare for any follow-on competitions if announced. The official solicitation is the controlling source for this cycle; all other planning should be anchored to it.