RFA-MH-27-205: Single Source: Accelerating Medicines Partnership Schizophrenia DPACC

RFA-MH-27-205: Single Source: Accelerating Medicines Partnership Schizophrenia DPACC

Key details

What this opportunity is and what it is not

This is an unusual NIH mechanism: it is not a competition open to many institutions. It is a single-source NOFO. The NIMH is explicitly continuing the Data Processing, Analysis, and Coordination Center (DPACC) role for the AMP® Schizophrenia effort. The program objective is continuity rather than expansion of the applicant pool. That makes this one of those calls where the key strategy question is not “How do I make this my project?” but “Does my institution have the authority and continuity to perform this exact role?”

The posted call says the opportunity is meant to support continuation and completion of longitudinal AMP SCZ data work across multiple modalities and time points. It is about data infrastructure, coordinated analytics, and management quality across collaborating networks, not about setting up a standalone new schizophrenia project. In practical terms, this is a core operations and coordination award with significant data-management and network-governance requirements.

The title is long and technical, but you can decode it as follows:

• Single Source: one named applicant is eligible.
• AMP Schizophrenia: the effort sits within the Accelerating Medicines Partnership schizophrenia cohort and data ecosystem.
• DPACC: the role is a data processing, analysis, and coordination center.
• U24: a project-based resource-centered cooperative award with substantial federal involvement.
• Clinical trial not allowed: proposals involving clinical trials are disallowed, though human subjects research that is not an NIH-defined trial may be acceptable under standard NOFO rules.

This is aligned to your requested 2026/2027 window: the call is active in 2026 and funded in FY2027, with project start planning centered in late 2026 and early 2027.

Who this fits, and who it does not fit

This is a highly targeted fit opportunity. It is designed for one institution, one continuity pathway, and one specific kind of portfolio responsibility.

Best fit profile

• You are at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
• You are connected to the current AMP SCZ DPACC award lineage under RFA-MH-20-341 and can continue as part of the authorized PI/PD group.
• You already operate at the level of multisite, longitudinal, high-dimensional schizophrenia research coordination.
• Your team includes leadership across data processing, harmonization, longitudinal retention monitoring, network coordination, and publication steering.
• You can demonstrate evidence that you can deliver milestone-bound, pre-competitive shared resources with data-sharing obligations.

Not a fit (most common)

• Applicants from other universities or organizations, even if they run high-quality mental health research.
• Teams hoping to pivot the DPACC into a small disease-focused R01 idea.
• Groups proposing a project that includes clinical trials.
• Institutions unable to complete registration requirements quickly enough (SAM/eRA Commons/Grants.gov/UEI/PD/PI identity readiness).

The single-source design means this NOFO is more about compliance and execution discipline than novelty. If you are not BWH, this page is still valuable for understanding how NIH expects continuity infrastructure awards to be written and scored, but it is not an accessible application target.

The offer and the official constraints

The NOFO states this award intends to fund one continuation project at Brigham and Women’s Hospital with NIMH oversight and peer review.

The official points from the full text are:

• Award funding: NIMH intends to commit $5,000,000 in FY2027 for one award.
• Project length: up to 3 years.
• Budgeting: no explicit cap in the NOFO, but budgets must match actual need and program scope.
• Project purpose: complete/extend DPACC processing and analysis of AMP SCZ longitudinal multisite data, with quality control, harmonized workflows, and sustained network support.
• Clinical trial rule: the NOFO is explicit that clinical trials are not allowed.
• Submission rule: no late applications for this NOFO.

Single-source opportunities often look administratively simple because “one institution only.” In reality they are usually the opposite: they move faster through eligibility screening but can be strict on compliance, because the full burden shifts from proving novelty to proving execution capacity.

Eligibility and hard preconditions

This is where many potential applicants fail even at first glance, mostly because they assume standard NIH grant flexibility still applies. It does not. For this NOFO, key restrictions are explicit and mandatory.

Eligibility constraints

• Only Brigham and Women’s Hospital may apply.
• Only one award is contemplated and issued under this NOFO.
• Only U.S.-based entities are eligible; non-U.S. organizations and foreign components are not eligible.
• Foreign collaboration as applicant entity is constrained by the NOFO’s foreign eligibility text.
• Single-source application model and continuation award logic reduce broad competition but not review rigor.

Registration and identity constraints

The NOFO requires full registrations and account readiness before submission:

• SAM registration with valid UEI and related organizational identifiers.
• eRA Commons registration and PD/PI setup.
• Grants.gov registration and submission readiness.
• ORCID-linked eRA profile for PD(s)/PI(s).

A single weak registration can invalidate an otherwise strong submission. The warning is explicit: registration issues are not accepted as late-submission excuses.

Submitting the right package

Applications must be filed electronically through NIH/Grants.gov routes:

• NIH ASSIST,
• an institutional system-to-system submission,
• or Grants.gov Workspace.

Paper is not accepted.

Every element still must obey the NIH application guide and the NOFO-specific instructions. You should treat all instructions in the PHS 398 and SF424(R&R) sections as mandatory, including the standard and NOFO overrides.

Review criteria: what reviewers will score and what they repeatedly penalize

Although it is single-source, this NOFO still uses NIH peer review standards with a standard criteria stack. The review lens is strongly operational, because this is an infrastructure-and-coordination award.

Core criteria

• Significance: Can the proposed DPACC support and improve the AMP SCZ program needs?
• Investigator(s): Do the team and governance structure have demonstrated experience in multicenter collaborative coordination, data operations, and reporting?
• Innovation: Is the coordination architecture, organizational workflow, or management model stronger than routine operations?
• Approach: Is the timeline realistic, with clear workflow, milestones, risk controls, and publication plan?
• Environment: Are institutional resources and informatics infrastructure sufficient?

Additional review issues

The committee will still review required human-subjects inclusion, human subjects protection, and additional elements according to project specifics.

The NOFO strongly signals that reviewer penalties tend to hit proposals that describe high scientific ambitions without execution detail in three areas:

1. Governance and steering mechanics: unclear committee process, unclear milestone authority, unclear accountability lines.
2. Data operations depth: no detail on harmonization, curation burden, and quality assurance at scale.
3. Dissemination obligations: weak plan for CDE-conformant analysis, data sharing workflows, and upload reporting to the NIMH Data Archive.

For this NOFO, “quality of operations plan” and “clarity of data workflow” can be as important as scientific phrasing.

Application timeline and workflow planning

To avoid avoidable risk, convert the published calendar into a backwards timeline.

• May 7, 2026: posted
• May 9, 2026: earliest submission date
• June 9, 2026: due date (5:00 PM local time)
• June 10, 2026: expiration
• July/August 2026: scientific merit review cycle listed in NOFO context
• October 2026: advisory council review window listed
• December 2026: earliest start date referenced in key dates

Given no late applications are accepted, submission discipline matters.

A practical 45-day plan for eligible teams:

1. Week 1-2: lock scope and team assignments against NOFO text; map each requirement to sections.
2. Week 3: align milestones and deliverables with DPACC tasks, including harmonization and steering committees.
3. Week 4-5: draft Specific Aims and investigator plan with explicit operational workflows.
4. Week 6: prepare DMS Plan format + data-sharing and NDA-linked cost logic.
5. Week 7-8: complete registration checks and run a dry-run validation (where feasible in your office system).
6. Final 2 weeks: final error sweep against checklist, then submit early enough for fixes before deadline.

Because the due date has a local time component and an absolute end-of-day cutoff, submission fatigue around the last hour is risky. NIH and Grants.gov do not generally forgive broken submissions.

Practical build strategy for this NOFO (if eligible)

If you are in the eligible institution, treat this as a program operations proposal disguised as a scientific application:

• Treat DPACC as a service contract-like center function with measurable operational outputs.
• Make team structure explicit: who coordinates network-level decisions, who owns QA, who decides prioritization.
• Show how your workflow handles heterogeneity across sites, modalities, and timepoints.
• Present a publication and dissemination plan tied to clear governance, not only scientific ambition.
• Include data management and sharing details in enough depth to signal execution capacity.
• Use realistic budget language tied to actual coordination tasks (informatics, management, validation, and transfer/curation workflows).

This opportunity rewards clarity in process over flashy rhetoric.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake 1: Ignoring the single-source reality

Many teams try to frame a broadly relevant schizophrenia data project. For single-source opportunities, that is often a non-starter. If the organization is not the named eligible entity, the application is structurally invalid.

Mistake 2: Treating this as clinical trial funding

This mechanism explicitly disallows clinical trial projects. Data activities are valid when they are not clinical-trial-defined, but a trial frame can trigger compliance issues and review rejection.

Mistake 3: Skipping the systems side

The NOFO focuses on DPACC management, harmonization, milestones, and network coordination. If Specific Aims are all science narrative with no systems operations, reviewers may score weak on approach and environment.

Mistake 4: Leaving DMS and CDE alignment vague

NIH explicitly requires DMS planning and expects CDE-aware design where applicable. In these infrastructure contexts, reviewers look for practical clarity on what data are generated, cleaned, and shared and on how costs are justified.

Mistake 5: Failing to validate before submit

Application instructions mention strict compliance, with late applications rejected. If institutional registration or technical submission fails at the final moment, you can lose an entire cycle.

FAQ for teams watching this signal

Is this a normal grant competition?

No. It is a single-source continuation opportunity with one named eligible institution. Do not assume open competition logic.

Can international collaborations submit?

The NOFO text excludes non-U.S. organizations and non-U.S. components.

Is budget fully capped?

The NOFO says application budgets are not limited, but they must match real project need. That flexibility still requires credible and defensible budget logic.

What is the most important scoring edge?

Execution clarity: workflow, governance, milestone logic, team fit, and reproducible coordination architecture.

Can new proposals be considered?

The framework is continuation/coordination centric. New applicant entities are not in scope because eligibility is explicitly Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Official links and reliable references

• Full official NOFO (primary source): https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/c023b83a-2094-40bf-a48e-07f065d037df/attachments/af5ed049-8dd5-4722-9de0-6f75df246abd/RFA-MH-27-205-Full-Announcement.html
• NIMH funding announcements listing (RFA-MH-27-205 line item): https://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/opportunities-announcements/listings/rfas-sponsored
• NIH Guide application instructions (How to apply): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide
• NIMH data sharing page for applicants and awardees: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/organization/fdp/data-sharing

This page is a narrow but useful example of how NIH runs single-source continuation research infrastructure awards: high standards, strict eligibility, and hard deadlines. If you are not directly eligible, adapt the execution checklist for other DPACC-like and U24-like cooperative mechanisms you can apply to.