NSF 24-598: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) — Historical Reference

NSF 24-598: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) — Historical Reference

NSF Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1) supports design activities and implementation projects for shared research infrastructure. This page is now a historical reference for solicitation NSF 24-598. NSF’s current program page says the program is waiting for a new publication, and the solicitation page says it is not currently accepting proposals. NSF has not published the next solicitation on those pages. Researchers should therefore treat this entry as an archive, not as an open application opportunity.

The archived solicitation lists a preliminary proposal deadline of September 1, 2026 and an invited full-proposal deadline of February 8, 2027. The preliminary deadline has passed. The later date applies only to teams NSF invited to submit a full proposal; it does not open the competition to new applicants. NSF’s current status notice takes precedence for present availability. It reports that a new solicitation is expected for a future competition but supplies no application deadline for that competition. No future date is inferred here.

The information below describes what NSF 24-598 offered and how that solicitation worked. It can help institutions understand the program’s previous scope, eligibility rules, and proposal structure while they monitor NSF for a replacement solicitation. Any future competition may revise these terms, so prospective applicants must use the next published solicitation rather than rely on archived requirements.

Key details at a glance

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 in the archived solicitation

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:

1. No letters of intent are required.
2. Preliminary proposals are required.
3. Full proposals are by invitation only.
4. Collaborations should be structured as a single proposal with subawards, not as split or parallel lead submissions.
5. The solicitation includes a separate spreadsheet for reviewer-selection information that must be emailed in addition to the normal collaborators-and-affiliations information.
6. 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.

Archived timeline and present status

NSF 24-598 gives two rounds of due dates. The preliminary proposal deadline was November 18, 2024 for the earlier competition and September 1, 2026 for the later preliminary round. Invited full proposals for those rounds were due June 5, 2025 and February 8, 2027, respectively. NSF marks full proposals as invitation only. These dates describe the solicitation record; the first preliminary date and its associated full-proposal date are past, while the later preliminary date is also past as of this page’s update.

The later full-proposal date remains printed in the solicitation for invited teams. That does not mean the program is currently open to new applications. The NSF program page currently says a new solicitation is awaited and that the merit review process for proposals submitted in FY 2025 is continuing. Its solicitation status banner says proposals are not currently being accepted. Those notices do not announce a replacement deadline. The correct action for a prospective applicant is to monitor the NSF program page and funding search for a new notice; do not submit under this archived record unless NSF has specifically invited a team under the old solicitation.

For any future cycle, check the new solicitation for its deadline, intake process, budget range, and instructions. The older dates and process below are useful only to understand how NSF 24-598 was organized.

What a strong Mid-scale RI-1 proposal usually shows

A competitive proposal should make it easy for reviewers to answer four questions quickly:

1. Is the infrastructure need real and important?
2. Is the project the right scale for Mid-scale RI-1?
3. Can the team build and operate it?
4. 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.

Application process recorded in NSF 24-598

For the archived competition, preliminary proposals were required and submitted through Research.gov. Teams selected the solicitation in the preliminary proposal wizard and filed one proposal for the lead organization, with participating institutions funded through subawards. NSF did not allow separately submitted collaborative proposals. The submission had to identify the project as an implementation project or design activity and, for consortium projects, identify the consortium in the title.

The preliminary package described the infrastructure need, the project’s research value, the proposed capability, the team, and an initial cost estimate. NSF required project personnel and participating-organization lists, as well as the solicitation’s reviewer-selection spreadsheet sent by email. The preliminary proposal was a competitive screening stage, not an administrative notice of intent. Only applicants invited by NSF could submit a full proposal.

An invited full proposal used Research.gov and the Research Infrastructure proposal type. It expanded the technical and delivery case, including a Project Execution Plan for implementation or Design Execution Plan for design work, a detailed budget and justification, and the additional documents specified in the solicitation. Invited implementation and design proposals also had to include the required environmental checklist. Applicants were responsible for following the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide in effect for the applicable deadline. These instructions are preserved here as a record of NSF 24-598; they should not be used to apply to a future competition without checking its own notice.

Official links and monitoring

• NSF program page and current status: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/mid-scale-ri-1-mid-scale-research-infrastructure-1
• Archived NSF 24-598 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

An institution interested in a future Mid-scale RI-1 competition should monitor the current NSF program page and NSF funding search. When a new solicitation appears, verify who may submit, the allowable cost range, the deadline, and whether preliminary proposals or invitations are required. The previous competition’s design and implementation categories may offer useful context, but no term should be assumed to carry over unchanged.

Reading this archive responsibly

This entry preserves a substantial description of NSF 24-598 because infrastructure teams may need to understand the prior competition while planning institutional research capacity. The archive distinguishes the solicitation’s former application path from NSF’s present status. It does not indicate that NSF is accepting unsolicited preliminary proposals now, and it does not supply a speculative date for the next opportunity. The official program page is the source to consult for any change in status or publication of a replacement solicitation.