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

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

Status of this opportunity

This page is a historical reference for NSF solicitation 26-505. The official National Science Foundation solicitation identifies one competition, with a required Letter of Intent (LOI) due March 16, 2026 and a full proposal due May 14, 2026. Both submission dates have passed. The NSF program page and the solicitation page still provide the official description and label the document as the current version, but they do not list a replacement solicitation or a new submission window. Readers should not treat this entry as an open application opportunity or submit using the dates from this archive entry.

The solicitation was posted February 13, 2026 and replaced NSF 15-519. It established the National Quantum and Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NQNI) as a nationwide, open-access network of university user facility Sites. The program was designed to give researchers, students, businesses, and government users access to fabrication, characterization, instrumentation, technical expertise, training, and related services in quantum information science and engineering (QISE), nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology.

Verified program facts

The program page describes the same Site-level award range and estimated number of awards. The solicitation adds that approximately $12,000,000 to $20,000,000 in total funds would be available in each year of FY 2026-2030, subject to funding availability. An initial Site award would run for five years and may be renewed once for five more years after merit review. NSF also stated that it may hold limited additional competitions for critical technical needs or to replace non-performing Sites or the Coordinating Office. That possibility is not an announcement of a new round, so it does not change this page’s historical status.

What NQNI was intended to support

NQNI was structured around open-access user facilities rather than a conventional single-investigator research award. Sites were expected to serve regional communities and users who lacked access to advanced micro- and nano-fabrication, characterization equipment, training, or expertise. Potential external users included researchers at other academic institutions, startups, small and large businesses, and government organizations. The program also asked Sites to reach untapped populations and reduce barriers for industrial and small-business users.

The official program description says that NQNI funding would primarily support personnel and activities that recruit and train new external users. A Site could incorporate computational resources or remote use, but the solicitation emphasized hands-on experiences for external users. Education, training, workforce development, outreach, knowledge dissemination, student research, and postdoctoral training exchanges were also within scope. Proposed activities could be measured through publications, expanded datasets, new technologies or techniques, student training, and facility usage.

The program was not a request for construction or a general equipment purchase. NSF stated that NQNI funds could not be used for construction, acquisition, maintenance, or repair of physical infrastructure. The detailed budget instructions also said NSF funds could not be budgeted for direct research purposes. A strong proposal therefore needed to explain how existing capabilities, staff, institutional resources, and partnerships would make a shared facility more useful to external users. The core case was access and service: who would use the facility, how they would apply, how staff would train them, how projects would be accepted, and how the Site would measure its effect.

Open access had concrete operating implications. External academic users were required to pay the same fees as internal academic users, and Sites were expected to publish their fee schedules on their websites. Sites also needed an accessible public website describing their capabilities, tools, instruments, user fees, and access process without forcing prospective users to request credentials before seeing the basic information. Intellectual property protections, data management, laboratory safety, technical staffing, and support for non-traditional users were part of the operating model.

Eligibility and proposer structure

The solicitation directed proposers to the eligibility categories in PAPPG Chapter I.E. Unaffiliated individuals were not eligible to submit. The PI requirement was more specific: by the submission deadline, the PI had to hold either a tenured or tenure-track position or a full-time paid research appointment at a U.S.-based campus of an institution of higher education eligible to submit to the solicitation.

There was a limit of one proposal per organization and one proposal per PI or co-PI. That restriction made internal coordination important for institutions with several quantum or nanotechnology groups. The lead institution could include other institutions of higher education as subawardees or collaborative partners, but the proposal needed to make responsibilities, budgets, capabilities, and user-service roles clear.

The solicitation expected each Site to build meaningful regional connections. Sites were encouraged to partner with universities, nonprofit organizations, industry associations, government user facilities, and other infrastructure networks. The full proposal instructions said each Site should have a formal partnership with a community college, technical college, or equivalent educational institution and include programs that engage those students. These partnerships were tied to workforce development and broader access, not merely listed as endorsements.

Required application path for the closed cycle

The LOI was a required, one-page submission through Research.gov. An Authorized Organizational Representative had to submit it. The LOI title had to begin with “NQNI:” and identify the proposed activity. Its required content included the proposal title and lead organization, the PI’s name, department, organizational affiliation, and expertise, plus a synopsis of the proposed vision, key components, major activities, and goals. The Other Comments field could contain up to 2,500 characters and had to list senior or key personnel, funded and unfunded collaborators, affiliations, areas of expertise, and estimated total budget for each year and each funded partner institution. Multiple LOIs from the same PI were not permitted. The solicitation said LOIs were not reviewed as pre-approval mechanisms and that NSF would not provide feedback on them.

Preliminary proposals were not required. Full proposals could be submitted through Research.gov or Grants.gov, using the applicable PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide instructions. Collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions by multiple organizations had to use Research.gov. The full proposal title also had to begin with “NQNI: ”.

The full proposal project description had to cover eight core components: the participant list; the Site’s vision and goals; capabilities and user services; education, training, workforce development, outreach, and knowledge dissemination; partnerships; social and ethical implications where relevant; leadership and management; and an external advisory board. The capabilities section had to explain fabrication and characterization tools, the research fields served, internal and external users, application and project-acceptance processes, on-site and remote access, staffing, fees, intellectual property, and connections to other centers or networks.

The budget had to cover each year of the five-year Site proposal. A Site was limited to a maximum award request of $2,000,000 per year, including subawards or collaborative awards. The solicitation expected a major portion of NSF funds to support facility operation and staffing tied to expanding the external user base. Funded non-lead partners required separate subaward budgets and detailed justifications. The required supplemental package also included a specific statement of the role of each participating senior or key person, Letters of Collaboration from major external partners, and a Collaborators and Other Affiliations form for each senior or key person. Each lead institution proposal needed at least three and no more than ten Letters of Collaboration, each limited to one page and written by an organization or facility external to the lead institution.

How proposals would have been assessed

NSF would have applied the National Science Board’s Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, along with additional NQNI criteria. Those additional criteria focused on the quality of outreach, education, training, workforce development, and knowledge dissemination; the strength of the Site’s underlying research programs and management structure; the breadth of regional coverage and partnerships; and, where applicable, treatment of social, ethical, economic, and environmental aspects of quantum information and nanotechnologies or computational and modeling capabilities.

The review process could include ad hoc review, panel review, internal NSF review, or a reverse site review. Teams that moved forward could be asked to participate in a virtual reverse site visit to clarify questions raised during review. A technically impressive facility would not by itself satisfy the program. The proposal also had to show credible operations, public access, user support, workforce pathways, regional value, and measurable performance.

Guidance for future applicants

Because NSF has not announced a successor cycle on the official pages checked for this record, organizations should not reuse the dates, forms, page limits, or assumptions from NSF 26-505 without checking a newly published solicitation. If NSF posts another NQNI competition, the new document will control the deadline, eligible organizations, budget rules, required attachments, submission systems, and any changes to the Site model. A future team can still use this archive to understand the prior program’s emphasis on shared facilities, external users, regional partnerships, community and technical colleges, transparent fees, and workforce development, but those concepts should be matched against the new source before proposal planning begins.

The official source for the closed cycle is the NSF 26-505 solicitation. The NSF NQNI program page provides the program synopsis, award range, estimated number of Sites, program contacts, and links to the solicitation. Neither page supplies a current open deadline for a later round.