RFA-RM-26-017: Pilot Projects Enhancing Utility and Usage of Common Fund Data Sets (R03 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

RFA-RM-26-017: Pilot Projects Enhancing Utility and Usage of Common Fund Data Sets (R03 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

Historical status

This page is a historical reference for the 2026 RFA-RM-26-017 cycle. The NIH Common Fund’s official funding page lists the opportunity with a June 23, 2026 due date, while the full notice gives June 24, 2026 as its expiration date. The cycle is closed. The official Common Fund funding-opportunities page does not announce a later replacement for this RFA, so applicants should not treat this page as an open call or assume that a new deadline has been set.

The archived notice remains useful for understanding the program’s scope, the types of data work NIH wanted to support, and the submission requirements that applied to this cycle. It should not be used as evidence that applications are still being accepted.

Key details

What the program funded

RFA-RM-26-017 was intended for small, defined projects that make NIH Common Fund data more useful to the research community. The notice described three connected goals: support pilot studies that analyze data across Common Fund resources, improve utility through workflows and analytic or simulation tools, and show the added value of integrating several Common Fund resources for biomedical questions.

The award was not a general-purpose research grant for generating a large new dataset. Applicants were expected to start from existing Common Fund data and show why the selected resources could answer a meaningful question together. A project could build synthetic cohorts, compare datasets, harmonize metadata, create tools for visualization or interoperability, curate and annotate information, develop predictive or machine-learning methods, or analyze data across platforms. The common thread was a specific product or finding that would make an existing resource easier to use or more informative.

The notice required substantial use of eligible Common Fund data in the research products envisioned by the project, such as manuscripts, presentations, portals, or other outputs. Applicants could add other public datasets. They also had to explain why the selected datasets were appropriate, demonstrate that the work was feasible, and show how it could generate preliminary or validation results for later research.

There was an important eligibility route for MoTrPAC. A proposal could qualify by substantially using Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity in Humans data with or without additional external study data. Proposals using MoTrPAC together with other listed Common Fund datasets could also compete with the broader set of multi-Common-Fund applications. Up to two awards were reserved for MoTrPAC data. This means the old shorthand that every proposal had to use two Common Fund datasets is incomplete: two or more listed Common Fund programs were required for the standard route, but a MoTrPAC-focused route was also available.

Budget and project period

NIH limited application budgets to $200,000 in direct costs for a one-year project, excluding subcontract facilities and administrative costs. The requested amount had to reflect the actual needs of the proposed work. NIH expected to commit approximately $4,000,000 in FY 2026 and anticipated 10–13 awards, subject to appropriations and the availability of scientifically meritorious applications. Those figures described the planned portfolio, not a guaranteed award count or an entitlement for every eligible submission.

The project period could not exceed one year. If experimental work was included, the associated research activities were limited to 20% of the requested project budget. The notice also expected awardees to attend a two-day CFDE Consortium meeting in Bethesda and offered opportunities to present at a scientific meeting and an additional external scientific meeting or symposium. Travel and related expenses for the CFDE meeting and the secondary presentation meeting could not exceed $5,000 in total costs.

The budget therefore favored a tightly scoped data project: a defined integration or analysis, a defensible validation step, and a useful public or repository-ready output. A proposal centered on extensive sample collection, a long wet-lab program, or a multi-year product build would have been poorly matched to this mechanism.

Eligibility and restrictions

The notice listed a broad set of eligible applicant organizations. These included public and private higher education institutions; nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status; small businesses and other for-profit organizations; local, state, county, city, special-district, and eligible tribal governments; eligible federal agencies; U.S. territories or possessions; independent school districts; public housing authorities; Native American tribal organizations; faith- or community-based organizations; and regional organizations.

Foreign organizations and non-U.S. components of U.S. organizations were not eligible to apply. Foreign components were allowed under the notice, but NIH stated that foreign subawards and subcontracts could not be included. That distinction matters for a U.S. applicant with international scientific participation: an unfunded collaboration or permitted foreign component was not the same thing as a funded foreign subaward. Applicants needed to review the NIH Grants Policy Statement and the notice before assigning any international role.

The PD or PI had to hold an eRA Commons account and work with the organization to establish the correct affiliation. An individual who served as both PD/PI and organizational Signing Official needed two distinct eRA Commons accounts. NIH also excluded PDs/PIs and senior or key investigators associated with the Data Coordinating Centers of Common Fund programs, PDs/PIs of funded CFDE Centers, PDs/PIs of the related RFA-RM-23-013 resource-partnership program, and researchers involved in DCC activities as senior or key investigators. Applicants uncertain about that restriction were directed to contact the program officers before submission.

No cost sharing was required. Applicant organizations had to complete active SAM and Grants.gov registrations, use a consistent UEI, and register in eRA Commons before submitting. NIH warned that registration can take six weeks or more, and late registration was not a valid reason for a late application.

Application requirements and submission route

The cycle accepted new applications only. A proposal had to use at least one dataset from each of at least two eligible Common Fund programs for the standard route, or meet the separate MoTrPAC route described above. The research plan needed to justify the dataset choices, describe how the resources would be integrated, show that the team had access or a credible access path before the award start date, and explain the expected scientific or practical value.

Applicants were required to follow the NIH Research instructions and the program-specific directions in the notice. The application package had to be accessed through one of three electronic paths:

1. Prepare, submit, and track the application in NIH ASSIST.
2. Use an institutional system-to-system solution to submit through Grants.gov and track the application in eRA Commons.
3. Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit, then use eRA Commons to track it.

Paper applications were not accepted. The organization had to submit through Grants.gov, and the applicant then had to complete the NIH tracking process in eRA Commons. All applications were due by 5:00 PM local time of the applicant organization. NIH advised applicants to submit early enough to correct errors. A changed or corrected application submitted after the deadline would be late, and applicants were responsible for viewing the application in eRA Commons before the deadline to confirm successful submission.

The research plan had to address data management and sharing regardless of the amount of direct costs requested. Applicants needed to describe the anticipated timeline, formats, and methods for depositing computational products, annotations, derived or aggregated outputs, and other products into a relevant Common Fund Data Coordinating Center, CFDE-affiliated resource, or another public repository. Tools, pipelines, and workflows were expected to be shared through open-access channels where applicable. Projects combining Common Fund data with controlled-access genomic data also had to describe the access database, data-use limitations, population applicability, and, where needed, an Institutional Certification or Provisional Certification for submission to an NIH-approved repository.

How a compliant proposal would have been organized

The strongest preparation sequence for this closed cycle would have been practical and evidence-based:

• Confirm that the organization, PD/PI, collaborators, and any international roles met the notice’s restrictions.
• Select the standard two-program route or the MoTrPAC route, then confirm that the relevant datasets were accessible before the proposed award start.
• Define one research question that genuinely requires the selected resources rather than placing two datasets side by side without a shared analysis.
• Specify the integration method, quality controls, missing-data handling, validation plan, and a deliverable that another research group could use.
• Prepare the Data Management and Sharing Plan, repository or CFDE deposition path, tool-sharing plan, and any controlled-access documentation.
• Complete SAM, UEI, Grants.gov, and eRA Commons registrations and confirm that the PD/PI Commons credentials are present in the application.
• Build the SF424(R&R) package in ASSIST, the institutional system-to-system channel, or Grants.gov Workspace; observe NIH page limits and all R instructions.
• Submit through Grants.gov and verify the application in eRA Commons before the June 23 deadline, leaving time for corrections.

For this cycle, review centered on the importance and innovation of the research, the rigor and feasibility of the approach, and the investigators and environment. A compelling application needed more than a fashionable method. It had to explain the biomedical problem, provide a credible reason that the selected Common Fund resources belonged together, and show that the project could produce reproducible results within one year.

Who this opportunity did not fit

This mechanism was a poor match for a project whose main activity was collecting a new, large cohort; a proposal needing several years of translational work; or an application that used only one Common Fund program without qualifying through the MoTrPAC route. It also did not fit clinical trials, funded foreign subawards or subcontracts, or work led by the excluded Common Fund and CFDE personnel categories. Teams without the required registrations, data access plan, or capacity to share outputs in a public or designated repository would have faced avoidable compliance problems.

Official links

• Full RFA-RM-26-017 notice
• NIH Common Fund funding opportunities
• NIH How to Apply - Application Guide
• NIH eRA Commons
• Grants.gov

Bottom line

RFA-RM-26-017 was a one-year NIH Common Fund R03 for making existing biomedical data more useful through well-defined integration, analysis, curation, or tooling. It offered up to $200,000 in direct costs, required a standard proposal to use data from at least two eligible Common Fund programs or to meet the MoTrPAC-specific route, prohibited clinical trials, and required electronic submission with NIH registration and data-sharing plans. The 2026 application window is closed, and no subsequent cycle is announced on the official Common Fund funding page. Keep the June 23 deadline as the archive’s real historical date; consult NIH and the Common Fund directly before planning around any future reissue.