Strategic infrastructure outlines – EPSRC strategic infrastructure funding

Strategic infrastructure outlines – EPSRC strategic infrastructure funding

Strategic infrastructure outlines is an open UKRI opportunity, hosted by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), for institutions that can justify large infrastructure investments as a strategic necessity rather than optional additions. The opportunity is published as part of UKRI’s Funding Service and is currently open. The published closing date is 18 June 2026, with a listed note that the service may close then to implement platform changes and is expected to reopen around September 2026. Because it is treated as an open funding opportunity on the new Funding Service, the page does not operate like a one-day grant campaign; applications can be submitted when they are ready.

Key details

What this opportunity funds

The opportunity is explicitly for purchasing strategic infrastructure and resources to support infrastructure at scale. It is not a traditional project grant for consumables-heavy research activities. UKRI describes two tracks under the same route:

• Route one: Strategic infrastructure — purchase and setup of strategic infrastructure for high-priority EPSRC remit work.
• Route two: Resources to support existing strategic infrastructure — invited applicants can request support for utilization, sharing, and sustainability activities around already-installed infrastructure.

Route one is the broad path and is more generally available; route two is invitation-only and specifically requires prior approval from the relevant EPSRC theme lead. Route two also has a strict maximum two-year duration because it is to support existing infrastructure rather than to fund long-term capital expansion.

This distinction is important. Many institutions fail at the first step by treating route two as a generic top-up fund for any facility need. In EPSRC terms, route two applications are for growth in use, sharing and sustainability of installed infrastructure, not for buying another major asset.

What the opportunity explicitly does not fund

UKRI states that it will not fund:

• Costs supporting individual research projects, such as research project consumables or research project-specific consumable time.
• Standard base infrastructure that should exist in a normal lab environment.
• Software, software development, or cloud credits.
• Long-term replacement of existing support (in route two this includes maintenance/service-replacement-style asks).
• New rounds of postdoctoral project funding through route two.

For projects about instrumentation modifications or novel instrument development, applicants are directed to responsive mode instrument-development pathways instead. This is a hard boundary: if your ask is mostly an instrument engineering program with a research output intent, this funding route is probably not the right fit.

Who can apply and who should avoid applying

The page defines a clear institutional baseline:

• You must be based at an institution eligible for EPSRC funding.
• The lead institution and applicant roles must comply with EPSRC and UKRI eligibility guidance.
• New UKRI role types are used, including project lead and project co-lead roles.
• A research technical professional can be a project lead or co-lead only when appointment conditions and scope are clearly appropriate and their contract extends beyond project duration.

The critical strategic filter from EPSRC’s perspective is simple but strict: applications are treated as institutional strategic priorities, not “nice-to-have” add-ons.

You should avoid submitting here if any of these are true:

• The infrastructure is mainly to support a single project with no broader user community.
• You can only describe one-off project consumables and not shared scientific capacity.
• The work is not within EPSRC remit.
• You expect this funding to cover routine baseline operational costs of already-existing facilities.
• You do not yet have institutional-level governance for prioritising infrastructure within your strategy.

Funding minimums, budget logic, and cost expectations

At minimum, the requested infrastructure must be at least £400,000 FEC. This is stated as a minimum threshold, and can be met by one large item or a package of assets that form one combined infrastructure asset. It cannot be met by accumulating unrelated standalone items. The threshold applies to infrastructure itself, not to fragmented low-value purchases.

For route one, eligible funding may include:

• capital infrastructure and digital infrastructure
• equipment and associated essential digital assets like central processing infrastructure
• non-capital costs only where justified in support of the infrastructure

Key budget rules include:

• Up to 100% FEC may be requested for qualifying infrastructure costs.
• Non-capital costs are typically funded at 80% FEC.
• Quotes are not required at outline stage, but they are required later and must include VAT.
• You should record equipment costs under the correct UKRI budget headings (including the 25,000+£ equipment rule and the “Exceptions – Equipment” / “DI – other” distinction).

This matters because weak budget architecture is a common reviewer complaint in infrastructure calls: the project can look strong scientifically but fail on cost clarity.

Route two has different logic. It is expected to fund non-capital resources to increase usage and sustainability, with a strong requirement that sustainability and demand are clear. The page is explicit that funding is not for ongoing staffing replacement and should function as seed/invest-to-save support.

Institutional strategy requirements and the six-application limit

A particularly strict institutional rule affects planning: EPSRC expects a maximum of six applications per institution in a single annual window between 18 June 2025 and 17 June 2026 across this opportunity and related infrastructure tracks, including certain linked National Research Facility and Infrastructure Fund calls. Additional applications are auto-rejected. This acts as a quality control mechanism, not a quota to fill.

Institution-level implications:

• Institutions should only submit outlines that reflect strategic priority, not opportunistic volume.
• Internal review must compare “existing strategic infrastructure” and “strategic infrastructure” routes together.
• You should treat this as a portfolio decision and not as a free lane for all departments to apply.

For applicants, this means if your institution has already used its allocation, a technically compliant outline may still be ineligible due to institutional limits. The practical workaround is not to broaden scope but to coordinate early with internal strategy leads and avoid late submissions.

Application process and where teams usually lose time

This opportunity runs on the UKRI Funding Service, not Je-S. UKRI explicitly states to use “Start application” from the Funding Finder and then complete the online form.

The official process is straightforward, but the internal timeline can be the bottleneck. A practical sequence:

1. Confirm role and project lead eligibility.
2. Register or verify the institution in Funding Service.
3. Create/verify account and coordinate with research office.
4. Draft all section-level responses directly in the online system (the system supports iterative save/return).
5. Route the draft internally for research office checks.
6. Submit through the institution.

Important detail: create the UKRI organization admin account early if your institution is newly added; support may take up to 10 working days before applications can be submitted and managed.

How the selection process works (outline vs full)

The process is two-stage and separate:

• Outline stage: EPSRC internal panel review on the outline criteria.
• Full stage (only for invited proposals): independent peer review, then shortlisting, then interview/panels depending on route and size.

Notably, the outline stage is assessed by internal staff; reviewers are not expected to judge deep technical feasibility so much as coherence, strategic fit, institutional need, sustainability model, and cost realism against the criteria. This is crucial for framing:

• Emphasise why the infrastructure is strategically necessary for institutional capability.
• Show clear user demand and demand-driven growth.
• Demonstrate institutional governance for access, charging, and long-term use.

If shortlisted at full stage, applications can be interviewed. For invited proposals, a response window of 14 days to reviewer comments is stated. Feedback is limited at outline stage: only invited and invited-to-resubmit outcomes generally receive feedback.

Practical strategy for a competitive outline

The strongest applications are not the most technically dense; they are the most strategically convincing. Structure your submission around EPSRC’s actual criteria and the UKRI instructions:

Purpose and vision

Make a direct case that the proposed asset unlocks transformative or high-resolution research that cannot be achieved without it and that the capability is within EPSRC themes. Tie the request to specific research areas and existing strategic plans at the host institution. The page frames “why this infrastructure now” as more important than “why this is a worthwhile science project”.

Approach, accessibility, sustainability

You need credible mechanisms for:

• governance and access model,
• user-base development and diversity,
• training and technical staff continuity,
• cost recovery and sustainability beyond the grant,
• environmental/operational implications where relevant.

This section is often scored poorly when applicants submit infrastructure plans as if they were a temporary purchase request.

Applicant and host institution capability

Demonstrate institutional readiness:

• host facilities,
• existing support structures,
• procurement and installation management,
• existing leadership or project staff track record,
• ability to scale user communities.

The page explicitly calls out that only one project lead should be listed, with clear role definitions (e.g., specialist, grant manager, technician, etc.), so your team structure should reflect a realistic operations model.

Costs and justification

Keep this section precise, not elaborate:

• show direct costs, allocated costs, and indirect costs,
• split capital vs non-capital clearly,
• identify likely institutional or partner contributions, if any,
• justify timescales for procurement, setup, and rollout,
• ensure outline costs are realistic within ±10% tolerance at later stage.

Document and data quality

Applications should be self-contained and avoid open web links in the core argument. UKRI wants references where needed but expects assessors to evaluate without external browsing. A strong submission uses clear provenance and concise sources (especially when claiming community demand or prior usage metrics) without overloading the narrative.

Compliance pitfalls to avoid

1. Submitting before internal strategic alignment: if your institution has not designated this as strategically essential, the proposal is vulnerable.
2. Treating route two as a generic budget top-up: route two is invitation-only and only for already funded or identified infrastructure, with clear sharing/utilization goals.
3. Overstating capital where only non-capital is sensible: route two should avoid capital claims (with limited exceptions noted in EPSRC definitions).
4. Ignoring the institutional limit: if your institution has exhausted route capacity, a technically valid application can be blocked automatically.
5. Including project-specific consumables as core costs: these are excluded under the stated scope.
6. Late registration of institution/admin accounts: Funding Service onboarding delays can derail otherwise solid applications.
7. Misaligned budget headings: the under/over £25,000 equipment split and heading requirements can create compliance issues.

Timeline and decision planning around a moving close date

The funding page shows a published close date of 18 June 2026 (16:00 UK time) and also clarifies this is a systems placeholder, with EPSRC noting that the opportunity is processed throughout the year and not linked to a single “submit on a day and wait” cycle. This is unusual for readers used to fixed deadlines.

As a practical plan:

• set a rolling internal deadline 6–8 weeks before the published close date,
• target a soft internal freeze earlier still to allow internal review,
• treat any UKRI system notices as potentially changing the exact external “closed” window,
• if you see a near-term system close, prioritize submission and do not depend on late-stage edits the final week.

For institutions, pair your timeline with the six-application limit window; submissions should be deliberate and coordinated.

Who this call fits best

This opportunity is strong for institutions with:

• substantial existing or planned infrastructure strategy,
• clear demand for shared, strategic facilities,
• leadership that can sustain operation and cost-recovery,
• willingness to present a broad capability case rather than a narrow science proposal.

It is especially suitable for advanced labs, centres, and consortium-type groups where infrastructure can be shared across projects and where the grant directly advances regional or national capability rather than only one grant’s output. It can also be relevant for facilities requiring additional support to broaden user uptake and improve sustainability after initial capital acquisition.

Eligibility and geography quick check

This is not a person-first program in the usual sense of scholarships or fellowships; it is institution-led through a UK research organisation. A key practical check:

• Is your institution formally eligible for EPSRC and able to submit through UKRI?
• Is the infrastructure primarily within EPSRC thematic scope?
• Is your case strategic and institutionally ratified?
• If route two: has the theme lead invited you?
• Can non-UK co-leads be included and in what capacity? (The opportunity page states some international cooperation agreements do not apply to this call.)

For the current page, international collaboration structures linked to certain agreements are excluded for project co-leads. International partners can still be included as project partners where relevant, but co-lead structure needs to comply with the specific funding rules.

Contact and support channel map

Official channels listed for this opportunity:

• Funding application process support: [email protected]
• Opportunity-specific questions: [email protected]
• Sensitive application updates: [email protected] (with required context in subject)
• Additional system help for the UKRI Funding Service is available through UKRI/EPSRC support channels and research office help resources.

For practical readiness, advise applicants to involve their research office early and route questions there first for cost and internal process alignment.

FAQ

Is this call only for new infrastructure purchases?

No. It has two routes. Route one is for purchasing and setup of strategic infrastructure. Route two covers support for existing infrastructure but is only for invited applicants and is mostly about increased use and sustainability, not new capital purchase.

Is there a fixed grant amount?

The page publishes a minimum investment threshold of £400,000 but does not provide a fixed total funding envelope for this opportunity. Use internal budget planning tools to estimate full life-cycle FEC requirements.

Can an individual institution submit many proposals?

No. EPSRC indicates a practical limit of six applications per institution across the linked period, with excess submissions auto-rejected.

Can a postdoc or research assistant lead the application?

A research technical professional can lead in some cases, but only under role and responsibility criteria. Project lead responsibilities, role appropriateness, and contract duration are checked.

Does this replace project grants?

No. It is infrastructure-focused and should not be used to fund project consumables or project-specific research activities. Think capacity and shared capability first, not individual experimental program funding.

What is the most important thing to optimise in the application?

Strategic necessity and institutional fit. The assessors expect a clear line from infrastructure need to strategic impact, user demand, accessibility, and sustainability.

Official links

• Official opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/strategic-infrastructure-outlines/
• UKRI Funding Service (submission pathway): https://www.ukri.org/
• EPSRC research areas and related policies: official EPSRC site and documentation links are listed from the opportunity page.

This call is effectively a gateway for institutions that can demonstrate that infrastructure is central to national and institutional strategy. If your team already has a technology road map and can prove measurable demand and a post-award operating model, this is one of the most relevant UK mechanisms for scaling non-project-critical research infrastructure.