UKRI Translation: EPSRC ACT Proof of Concept 2026

UKRI Translation: EPSRC ACT Proof of Concept 2026

If you have an engineering or physical sciences result from a UKRI-funded project that is technically promising but still too early for a product launch, this is one of the clearest routes to raise that technology toward real-world use. The UKRI Translation: EPSRC ACT Proof of Concept funding opportunity is an application-based funding call aimed at early to mid-stage commercialisation in Advanced Connectivity Technologies (ACT) linked to sustainability, security, and network resilience.

This is not basic research funding. The scheme is explicitly for follow-on development: proof of concept, prototyping, translation, partner engagement, and commercial readiness. It is open to projects led from UK research organisations and designed to move university and lab outputs into implementation pathways such as licensing, commercial adoption, or spinout creation. Applications need to show clear user benefit, not simply good science.

What makes this call useful for 2026 applicants is that the call is currently open as of 2026-05-18 and closes on 27 May 2026. It is also relevant for people planning a 2027 start, since projects may start by 1 January 2027 and run for up to two years. For teams with prior EPSRC-backed research that now need de-risking support, this is one of the most directly relevant commercialisation calls.

At a Glance: Funding Snapshot

What this opportunity actually supports

The opportunity is about moving research results toward use, not just generating more research. The official scope can be read as two layers:

1. Scientific-technological translation: demonstrate that your technology, process, or service can advance from prior research to a clearly better real-world option.
2. Commercial pathway construction: create the pieces that make deployment credible, including partner alignment, route-to-market planning, and impact framing.

The eligible technical theme is explicitly Advanced Connectivity Technologies and must connect to DSIT connectivity challenge themes:

• Secure and resilient networks (trust, continuity, resilience, threat readiness, continuity in disruptive events, secure interoperability, energy-efficient security outcomes)
• Sustainable networks (energy efficiency, spectrum efficiency, lower lifecycle emissions, adaptive power use, sustainability-oriented design and deployment)

The call is aligned to national infrastructure resilience and economic growth priorities. In practical terms, accepted projects usually have a clear end-user problem, a definable demonstration pathway, and a team that can bridge research and deployment.

Importantly, this is not a generic “buy kit and run” grant. The official scope specifically discourages pure discovery work. If your concept is still at pure hypothesis stage without a route toward user/application, this is likely a mismatch.

What to expect in value and budget structure

A maximum of £500,000 FEC is possible, with a stated minimum/typical floor of £100,000. EPSRC funds up to 80% of FEC. That means applicants should build a realistic project budget where institutional contribution, matched costs, and in-kind support are credible, especially where project infrastructure and staff support are needed.

Eligible cost categories

The funding opportunity page explicitly lists what can be funded:

• Project lead and co-lead salaries
• Specialist and technical staff support
• Research consumables
• Travel
• Collaboration and stakeholder engagement
• Impact and knowledge exchange activities
• Estates and indirect costs
• Equipment costs between £25,000 and £400,000 per item

The application does not require pre-submitting all equipment quotes, but it explicitly says quotations for equipment above £138,000 should be retained for potential post-panel checks. That matters because teams often underestimate procurement lead times and audit expectations.

What it will not fund

This route is constrained to translation and commercialisation outcomes. It will not support:

• fundamental or discovery-only research
• patent/trademark/design filing as standalone expenditure
• project designs focused only on training
• projects whose core is contract research on behalf of commercial firms
• initiatives that are already better funded by the private sector or other schemes
• projects outside remit

That exclusion list is very practical. It helps teams decide whether to pursue this as a follow-on path or to reroute to a different grant type.

How money should be justified

In your cost plan, show that each cost line supports translation outcomes. Since full applications are assessed and costs can only vary by around 10% from outline stage, build a conservative base budget with room for minimal adjustment. The page also indicates standard project support expectations around research team roles and cost reasonableness.

A strong approach in this section is to avoid “nice but unnecessary” spending and focus on budget components with measurable milestones:

• prototype proof milestones
• stakeholder pilot support
• specialist input for compliance, IP, market readiness
• staff time connected directly to deliverables

Eligibility and strategic fit

The eligibility model is strict and organisationally specific.

Individual-level requirements

The project lead is the official application owner. They must:

• be based at a UK organisation eligible for EPSRC funding
• hold a lecturer-equivalent role or approved equivalent position in a UK HEI, research council institute, or UKRI-approved independent research organisation
• be on a contract that covers the project duration (or have suitable contract arrangements in the case of project leadership rules)

Project co-leads can play a key role, and co-leads can be slightly more flexible, but the lead has the primary eligibility and responsibility.

Research history requirement

Applications should show a direct link to existing prior work. The call requires prior awards in the relevant field to support a follow-on story, with start date on or after 1 January 2020 for eligible prior funding. Prior awards can include research grants, fellowships, or training grants and can come from EPSRC, other UKRI councils, Horizon Europe, industry, or similar sources.

Organisation-level requirements

Only the lead research organisation can submit through the UKRI Funding Service. A common failure mode is leaving internal registration to the end. If your institution is not yet connected on UKRI’s Funding Service, you can lose weeks. The page requires you to build your submission workflow around institutional checks in research office/finance early.

International and scope constraints

This call is UK-centred. International applicants outside the UK are not eligible. The page also makes clear that work should not be a standalone curiosity-driven project; it should demonstrate technical and commercial relevance.

If your team has an excellent technical lead but no institutional pathway (or weak employer sign-off), that is often a harder barrier than the science.

Who this opportunity fits (and who should avoid it)

The scheme is suitable for:

• university-led projects with near-commercial outputs
• research groups with a prototype or validation-ready concept
• teams ready to engage industry/user partners
• projects requiring proof-of-concept funds to move from paper/TRL risk to demonstrable pathway
• teams with prior EPSRC or UKRI-funded outputs starting from 2020 onward

It is usually less suitable for:

• early-stage blue-sky research without translational route
• applicants without institutional support for grant administration
• teams seeking only academic papers
• projects where IP filing is the main cost and translational logic is weak

The strongest applications combine all three: technical credibility, market problem clarity, and team credibility.

Application process, key deadlines, and operational details

This is one of the more administratively controlled UKRI routes, so process precision matters.

Step-by-step application path

The official process uses the UKRI Funding Service, not Je-S. In summary:

1. Confirm you are the project lead and your host organisation is eligible.
2. Access the opportunity through the Funding Service and begin the outline application.
3. Submit draft text in the portal, with staged save/review.
4. Upload required materials where applicable.
5. Route draft to your research office for internal checks.
6. Submit via the host institution to UKRI.

The Funding Service route matters because institutional registration and account handling can delay teams who come to the system at the last week.

Deadline discipline

The official deadline is 27 May 2026 at 4:00 PM UK time. UKRI states no applications after this time.

A practical working timeline is to target internal submission at least one to two working days before the public deadline. Institutional review teams and finance checks can fail a submission if rushed.

Two-stage assessment structure

This opportunity has a formal outline → full application process.

• Outline application is evaluated against four criteria: vision, approach, team capability, and fit to scope.
• Only invited applicants move to full application.
• The funded project brief and resources must stay tightly aligned between outline and full stages; costs may only shift by a small margin (documented as around 10%).
• No feedback is given after outline stage.

A useful planning implication: the outline needs to be “decision-ready” already. Do not treat it as exploratory. Because many applicants are cut at outline, the first stage must contain your strongest evidence and argument, not placeholders.

Expected assessment windows

Funding panel timing in the official guidance indicates autumn review and outcomes later in the year. This helps teams planning for project start: even if you are shortlisted, outcomes typically arrive after full application evaluation rather than immediate. Align lab capacity, recruitment, and budget locking around that sequence.

Internal governance and risk checks

Assessors will look for evidence of:

• user and stakeholder relevance
• commercial viability path
• ethical and responsible innovation handling
• trusted research and innovation safeguards
• resource realism

These are not abstract checkboxes. For teams using collaborators and external partners, explicitly mapping responsibility and risk handling can materially improve scores.

Proposal strategy that matches UKRI review logic

Reviewers use an explicit criteria set. The best strategy is to structure the application so each criterion can be clearly checked.

1) Vision: make the “why now” argument explicit

UKRI assessors need to see why this specific proposal is timely and useful in 2026–2027, not just “interesting science.” Your vision response should answer:

• What specific user or industry problem does it solve?
• Why existing solutions are not enough?
• Why this project now is the right moment (technically and commercially)?

This should explicitly map to one or both DSIT themes.

2) Approach: avoid speculative claims without milestones

Outline your approach as a sequence:

• baseline state of technology
• required development step to reduce technical risk
• partner engagement to validate demand
• metrics to demonstrate progress

Avoid language like “we will create a market.” Use outcomes like “reduce latency under X conditions” or “validate power savings by Y% in pilot.” The assessment language expects measurable progression.

3) Team capability: balance leadership and execution depth

UKRI wants the lead and team to be credible. Include:

• role clarity for project lead and co-leads
• evidence of previous related deliverables
• specialist support where needed
• partner institutions with delivery capacity

The official form supports a role-based team format; keep this aligned in your draft.

4) Fit-to-scope: show this call is the right route

Your narrative should show why this is not a better fit for another standard grant or private funding stream. The strongest evidence is a side-by-side “why this now” against prior funding:

• what was achieved in earlier grant funding
• what gap remains before commercial impact
• why this opportunity fills that gap without duplicating other mechanisms

5) Impact and TR&I readiness

Even in technical calls, reviewers are looking for responsible, trusted pathways:

• how risks in user deployment are controlled
• how international collaboration is handled safely where relevant
• how ethical, legal, or security concerns are managed

Treat these as integral to proposal quality, not compliance add-ons.

Common mistakes that usually weaken applications

Mistake: Framing as a research continuation only

If your proposal reads like another incremental grant extension, it will be rejected quickly. The page explicitly says this is not a standard research grant route.

Mistake: Weak connection to previous award

“Prior work” should be specific. Mention award numbers, outputs, and what was built. Show that this proposal is one step forward from that work.

Mistake: Ignoring the institution submission architecture

Many applications fail not on technical merit but operational timing: missing institutional registration, late account creation, finance checks ignored.

Mistake: Budget drift between outline and full stages

Because cost changes are tightly constrained, teams that treat outline as a placeholder often struggle later. Build a realistic base budget and then adjust only with justification.

Mistake: Underspecified partner and stakeholder pathways

You can have excellent engineering and still fail if reviewers cannot see who will use it, under what conditions, and how deployment risk is handled.

Mistake: Submitting with abstract claims

Words like “disruptive” or “transformational” without measurable indicators are weak. Show pathway logic and evidence points.

Practical prep checklist (next two weeks is the ideal window)

If you are within 1–2 weeks of opening or still deciding whether to apply:

1. Confirm lead and host eligibility.
2. Map your proposal to one of the two DSIT themes with evidence.
3. Pull prior award evidence and proof it started after 1 January 2020.
4. Draft a one-page evidence pack for why this route is needed.
5. Confirm institutional registration status on the UKRI Funding Service.
6. Identify three internal review windows (lead, research office, finance/legal if needed).
7. Pre-draft all sections against the four outline criteria and assessment areas.
8. Set internal deadline at least 5–7 days before official close.

Frequently asked questions

Is this call still open?

As listed on the official opportunity page, status is currently open and closes at 27 May 2026, 4:00 PM UK time.

What funding can this support?

Award range is £100,000 to £500,000 FEC, with total programme funding at £5.5 million and EPSRC funding up to 80% of FEC.

Who is eligible to lead?

The project lead must be attached to a UK research organisation eligible for EPSRC funding, and usually hold a lecturer-equivalent role or equivalent position in a UK institution.

Can companies apply directly?

No—applications are submitted by eligible lead research organisations through the UKRI Funding Service, not directly by private firms.

Are students eligible as project leads?

The public summary page sets role-based requirements and contract expectations. The lead must meet organisational and contract criteria. Doctoral-candidate-stage applicants should check role eligibility and contract conditions before relying on this route.

Is this only for networking and telecom?

It is for Advanced Connectivity Technologies with strong links to secure/resilient and sustainable networking outcomes. The application should clearly fit those challenge themes.

What happens after the outline stage?

There is no feedback at outline stage. Invited applicants proceed to full application and face stricter review criteria including stakeholder engagement, ethics, and detailed resource justification.

Official application resources

Use only official channels:

• Main opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/ukri-translation-epsrc-act-proof-of-concept/
• UKRI Funding Service guidance for submission and reviewer workflow links listed on the page itself
• EPSRC support email listed on the opportunity page for opportunity-specific questions: [email protected]
• General UKRI funding service helpdesk support: [email protected]

The safest operating model is to treat any external links as route guidance only and complete your core due diligence from the primary UKRI page.

Why this is “real money + real pathway” and why timing matters

This is not a scholarship or stipend award. It is a structured research commercialisation instrument with a clear budget profile, assessment architecture, and publication of outcomes. For teams in 2026 and into 2027, the practical upside is this:

• you can bridge the gap between “promising lab result” and “deployable proof point”
• you can fund key people and activities required to attract future commercial and implementation investment
• you can keep the application anchored in UKRI-recognized standards of governance and review

The downside is it requires strong preparation discipline. If you treat this as a “write when convenient” proposal, outcomes are poor. If you build from the call’s logic (scope fit, translational proof, partner logic, cost realism), it becomes a credible route for genuinely high-potential research outputs.

From a planning perspective, this is one of the better UKRI routes for 2026/2027 if your project is no longer purely academic but not yet investment ready for larger scale rounds. The current window is narrow, but that can be an advantage: focused scope, clear criteria, and high comparability between applications.

If you are preparing one now, your next move is simple:

• lock the thematic fit in writing
• align eligibility with prior awards
• lock institutional logistics first
• then draft around the four outline criteria

That sequence avoids avoidable late-stage rejection and gives the best chance to advance to the full application stage.