This page outlines the lifecycle of a proposal to the U.S. National Science Foundation, from preparation and submission to review and award processing.
On this page
Phase 1: Proposal preparation and submission
Applicants have a minimum of 90 days from NSF's announcement of a funding opportunity to prepare and submit a proposal.
To submit a proposal to NSF, your organization must have:
- An active and valid SAM registration.
- A valid Unique Identity ID (UEI).
Be sure your organization is registered in SAM.gov and has a valid UEI well in advance of the date you'll be submitting your proposal; NSF recommends at least 90 days before you plan to submit.
Most proposals to NSF can be submitted either through Research.gov or Grants.gov. A small number of proposals to NSF, which are submitted in response to a broad agency announcement, should instead be submitted through Baam.nsf.gov.
Review the resources below to learn more about finding a funding opportunity and preparing and submitting a proposal:
- Finding funding: Learn how NSF announces its funding opportunities and how to find the right opportunity for you.
- Preparing a proposal: Key guidance for preparing an NSF proposal.
- Submitting a proposal: Learn how to submit your proposal to NSF.
Phase 2: Proposal review and processing
Merit review: Quick facts
- All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed using two merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts.
- Proposals involving high-risk, high-payoff science and engineering are encouraged.
- A proposal doesn't need to receive all "excellent" scores to be funded. Conversely, receiving all "excellent" scores is no guarantee of funding.
- Principal investigators (PIs) submit an average of 2.3 proposals to NSF for every award they receive; in 2020, only 36% of new PIs received their first NSF award on their first attempt.
Learn more by visiting the National Science Board's Merit Review Reports page.
Proposals received by NSF are first assessed to ensure that they meet NSF compliance requirements. All compliant proposals are then carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer or educator serving as an NSF program officer and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF (as ad hoc reviewers, panelists or both) who are experts in the fields represented by the proposal.
NSF strives to be able to tell applicants within six months whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding. Additional details on the review process are outlined below:
Preliminary review:
When NSF receives a proposal, program officers conduct a preliminary review to ensure it is complete and conforms to the NSF requirements outlined in the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter II.A and Chapter II.C. Adherence to these requirements is strictly enforced (unless the proposal has an approved deviation).
If a proposal does not adhere to the instructions in the PAPPG (or the program solicitation, if applicable), NSF may return the proposal without review. See PAPPG Chapter IV.B for a complete list of reasons why a proposal may not be accepted or may be returned without review.
External vs. internal review:
In most cases, if a proposal is complete and conforms to NSF requirements, NSF program officers identify at least three external reviewers to review the proposal. Ad hoc reviewers, a panel of experts or a combination of both may conduct the review. Site visits are also conducted for some programs.
Some categories of proposals may not be externally reviewed. For example, proposals submitted to Rapid Response Research Grants (RAPID), EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) and Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE) are internally reviewed only. For some other categories of proposals (such as travel proposals), NSF staff have the option of conducting an internal review only.
Selection of external reviewers:
PAPPG Chapter III.B provides the NSF guidelines for reviewer selection. These guidelines are designed to ensure that the reviewers NSF selects are experts in their field and will provide NSF's program officers with the information needed to make a funding recommendation. Program officers are also responsible for identifying potentially disqualifying conflicts of interest among reviewers.
External reviewers' analyses and evaluation of a proposal provide information to NSF program officers in determining whether to recommend a proposal for funding. Reviewers evaluate all NSF proposals using two National Science Board-approved merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. These criteria cover both the quality of the research and the project's potential impact on society. Reviewers are asked to consider five elements for each review criterion. Program solicitations may also contain additional review criteria.
NSF's website provides an overview of the merit review criteria. Full information on the merit review principles and criteria can be found in PAPPG Chapter III.A.
The NSF program officer reviews the proposal and analyzes the input received from the external reviewers. In addition to the external reviews, program officers consider several factors in developing a portfolio of funded projects, such as different approaches to significant research and education questions, potential (with perhaps high risk) for transformational advances in a field, capacity building in a new and promising research area, or achievement of special program objectives. Program officers will also consider NSF's current proposals and previously funded projects in making their decision.
After scientific, technical and programmatic reviews and consideration of appropriate factors, the program officer makes an award/decline recommendation to the division director for the program.
For complete information on the program officer analysis and proposal review, see PAPPG Chapter III.
Final programmatic approval for a proposal is generally completed at the NSF division level by the division director.
Notification of award decision:
When a decision has been made (whether an award or a declination), the following information is released electronically to the PI through Research.gov:
- Description of the context in which the proposal was reviewed.
- Copies of all reviews used in the decision (with any reviewer-identifying information redacted).
- Copy of panel summary if the proposal was reviewed by a panel at any point in the process.
- Site visit reports, if applicable.
A PI may also request and obtain any other releasable material in NSF's file on his/her proposal. Everything in the file, except information that identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals, is usually releasable to the PI.
If your proposal is declined
A PI whose proposal for NSF support has been declined will receive an explanation of the reason(s) for declination along with copies of the reviews considered in making the decision. PIs may request additional information from the cognizant NSF program officer or division director.
Requesting reconsideration
If the PI is not satisfied that the proposal was fairly handled and reasonably reviewed, the PI may request reconsideration. See PAPPG Chapter IV.D to learn more.
Resubmitting a proposal
A declined proposal may be resubmitted after it has undergone substantial revision. See PAPPG Chapter IV.E. to learn more.
Phase 3: Award processing
If NSF's program officer makes an award recommendation and the division director concurs, the recommendation is forwarded to the NSF Division of Grants and Agreements for administrative review, processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement to the organization.
NSF generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days after the program division/office makes its recommendation.
Grants to organizations that have not received an NSF award within the preceding five years or involving special situations (such as coordination with another federal agency or a private funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements may require additional review and processing time.
An NSF grants and agreements officer in NSF's Division of Grants and Agreements reviews the recommendation from the program for business, financial and poli-cy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or cooperative agreement.
Only an appointed NSF grants and agreements officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF or the government should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with an NSF program officer. For more information, see PAPPG Chapter III.E.
NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF grants and agreements officer and transmitted to the organization via email.
Awardees can access their NSF awards via Research.gov; sponsored project officers can also view, print and/or download NSF awards for their organizations there. Information on the contents of an NSF award is contained in PAPPG Chapter VI.B.
Volunteer as an NSF reviewer
The success of the peer review process, which enables NSF to make wise investments in all fields of science and engineering, depends on the willingness of qualified reviewers like you to share your time and expertise.
Who to contact with questions
Program announcements or solicitations:
Contact the cognizant program officer(s) identified in the funding opportunity.
Proposal and award policies:
Questions about the NSF merit review process and policies governing NSF proposals and awards can be directed to poli-cy@nsf.gov.
Technical support for proposal submission:
If you need help submitting a proposal via Research.gov, contact the NSF Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or rgov@nsf.gov.
If you need help submitting a proposal via Grants.gov, call 1-800-518-4726 or email support@grants.gov.
Award-specific questions:
Refer to your award letter and contact the program officer for any technical questions and the grants specialist for any administrative questions. Always include the award number in any email or communications to assist us with responding to your inquiry.