NSF Planning Proposals: Funding to Organize Future Large-Scale Research

When a Planning Proposal Is Appropriate

NSF's own guidance draws a sharp line: Planning proposals are for organizing and coordinating a future large-scale submission, not for funding the underlying research itself.

• Team building — assembling and coordinating a multi-investigator or multi-institution team ahead of a large-scale proposal
• Planning meetings and workshops — convening collaborators to develop a shared research vision and work plan
• Concept development — refining the scope, goals, and structure of a future large-scale submission
• Not for preliminary research — Planning funds may not be used to conduct the research itself; that distinguishes Planning from RAPID and EAGER, both of which fund actual research activities

The Concept Outline and Program Officer Concurrence

As with RAPID and EAGER, a Planning proposal cannot be submitted cold. NSF requires upfront contact with the program officer who will ultimately decide on funding.

• Discuss the concept first — contact the cognizant NSF program officer and describe the planning activity before preparing a proposal
• Concept outline required — provide a concept outline as part of the pre-submission discussion
• Upload the concurrence email — attach the program officer's concurrence email, identified as the Planning proposal, as a supplementary document
• Internal review only — the program officer makes the funding decision directly; there is no external peer review panel

Budget, Duration, and Page Limits

Planning proposals operate under NSF PAPPG 24-1, Chapter II.F.1, as amended by NSF 26-200.

• Budget cap — up to $200,000 per year, including indirect costs (raised from $100,000 by NSF 26-200, effective December 8, 2025)
• Duration — up to 2 years, for a maximum award of roughly $400,000 across the full period
• Project Description — limited to 8 pages, the same limit as EAGER

Planning vs. RAPID vs. EAGER

Planning fills a different niche than NSF's other internally-reviewed mechanisms. RAPID funds urgent research on time-sensitive, ephemeral phenomena. EAGER funds high-risk, speculative research that is too early-stage for peer review. Planning funds neither -- it exists to support the organizational and coordination work of assembling a team and concept for a future large-scale proposal. All three mechanisms skip external peer review in favor of an internal program officer decision, and all three require program officer concurrence before submission, but only Planning explicitly excludes funding for the underlying research.