Direct comparison
NSF vs. DOE Grant Requirements
How NSF and DOE grant administration differ: proposal portals, governing policy, cost-share norms, indirect-cost cognizance, and DOE's national-lab overlay.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | NSF | DOE |
|---|---|---|
| Primary mission | Curiosity-driven basic research and education, all fields of science/engineering (excluding most biomedical research) | Mission-directed: energy, national/nuclear security, environmental cleanup, plus fundamental physical-science research (Office of Science) |
| Proposal & award portal | Research.gov (proposal prep, submission, and post-award reporting in one system) | PAMS (DOE Office of Science lifecycle management) plus Grants.gov for formal application submission |
| Governing policy document | PAPPG (Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide) — one document covers nearly all NSF funding | 2 CFR Part 910 (DOE's Uniform Guidance implementing regulation) plus the terms of each individual FOA — no single PAPPG-equivalent |
| Funding-announcement terms | Program Description / Program Announcement / Program Solicitation / Dear Colleague Letter (NSF-specific hierarchy, not FOA/NOFO) | Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA); commonly preceded by a required "white paper" pre-application step |
| Cost sharing | Not permitted as voluntary/committed cost share; used only where a specific statute requires it for a program | More commonly required, especially in applied/technology-development programs (EERE, ARPA-E); Office of Science basic research more closely resembles NSF's no-cost-share norm |
| Indirect cost (NICRA) cognizance | Never the cognizant agency for a university's F&A rate — accepts the rate set by HHS or DoD/ONR | Never the cognizant agency for a university's F&A rate either — accepts the rate set by HHS or DoD/ONR |
| National laboratory overlay | Minimal — funds a small number of FFRDCs/national facilities, but most awards go directly to universities with no federal-lab layer | Central to much DOE-funded research — 17 national laboratories, frequent CRADAs, joint appointments, and user-facility agreements alongside or instead of direct university awards |
| AI policy | NSF AI Policy plus a supplementary NSF AI Dear Colleague Letter | DOE AI Policy (separate document, not derived from NSF's) |
| Research security training | Required for senior/key personnel per NSPM-33-aligned NSF policy | Required for covered individuals per NSPM-33-aligned DOE NOFO terms — specific triggers and timelines vary by solicitation |
Common questions
FAQ
Can the same PI hold both an NSF and a DOE award?+
Yes, and it is common in physics, materials science, and computing, where both agencies fund overlapping fields. Each award is administered under its own agency's rules — an NSF award follows the PAPPG via Research.gov, a DOE award follows 2 CFR 910 and its FOA terms via PAMS/Grants.gov — regardless of what the other agency requires.
Does DOE always require cost sharing?+
No. Cost-share requirements are set per funding opportunity and are more common in DOE's applied, technology-development programs (such as EERE and ARPA-E) than in DOE Office of Science basic-research awards. Always check the specific FOA rather than assuming a blanket DOE cost-share rule.
Does working with a DOE national laboratory change how a university award is administered?+
It can. Many DOE-funded collaborations run partly or entirely through a national laboratory via a CRADA, joint appointment, or user-facility agreement, which layers in technology-transfer, IP, and export-control review that a direct university-to-DOE award, or a typical NSF award, would not involve.
Is DOE's Office of Science administered the same way as DOE's applied programs?+
Not exactly. The Office of Science is DOE's basic-research arm and administratively closest to NSF's model (fewer cost-share requirements, grants and cooperative agreements to individual PIs). DOE's applied programs (EERE, ARPA-E) more often carry cost-share requirements and a stronger commercialization/deployment expectation.
