Period of Performance

The period of performance is the specific time window — start date to end date — during which a recipient or subrecipient is authorized to incur allowable costs and carry out the substantive programmatic work of a federal award. It is defined at 2 CFR 200.1 and is the regulatory anchor for two of the most consequential questions in federal grants administration: which costs are chargeable to this award at all, and when does the award’s active life actually end.

The 2 CFR 200.1 definition

2 CFR 200.1 defines period of performance as “the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” The same section separately defines budget period as “the time interval from the start date of a funded portion of an award to the end date of that funded portion, during which recipients and subrecipients are authorized to incur financial obligations of the funds awarded, including any funds carried forward or other revisions” under 2 CFR 200.308. In plain terms: the period of performance is the full authorized span of the award, and a multi-year award’s period of performance is commonly broken into one or more budget periods — annual funding increments — nested inside it.

What “incurring costs” within the period of performance means

2 CFR 200.309 sets the actual spending rule that gives the definition its teeth: a non-Federal entity may charge to a Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance, with two specific exceptions — (1) costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the award, if those pre-award costs were specifically authorized in advance, and (2) certain publication and printing costs addressed separately at 2 CFR 200.461. Outside those exceptions, a cost incurred before the start date or after the end date of the period of performance is not an allowable charge to that award, regardless of whether the cost would otherwise satisfy the general allowability tests (reasonable, allocable, consistently treated) in 2 CFR 200 Subpart E. This is why the period of performance dates on a Notice of Award matter well beyond scheduling — they are the outer boundary of what a recipient’s own accounting system is permitted to post against the award.

Period of performance vs. budget period vs. project period

These three terms get used loosely and interchangeably in practice, but they are not identical:

• Period of performance — the full, regulation-defined span of the award (2 CFR 200.1), from its overall start date to its overall end date.
• Budget period — a funded sub-increment within the period of performance (2 CFR 200.1), typically one year on a multi-year award. A three-year award has one period of performance and, ordinarily, three budget periods.
• Project period — not itself a term defined in 2 CFR 200.1. It is agency usage — NIH is the most common example, using “project period” to describe the total span of a (potentially multi-year) award — and in that usage it maps closely onto the Uniform Guidance’s period of performance rather than naming a separate regulatory concept. When reading an award notice, don’t assume “project period” and “period of performance” carry different legal weight; check which term the specific awarding agency’s terms and conditions actually use and treat it as that agency’s label for the same start-to-end window.

How the period of performance ends: closeout and No-Cost Extensions

The end date of the period of performance triggers the recipient’s federal grant closeout obligations under 2 CFR 200.344: recipients generally have 120 calendar days after the period of performance ends to submit all required financial, performance, and other reports and to liquidate all financial obligations (90 days for subrecipients reporting to a pass-through entity). Any unliquidated obligation still open at that point has to be resolved — liquidated or deobligated — before the award can close; the end date of the period of performance is the clock’s zero point, not the date the recipient happens to finish spending.

Because the period of performance is a hard boundary on allowable costs, a recipient that needs more time to complete the funded work — not more money — requests a no-cost extension (NCE). Under 2 CFR 200.308(d)(2), many recipients can take a single, one-time extension of up to 12 months through expanded authority, with notification rather than prior approval; further extensions generally require the Federal awarding agency’s explicit approval. An approved NCE moves the end date of the period of performance itself — it does not create a new award or add funds, and every cost charged during the extended window is still governed by the same 2 CFR 200.309 incurred-during-the-period rule. See the CASRAI no-cost extension lifecycle entry for how an NCE request typically moves through institutional and sponsor approval.

Some award types layer agency-specific reporting onto the same end date. For NIH and other PHS awards not being renewed, for example, closeout also requires a Final Invention Statement and Certification submitted through iEdison — see the CASRAI Final Invention Statement & Certification entry — which is an agency-specific addition on top of, not a substitute for, the government-wide 2 CFR 200.344 closeout timeline keyed to the period of performance end date.

Related CASRAI terms and guides

• Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) — the obligation-but-not-yet-paid state that has to be resolved by the period of performance’s closeout deadline.
• No-cost extension (NCE) — the mechanism for extending a period of performance’s end date without additional funds.
• No-cost extension (lifecycle context) — the institutional approval workflow behind an NCE request.
• Closeout phase — the broader lifecycle stage that begins once the period of performance ends.
• Federal Grant Closeout: The Process and a Practical Checklist — the full recipient/agency closeout timeline.