An NIH Request for Applications (RFA) is one specific type of Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) — a formal, one-time solicitation for grant or cooperative agreement applications in a tightly defined scientific area, with a dollar amount set aside for the competition and, usually, a single application receipt date.
RFAs are what NIH uses when an Institute or Center wants to direct funding toward a specific programmatic priority rather than accept unsolicited applications on any topic within its mission.
For a research administrator or investigator, correctly recognizing an RFA — and knowing how it differs from the far more common Program Announcement (PA) — changes how you plan a submission: the receipt date usually will not recur, the funds are finite and pre-committed, and the review panel is convened specifically for that competition.
What makes an announcement an RFA
Per the NIH Grants Policy Statement, section 2.3.5, NIH’s Notices of Funding Opportunities fall into two broad families: Program Announcements (PAs, including Parent Announcements, PARs, and PAS) and Requests for Applications (RFAs). An RFA has several defining, verifiable characteristics:
- Set-aside funds. The RFA states the estimated total funds committed to the competition and the estimated number of awards NIH expects to make. This is a hard operational difference from a standard PA, where no dedicated pot of money exists for that specific announcement.
- A defined, usually single, receipt date. Most RFAs specify one application due date rather than NIH’s standard recurring submission cycle.
- A one-time competition. Once the receipt date passes and awards are made, the RFA closes — it does not recur automatically the way many PAs do, though an Institute can choose to reissue a similar RFA in a later fiscal year under a new number.
- Dedicated review. Applications submitted to an RFA are typically reviewed by a Scientific Review Group — often a Special Emphasis Panel — convened by the issuing Institute or Center specifically for that competition, rather than routed through a standing NIH Center for Scientific Review study section.
All RFAs are published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and mirrored on Grants.gov, alongside every other NOFO type.
RFA vs. PA, PAR, and PAS
All four are NOFOs; what differs is funding commitment, receipt-date structure, and review pathway.
| Type | Set-aside funds? | Receipt dates | Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| PA (including Parent Announcements) | No | NIH’s standard recurring due dates | Standard two-tier review — Center for Scientific Review study sections, then Institute council |
| PAR (PA with special receipt, referral, and/or review considerations) | No (usually) | Standard or special dates | Tailored review, sometimes an Institute-convened panel instead of a standing study section |
| PAS (PA with set-aside funds) | Yes | Standard recurring due dates | Can go through standard study-section review despite having dedicated funds |
| RFA | Yes | Usually a single, specific due date | Institute-convened Scientific Review Group / Special Emphasis Panel, one-time |
The practical distinction that trips people up: set-aside funds alone don’t make something an RFA — a PAS also has set-aside funds but keeps the standard recurring submission calendar and can go through ordinary study-section review. What makes an RFA an RFA is the combination of dedicated funding and a one-time, specifically convened competition.
How to identify an RFA by its number
NIH funding opportunity numbers follow the pattern RFA-XX-YY-### — for example, RFA-AG-26-011, an NIA (Institute on Aging) R25 announcement. The prefix identifies the type (RFA, PA, PAR, or PAS); XX is the two- or three-letter code of the issuing Institute or Center (e.g., CA for the National Cancer Institute, HL for NHLBI); YY is the fiscal year; and the trailing digits are a serial number. This numbering scheme, distinct from the activity-code/application-type numbering used on the award itself (e.g., R01, U01), is the fastest way to confirm you’re looking at an RFA rather than a PA before you start planning a submission.
A note on terminology: NOFO vs. FOA
NIH referred to these announcements as “Funding Opportunity Announcements” (FOAs) for years. In March 2023, per NOT-OD-23-109, NIH adopted the government-wide term “Notice of Funding Opportunity” (NOFO) instead, aligning with 2 CFR 200.204 (part of the Uniform Guidance) and HHS-wide practice. RFA is a type of NOFO, not a competing term for it — you’ll still see “FOA” in older documents and secondary sources, but current NIH materials say NOFO.
Why NIH issues RFAs instead of relying on unsolicited applications
Most NIH funding is investigator-initiated: researchers propose their own ideas against a broad Parent Announcement, and NIH’s standing study sections evaluate scientific merit without regard to a specific programmatic agenda. An RFA inverts that: an Institute or Center has identified a specific gap or opportunity — a disease area, a methodological need, a cross-cutting initiative — that isn’t reliably attracting enough unsolicited applications on its own, and commits dedicated funds to solicit them directly. RFAs are also the mechanism NIH uses for programs that require coordinated review against defined programmatic criteria (not just individual scientific merit), which is why the review panel is convened specifically for that competition rather than run through the standard two-tier system.
What applicants need to plan for differently
- The receipt date usually will not recur. Unlike a standard PA, missing an RFA’s due date generally means the opportunity is gone, not “try again next cycle.”
- Read the RFA’s specific eligibility and scope language closely. RFAs are narrower than Parent Announcements by design; an application that would be a strong fit for the broad R01 parent announcement can be non-responsive to a specific RFA if it doesn’t address the stated scientific priorities.
- Resubmission rules differ from what applicants expect. Per NIH’s resubmission policy, only one resubmission (A1) of an original application (A0) is permitted, and it must go to the same NOFO type. Because most RFAs are one-time competitions, an unsuccessful RFA application usually cannot be resubmitted as an A1 to that same RFA once it has closed — it becomes a new (A0) application to a different, currently open NOFO (often the relevant Parent Announcement or a reissued RFA), not a resubmission.
- Budget mechanics still follow the standard NIH rules for the activity code the RFA uses — see CASRAI’s guide to NIH modular budgets if the RFA uses an R-series modular-eligible activity code, and the budget justification narrative guide for what the narrative needs to cover regardless of NOFO type.
- Cooperative agreements are common under RFAs when NIH wants active programmatic involvement (steering-committee participation, work-plan approval) rather than a hands-off grant relationship — see CASRAI’s comparison of grants vs. contracts vs. cooperative agreements for how that changes the award relationship.
- Award and compliance obligations don’t change because the funding came through an RFA. Once funded, an RFA-derived award is subject to the same 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance requirements and the same institutional compliance obligations covered in CASRAI’s federal grant compliance checklist as any other NIH award.
Where to find open RFAs
Every active and expired NIH RFA is indexed in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (grants.nih.gov) and mirrored on Grants.gov, which is also where the application itself is ultimately submitted (via an eRA Commons-linked institutional account, typically through a system like ASSIST or a grants.gov workspace). Individual NIH Institutes and Centers also list their own RFAs on their extramural funding pages — useful for catching a relevant RFA before it’s widely circulated, since award ceilings are fixed and early awareness matters more for a competition with a hard funding cap than it does for an open-ended Parent Announcement.
Frequently asked questions
Is an RFA the same as a grant?
No. An RFA is the solicitation — the announcement inviting applications. The grant (or cooperative agreement) is the award made to a successful applicant after review. You apply “in response to” an RFA; you don’t apply “for” an RFA itself.
Can an RFA use any NIH activity code?
Yes. RFAs are issued under whatever activity code (R01, R21, U01, P01, and so on) fits the programmatic need — cooperative-agreement activity codes (the “U” series) are especially common for RFAs because they suit NIH’s more active programmatic involvement in a targeted initiative.
Does an RFA guarantee funding if I meet the eligibility criteria?
No. Eligibility and responsiveness get an application into the review pool; funding still depends on scientific merit review and where the application ranks relative to the set-aside funds and the number of awards the Institute intends to make. A poorly scoring application is not funded even if fully eligible and on-topic.
How is an RFA different from a “Notice of Special Interest” (NOSI)?
A NOSI highlights a research priority and directs applicants to submit through an existing NOFO (often a Parent Announcement) — it does not carry its own set-aside funds or its own review panel. An RFA is a freestanding NOFO with its own dedicated funds and dedicated review. NOSI-flagged applications are folded into standard review; RFA applications are reviewed as their own competition.
Can NIH reissue the same RFA in a later year?
Yes, if the Institute or Center wants to run the initiative again — but a reissuance gets a new RFA number (a new YY and serial), a new receipt date, and typically a new funds commitment. It is treated as a new competition, not a continuation of the prior one.
