NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG, NSF 24-1, Chapter II.F) defines a set of “other types of proposals” that sit outside the standard research-proposal track. Each one exists to fund a specific situation a regular submission can’t handle well — a narrow window before perishable data disappears, an idea too early-stage to survive standard peer review, a project that genuinely straddles two programs, or a collaboration that needs an industry partner formally written into the budget. Choosing the right one, and knowing which ones require pre-approval from a Program Officer before you can even submit, is a judgment call this guide is built to support.
Last verified against NSF’s PAPPG 24-1 (nsf.gov/policies/pappg) on 2026-08-16. PAPPG 24-1 has since been amended by two policy notices — Supplement 1 (NSF 26-200), effective for awards made on or after December 8, 2025, and Supplement 2 (NSF 26-202), effective for awards made on or after January 22, 2026 — neither of which changes the mechanisms described below as of this verification date. Always confirm against the current PAPPG chapter before submitting, since NSF periodically reissues the Guide in full.
Quick-Reference Table
| Mechanism | What it’s for | Funding cap | Max duration | Pre-approval required? | External merit review? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAPID | Severe urgency — access to data, facilities, or equipment tied to an unanticipated event | $200,000 (incl. indirect) | 1 year | Yes — Concept Outline + PO concurrence email | No (internal review only, external optional at PO discretion) |
| EAGER | Early-stage, untested, potentially transformative “high risk–high payoff” ideas | $300,000 (incl. indirect) | 2 years | Yes — Concept Outline + PO concurrence email | No (internal review only, external optional at PO discretion) |
| RAISE | Bold, interdisciplinary projects that don’t fit inside one program or discipline | $1,000,000 (incl. indirect) | 5 years | Yes — Concept Outline reviewed by 2+ Program Officers | No (internal review only, external optional at PO discretion) |
| GOALI | Academic–industry collaboration, added to a regular proposal, unsolicited proposal, or supplement | Set by the host funding opportunity (GOALI has no separate cap) | Set by the host funding opportunity | Contact the cognizant PO before submitting; not a Concept Outline process | Yes — goes through the standard review of the funding opportunity it’s attached to |
All four caps are drawn directly from PAPPG 24-1 Chapter II.F.2–II.F.5 and describe the ceiling NSF states in the Guide, not a typical or median award — actual award size is set by the cognizant Program Officer to match project scope. GOALI is a mechanism you attach to an existing submission type, not a standalone proposal type with its own dollar ceiling, which is why it doesn’t fit the same cap/duration columns as the other three.
RAPID: Rapid Response Research
RAPID exists for one narrow situation: something time-perishable is about to become unavailable — access to data, a field site, specialized equipment, or a window created by a natural or human-caused event — and a standard submission-and-review cycle would arrive too late to matter. PAPPG 24-1 is explicit that RAPID is not for projects that would be appropriate as a regular NSF proposal, for events that are “unanticipated” only because nobody was tracking a known timeline, or for collecting data that isn’t actually perishable.
- Funding: up to $200,000 (including indirect costs), up to one year.
- Review: internal only by default — NSF does not require external peer review, though a Program Officer may request it and will tell the PI if they do.
- Before you submit: a Concept Outline (via email to the cognizant Program Officer or through NSF’s ProSPCT tool, which requires a Login.gov account) confirming NSF agrees RAPID is the right fit. The PO’s concurrence email must be uploaded to Research.gov as supplementary documentation.
- Project Description limit: 5 pages, and it must explicitly justify both the urgency and why RAPID — rather than a standard submission — is the appropriate vehicle.
- If declined: RAPID proposals are not eligible for reconsideration. A renewal can only be pursued as a full Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal, which goes through full external merit review.
EAGER: EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
EAGER funds exploratory, “high risk–high payoff” work on untested ideas — radically different approaches, new expertise applied to a problem, or a genuinely novel interdisciplinary angle — that isn’t ready for a standard proposal’s evidentiary bar. PAPPG 24-1 rules out three common misuses: EAGER is not for projects that would fit a regular NSF proposal, not for planning grants (that’s a separate “Planning Proposal” type), and not for collecting preliminary data to strengthen a future standard submission.
- Funding: up to $300,000 (including indirect costs), up to two years.
- Review: internal only by default, same external-review option as RAPID.
- Before you submit: a Concept Outline, same process as RAPID (email or ProSPCT, PO concurrence email uploaded to Research.gov).
- Project Description limit: 8 pages, with an explicit case for why the work doesn’t fit an existing program and why it specifically merits EAGER.
- If declined: not eligible for reconsideration; renewal only via a full Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal subject to full external review.
RAISE: Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering
RAISE is the mechanism for a project so genuinely interdisciplinary that it can’t be evaluated fairly inside one program. PAPPG 24-1 sets three criteria a RAISE-eligible project must meet all three of: the science lies substantially outside a single program or discipline and needs funding from more than one; the work promises transformational (not incremental) advances; and the most promising discoveries sit at a disciplinary interface that ordinary review or co-review wouldn’t recognize. It is explicitly not meant for projects that could be accommodated by another proposal type or that continue already-established practice.
- Funding: up to $1,000,000 (including indirect costs), up to five years — by far the largest cap of the four.
- Review: internal only by default, same external-review option as the others.
- Before you submit: a Concept Outline, but reviewed jointly by at least two Program Officers who must both agree the work fits RAISE — reflecting the requirement that it genuinely span more than one program.
- Collaboration structure: NSF will not accept a RAISE proposal as a separately submitted multi-organization collaborative proposal. It must come from a single organization, with any partner institutions structured as subrecipients.
- If declined or completed: not eligible for reconsideration, and — unlike RAPID and EAGER — RAISE awards are not eligible for renewal at all.
GOALI: Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry
GOALI is structurally different from the other three: it is not a standalone proposal type with its own funding opportunity, cap, or Concept Outline process. It’s a designation you attach to a regular competitive proposal, an unsolicited proposal, or a supplemental funding request on an existing NSF award, to formally bring an industry partner into an academic research project. PAPPG 24-1 requires at least one industrial co-PI listed on the Cover Sheet at submission, a description of the institution-of-higher-education–industry interaction in the Project Description, and a GOALI Industrial PI Confirmation Letter from the industry partner.
- Funding: governed by whatever funding opportunity the GOALI proposal is submitted under — GOALI itself sets no separate dollar cap or duration.
- Industry funds restriction: NSF funds generally cannot go to the industrial partner directly. The one exception is a small business (fewer than 500 employees, at least 50% owned by U.S. citizens or permanent residents, all funded work performed in the U.S.) that is not a current NSF SBIR/STTR recipient — and even then, the subaward to that small business can’t exceed one-third of the total award budget.
- Before you submit: contact the cognizant Program Officer named in the target funding opportunity. There is no Concept Outline requirement equivalent to RAPID/EAGER/RAISE — GOALI proposals follow whatever deadline and process the host opportunity specifies.
- Review: full standard review under the host funding opportunity, plus GOALI-specific criteria — how essential the industry partner is to the project’s success, what training/experience opportunities it creates for students and postdocs, and the project’s longer-term societal impact.
- Collaborative submissions: like RAISE, GOALI proposals involving multiple organizations must be submitted by a single lead organization, with collaborators structured as subawards — NSF will not accept a separately submitted multi-organization GOALI proposal.
Other NSF “Other Types of Proposals” Worth Knowing
PAPPG Chapter II.F also defines several additional non-standard proposal types that don’t get their own DataForSEO-scale search demand but round out the full picture:
- Planning Proposal — funds the conceptualization and planning stage for a future large-scale project (new funding opportunities, infrastructure needs assessments, multi-disciplinary coordination), not seed funding for a declined proposal or preliminary research on an already-established program area. Requires a Concept Outline, same process as RAPID/EAGER/RAISE.
- Ideas Lab — a four-stage, workshop-based process (selection of panelists, selection of participants, the Ideas Lab event itself, and follow-on funding decisions) for developing high-risk/high-impact project ideas collaboratively, rather than a proposal you draft and submit in the ordinary sense.
- FASED (Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities), Conference, Equipment, Travel, Center, and Research Infrastructure proposals — each has its own narrower purpose and its own deviations from the standard Project Description requirements, detailed in PAPPG Chapter II.F.6–II.F.13.
How to Decide Which One Fits
- Is the urgency about a closing window on data, a site, or equipment access? That’s RAPID — not “I’m behind schedule,” but a genuine unanticipated-event scenario.
- Is the idea itself the risk — untested, early-stage, potentially transformative, but not yet supportable with a standard evidentiary case? That’s EAGER.
- Does the project only make sense funded across more than one program or discipline, with genuinely transformational (not incremental) potential? That’s RAISE — and remember all three of PAPPG’s criteria must be met, not just one.
- Is the core need an industry partner formally written into an academic project’s budget and Cover Sheet? That’s GOALI, layered onto whichever regular, unsolicited, or supplemental submission you were already planning.
- None of the above, and the work would hold up under standard peer review on its own merits? Use a regular research proposal. PAPPG repeatedly warns Program Officers and reviewers against approving RAPID, EAGER, or RAISE proposals for projects that would be fine as standard submissions — using the wrong vehicle is itself a basis for a Program Officer to decline the Concept Outline.
What All Three Concept-Outline Mechanisms Share
RAPID, EAGER, and RAISE all require the same up-front step: a Concept Outline submitted either by email to the cognizant Program Officer or through NSF’s Program Suitability and Proposal Concept Tool (ProSPCT), which requires a Login.gov account. NSF’s response — approval or not — arrives by email from the Program Officer, and that concurrence email has to be uploaded into the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov before the full proposal can be submitted. None of the three is eligible for reconsideration if declined, and none goes through mandatory external merit review by default — internal NSF review is sufficient unless a Program Officer specifically chooses to seek outside input, in which case the PI is told this is happening.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does EAGER stand for at NSF?
EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research — note NSF’s own capitalization pattern (EAGER) is a deliberate acronym, not a typo.
How much can an NSF EAGER grant fund?
Up to $300,000 including indirect costs, for up to two years, per PAPPG 24-1 Chapter II.F.3. The actual award amount NSF makes will be sized to the project scope and comparable to similar awards, not automatically set at the ceiling.
Do RAPID and EAGER proposals go through external peer review?
Not by default. PAPPG 24-1 requires only internal NSF merit review for RAPID, EAGER, and RAISE. A Program Officer can choose to obtain external reviews, and if they do, the PI is informed.
What is a GOALI grant used for?
Bringing a formal, funded industry partner into an academic research project. It is not a separate funding program with its own solicitation — it’s a designation added to a regular NSF proposal, an unsolicited proposal, or a supplemental funding request on an existing award, per PAPPG 24-1 Chapter II.F.5.
Can a declined RAPID, EAGER, or RAISE proposal be resubmitted?
Not as a reconsideration request — PAPPG 24-1 states none of the three is eligible for reconsideration if declined. RAPID and EAGER awards can be renewed only through a full Traditional or Accomplishment-Based Renewal proposal, which is then subject to full external merit review; RAISE awards are not eligible for renewal at all.
Is a Concept Outline the same as a Letter of Intent?
No. A Letter of Intent (LOI) is a specific, funding-opportunity-mandated notice that a proposal is coming, used by some NSF programs to plan reviewer workload. A Concept Outline is the pre-submission suitability check specific to RAPID, EAGER, RAISE, and Planning proposals, submitted by email or through ProSPCT, and it results in a Program Officer’s concurrence (or non-concurrence) rather than simply logging that a proposal is forthcoming.
Related CASRAI Guides
- NSF PAPPG (Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide) — the governing document these mechanisms are drawn from.
- NSF Letter of Intent (LOI): When It’s Required and What to Include
- NSF Collaborative Proposal Guidelines: How the Separately Submitted Mechanism Works — relevant since RAISE and GOALI both restrict separately submitted collaborative proposals.
- NSF I-Corps Program: Structure, Funding, and the Research Administrator’s Role — another non-standard NSF funding vehicle, focused on commercialization rather than exploratory research.
- NSF CAREER Award Proposal Requirements
- NSF No-Cost Extension: How to Request One
- How to Withdraw an NIH or NSF Grant Application: Process, Timing, and When It Makes Sense
- NIH vs. NSF Resubmission Policy
- eRA Commons vs. Research.gov — NIH and NSF Systems Compared
- Grants Management & Research Funding — cluster hub.
