NASA's Delayed EPSCoR Research Call Is Finally Out: $21M, 28 Awards of $750K, Due February 1. Your State Director Has Probably Already Picked Its Two.

The NASA EPSCoR research solicitation that state offices spent most of 2026 waiting for has been released. NASA's Office of STEM Engagement issued the FY2027 Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Basic Research Cooperative Agreement Notice, NNH27ZHA001C, dated October 27, 2026 and posted to Grants.gov on October 30. Proposals are due in NSPIRES by 11:59 p.m. ET on Monday, February 1, 2027.

The numbers are about the same as in past cycles: roughly $21 million over three years for an anticipated 28 awards of about $750,000 each. The process around them has changed. Jurisdictions expected this solicitation as early as February or March 2026, and several ran their internal competitions on that assumption. NASA's delay means the call that eligible states labeled "FY26" now carries an FY2027 number, and most jurisdictions have already chosen the two proposals they will send.

This analysis covers who can apply, what the delay did to the pipeline, how the 35/35/15/15 rubric works, and what faculty outside a selected team can still do.

The opportunity in one table

Who is eligible

NASA uses the NSF EPSCoR eligibility table to decide which jurisdictions qualify. The CAN lists 28: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The eligibility is narrower than the list suggests:

• Only the jurisdiction's NASA EPSCoR director (or designee) submits. The director is the PI of record. The faculty member who leads the science is the Science-I.
• Two proposals per jurisdiction. A faculty member cannot apply to NASA directly.
• No renewals or extensions of earlier EPSCoR projects.
• Any involvement with China or Chinese-owned companies makes a proposal ineligible, including unfunded, no-exchange-of-funds collaboration.

With 28 jurisdictions submitting up to two proposals each, NASA can receive at most 56. With about 28 awards planned, a fully compliant proposal faces roughly even odds, much better than almost any open NASA competition. The real competition happens inside each state, and in most states it is already over.

What the delay did

The CAN acknowledges the delay. It says jurisdiction directors "may use a proposal selection process at their discretion," including "down selection processes originally intended for FY26 and FY27." Several state timelines show what happened:

• Louisiana's FY2026 pre-proposal call, posted in late 2025, expected the NASA call in February or March 2026, and warned that issuance wasn't guaranteed.
• Maine expected the CAN in March 2026.
• Wyoming listed an April 15, 2026 release.
• North Dakota expected September 1, 2026, then ran an internal competition anyway. NOIs were due August 27, pre-proposals September 24, and selection notices went out around October 30. ND's office says its timeline "was impacted by NASA's delay in release of the official solicitation to 10.27.26." Its internal full-proposal deadline is January 11, 2027, three weeks before NASA's.

So in many states the two teams have been chosen and are polishing full proposals. A faculty member who first hears about the program now generally isn't competing for this round. The CAN doesn't require a jurisdiction to rerun its down-select, so ask your state office whether a slot is still open before assuming otherwise.

The delay also affects award timing. NASA expects awards in July–September 2027, with first-year funds obligated at award and later years subject to appropriations. Expect a fall 2027 start at the earliest for graduate students funded by the award.

The EPSCoR model, briefly

NASA EPSCoR was authorized in 1992 (Pub. L. 102-588) and reauthorized in 2017. It gives seed funding to states that historically received little competitive aerospace research money. The program expects each award to make the jurisdiction more competitive for non-EPSCoR funding later. The CAN asks proposals to "move increasingly towards gaining support from sources outside NASA EPSCoR" and requires "pragmatic plans for generating sustained non-EPSCoR support."

Each funded project must "work closely with a NASA researcher" at a Mission Directorate, Center, or JPL, and NASA assigns a Technical Monitor to every award. The NASA collaborator is central to the scoring, not a formality.

How proposals are scored

Relevance (35%) is where most proposals win or lose. It requires:

• Use of NASA content, people, or facilities to address the Research Focus Areas published by Mission Directorates and Centers
• The names and titles of the NASA researchers you will partner with
• A history of interactions with NASA staff and a plan to deepen them
• A link to the jurisdiction's own strategic plan for NASA-related research
• Letters of support from partners

Weak proposals usually say they align with NASA priorities. Strong ones name a Goddard or Marshall researcher who has already worked with the team and describe a task that fits a published focus area.

Intrinsic Merit (35%) is a standard science review with one EPSCoR element. If the work is a new direction for the jurisdiction, the proposal must explain why the team can still carry it out. If it builds on existing work, it must provide "baseline information about current research activities within the jurisdiction," including current NASA EPSCoR projects.

Budget (15%) requires detailed three-year budgets and fully documented cost share. NASA states that no bonus points are given for cost share above 50%, so matching more than required doesn't help your score.

Management (15%) covers the personnel list, Science-I management structure, multi-jurisdiction governance if relevant, and results of prior NASA EPSCoR awards. The last item reviews the director's track record more than the Science-I's. The CAN also notes that "one of the goals of EPSCoR is to encourage and help new researchers," so early-career Science-Is are not at a disadvantage.

Proposals receive adjective ratings from Excellent to Poor from a panel of NASA and other federal staff. Selected proposals "may be subject to additional reviews by NASA officials, such as Mission Directorate Officials-in-Charge and/or a NASA Senior Appointee, to ensure that awards comply with applicable law, NASA priorities, and the national interest." That political-level review now appears in most 2026 NASA solicitations.

Policy terms to note

This CAN reflects 2026 federal grant policy in several ways:

• Lower indirect rates are a tiebreaker. After programmatic considerations, and when scores tie on merit, relevance, and budget, "NASA will give preference to lower indirect cost rates." NASA may also weigh "the reasonableness and efficiency of proposed budgets, including indirect costs." If your institution can offer a reduced rate or partial F&A waiver as cost share, it is worth discussing, since it counts toward the 50% and may help in a tie.
• Gold Standard Science. Proposals must follow EO 14303 and NASA's implementing guidance.
• Funding restrictions. Awards may not fund activities using race "or intentional proxies for race" as a selection criterion, among other restrictions tied to OMB Memo M-25-33. Review student recruitment language in particular.
• Termination for agency priorities. NASA's standard terms allow termination "if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities," consistent with the revised 2 CFR 200 framework.

Budget rules that trip up proposals

• NASA staff time can't be charged. EPSCoR funds may not support civil servant or NASA contractor participation. NASA-provided services count as "NASA responsibilities" and can't be included in the 50% match.
• NASA-unique facilities require a support letter from the host Center, and their cost must be budgeted explicitly with a basis of estimate.
• General-purpose equipment such as workstations and furniture is not allowed. Special-purpose research equipment is allowed, and NASA encourages buying it early in the award.
• Foreign travel is capped at $4,500 per year and $9,000 per proposal.
• Pre-award costs more than 90 days before the start date are allowed at your own risk.
• The S/T/M plan is limited to 15 pages. The management and evaluation content doesn't count toward that limit.

What to do now

If your team was selected by your state office: Confirm the NASA collaborator's name, title, and written commitment by Thanksgiving. Relevance is 35% of the score, and a confirmed collaborator is its core. Line up cost share with your sponsored programs office early, since a 50% match on $750,000 is $375,000 in documented contributions. Hold to your state's internal deadline; North Dakota's, for example, is January 11.

If you weren't selected or didn't know about the competition: Ask your NASA EPSCoR director whether both FY2027 slots are filled and when the next down-select opens. NASA intends to run EPSCoR research calls annually, subject to funding, and this round's delay means the next one could follow closely. Begin contacting NASA researchers now. A year of documented contact with a NASA Center is the evidence the Relevance criterion asks for. Also look at EPSCoR's smaller programs, such as Rapid Response Research (R3) awards of about $100,000, which are faster ways to start a NASA relationship.

If you're in a non-EPSCoR state: This program isn't open to you, but you can be a collaborator. EPSCoR teams that bring in partners from strong aerospace institutions, structured so the EPSCoR jurisdiction leads, can strengthen their technical case.

The bottom line

NASA EPSCoR Basic Research offers about even odds at the federal stage, a required NASA partnership, and three years of funding. The real competition happens earlier, inside each state, and NASA's delay compressed that stage into 2026 under uncertain conditions. Teams that hold a slot should spend the next three months on the NASA collaboration and the cost-share documentation. Everyone else should prepare for the next call, starting with relationships at NASA Centers.

If you hold one of your jurisdiction's two slots and need help shaping a 15-page S/T/M plan around the Relevance criterion before February 1, Granted can help you draft it.