As an investigator, you may be familiar with administrative supplements—requests for additional funding for activities that fall within the scope of your project. But did you know you can also apply for additional funding for activities that call for an expansion of your original scope? Such awards are called competing revisions, also referred to as competitive revisions or competing supplements.
NIH recently reissued the parent notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) Competing Revisions to Existing NIH Single Project Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements (Clinical Trial Optional), which accepts competing revision applications submitted in response to a notice of special interest (NOSI). With a competing revision, you can request additional support for activities that constitute an expansion of an existing project or program. For example, you might seek to add a new study population to ongoing HIV/AIDS research based on scientific findings at the outset of the project.
How to Apply
You can apply using the NOFO above (in response to a NOSI) or through any other NOFO that states, within Section II. Award Information, that revision applications are allowed. Your revision application should have enough information from the original application to allow a proper evaluation of the revision in relation to the goals of the original application. You must also have the same program director/principal investigator as the parent award.
Keep in mind that revisions may not extend beyond the grant’s project period. Ensure that the current award has sufficient time remaining in the project period when you submit your revision application. Be mindful, as well, of any project period limitations set by the NOFO through which you apply.
Some NOFOs and NOSIs set a budget limit for competing revisions, but absent a specific cap, your request must reflect the actual needs of the proposed research. If you’re requesting $500,000 or more, you’ll need to reach out to a scientific/research contact at least 6 weeks before submitting your application—refer to our Big Grants SOP for instruction. Note that you’ll need to use the same budget format as the parent award.
To determine your application’s due date, refer to the NOFO or NOSI through which you apply. If the opportunity uses NIH’s Standard Due Dates, use your current award’s activity code (e.g., R15) to determine your next application deadline.
Comparison to Administrative Supplements
As noted above, competing revisions can accommodate an expansion in scope, whereas administrative supplements cover funding for activities that, while unforeseen when the application was being submitted, are still within the scope of the project.
Another important difference is that competing revisions are subject to peer review. Since the new work was not already approved through peer review, it’s necessary that it be vetted through that process and, as part of that effort, will undergo both first and second-level peer review and will be assigned to a Council round. Conversely, administrative supplements are reviewed by NIAID staff with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.
Given the necessity of peer review, competing revisions typically have a longer timeline to award than administrative supplements.
Choosing the Best Option
If you need additional support on your project, talk to your program officer. They will help you determine whether rebudgeting funds, an administrative supplement, a competing revision, or a new grant application represents your best path forward.
For more on this topic, including how to situate your revision application’s research in relation to the ongoing grant award, read our Revision of a Grant SOP.