Proposal Development

Explore the Proposal Lifecycle

This page contains content across the Research Gateway on each stage of the proposal lifecycle. Explore this content for agency-specific best practices, tools, and templates. 

Research Proposal Life Cycle

Research Life Cycle: 1: Generage Ideas. 2: Find Funding. 3: Develop Proposals. 4: Submit Proposals. 5: Award Review. 6: Manage Awards

Proposal Planning

Prepare to Write

The next step in the proposal lifecycle is to plan the development and submission of your proposal. This will ensure that your proposal is well written, responsive to the Request for Proposals (RFP) and that it is complete and ready for submission by the deadline. Consider the following questions before you begin to write.

  • What do I want to do and why do I want to do it?
  • What are the short-term and long-term objectives and outcomes of my work?
  • How will I execute my project? Are the facilities and resources I need available?
  • What does success look like? How will I evaluate and assess my progress?
  • Does my project require expertise I don't have? If so, can I form strategic collaborations?
  • Can I make a case for feasibility based on previously published or preliminary work?
  • Do I have alternative approaches in mind, if my hypothesis is not supported or my objectives are not attainable?
  • If awarded, will I be able to commit the necessary level of effort to the project?

Coordinate with Campus Resources

Your departmental/unit business office

they might want stuff here, if their department helps with campus resources, reach out.

Research Development Services

Also might want stuff here, IDK yet

Best Practices in Proposal Planning

Why proposals fail

These are some of the most common reasons why proposals fail.

  • Failure to address sponsor requirements
  • Lack of experience/track record
  • High-risk project with no contingency plan
  • Lack of clarity
  • Proposal is not compliant (e.g. line spacing, pages)
  • Lack of front-end planning
  • Lack of rationale for project aims/objectives
  • Lack of identified pitfalls (potential problems) and proposed alternatives
  • Lack of a clear evaluation and monitoring plan
  • Proposed activities do not align with project aims/objectives

Describe your competitive advantage

Seek opportunities in your proposal to describe how you, your collaborators, your research, and your environment differentiate you from your competitors. Also consider timing: Why is now the perfect time to do your proposed project?

Personnel-related Advantages
  • Unique capabilities, competencies, and strengths
  • Effective management style (Particularly important for large/complex, multi-investigator proposals)
  • Exemplary past performance
  • Productive publication record (For collaborative proposals, productive record of joint publications)
  • “Thought leadership” in chosen field
Technical Advantages
  • Original technical approach
  • One-of-a-kind instrumentation
  • Rare access to instrumentation

Pay attention to the structure

Depending on the funding source, requests for proposal (RFPs) vary on proposal structure: some give detailed instructions whereas others are vague. That said, the following best practices apply to all proposals.

  • Mirror the RFP’s section numbers, titles, and terminology
  • Number or title sections and refer to them this way. Don’t use “See above” or “See below”
  • Clarify vague language in the RFP with your Program Officer, e.g., for NIH proposals, where should preliminary data be included?
  • Respect page limits, i.e., don’t use other proposal components (e.g., Appendices) to expand on your proposal narrative.

Write, review and revise

One of the most effective ways to increase your competitiveness for funding is to have your draft proposal reviewed by your peers. The following guidance has been adapted from industry-wide best practices in business development.

  • Strategy Review: Also known as a “pink team” review is a critical review of your idea, this review focuses on the principal ideas and scope of the project. The pink team review can identify major gaps or deficiencies, and significantly improve the design of your proposed work. It should also identify missing elements, which may cause you to reorganize your proposal.
  • Full-Proposal Review: Also known as a “red team” review, this is a critical review of your complete draft. This review focuses on how well your written proposal responds to the requirements of the RFP. The red team review can identify missing elements and weak sections. Critiques should highlight deficiencies in the flow of the document rather than the approach.
  • Final Review: Also known as a “gold team” review, this is a critical review of your final draft, this review focuses on the details such as use of acronyms, terminology, figures and tables, formatting, spelling, and grammar. The gold team review can catch minor errors that could leave reviewers with a negative impression.

Pink, red, and gold team reviewers read the RFP prior to evaluating your work to understand the requirements and apply the same review criteria that will be used by the agency’s review committee. Consider including the following types of members on your peer review teams:

  • Peers in your field of research
  • Peers in a different, but related, field of research
  • Peers with no specialized knowledge of your field of research
  • Peers who have received funding from the agency you are applying to

Additional tips

  • Be considerate of your peer reviewers, allow them enough time to read the RFP and your draft, and be able to provide critical feedback.
  • Allow yourself enough time to incorporate changes based on critical feedback.

Develop a Proposal Submission Strategy

This section is empty on arizona site, embarrassing

Proposal Planning and Writing Resources

Grant writing resources

NIH resources

NSF resources

NSF YouTube channel (search for ‘grants')
How to Prepare an NSF Proposal: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (pdf download)

DoEDU resources

CDMRP resources

NASA resources

USDA resources

USAID resources

European Research Council

Proposal Preparation

The next step in the proposal lifecycle is to prepare your proposal for submission. The USU sponsored Programs Office provides some great resources to help you prepare your proposal.

Proposal Preparation Resources

Submitting

The proposal submission process is handled by USU Sponsored Programs and proposals are submitted using Kuali.

Funder Review

The Review Process

After submission, proposals are received by the funder and undergo standard eligibility and compliance checking. From there, most go on to some form of peer review. In proposal writing, as opposed to manuscript writing, it is critical to understand the review process and the review criteria. This will help you to write with the reviewers in mind, thus producing a competitive proposal.

One of the best ways to accomplish this is to serve as a reviewer yourself. By serving as a reviewer you:

  • Improve your grantsmanship
  • Learn what makes a proposal successful
  • Build and maintain professional contacts
  • Keep abreast of your field
  • Become a better mentor
  • Give back to the scientific community
  • Shape the future of science

Proposal Review at Other Agencies

Video Resources

NSF

NSF’s merit review process determines which research has the greatest potential
Written and produced by Cliff Braverman and Amina Khan at the National Science Foundation, Published on YouTube, June 21, 2014, by the National Science Foundation:

NIH - Tips for Applicants

Produced by the Center for Scientific Review and NIH Division of Events Management Multi Media Department and Rocket Media Group, Published on YouTube, June 14, 2010, by NIHOD:

NEH - Crafting a Competitive NEH Proposal

Published on YouTube, March 8, 2018, by Duke Franklin Humanities Institute:

Award or Revise and Resubmit

Reading Reviewer Comments

The next step in the proposal lifecycle depends on the outcome of funder review. You will either receive a notification of award (congratulations on your hard work!), a notification of non-award with reviewer comments, or a notification of non-award with minimal or no reviewer comments. In some cases (e.g., NEH) you may need to request reviewer comments. Your next step largely depends on how you interpret the reviewer comments.

Should you resubmit, or change funding mechanism, agency, or idea?

1

Analyze the reviewer comments and scores (if provided) to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.

  • If comments and scores are provided by multiple reviewers, evaluate their uniformity across reviewers and note any disagreement.
2

Determine whether (or not) the weaknesses are correctable.

  • Weaknesses in grantsmanship (packaging and presentation) are correctable, whereas inherent weaknesses may or may not be correctable.
  • It can be helpful to obtain objective feedback from senior investigators in your field.
3

If you are considering resubmitting, consult with the other senior/key members of your research team.

  • Distribute the reviewer comments and scores (if provided) to the team members to identify constructive criticisms and form independent recommendations.
  • Hold a meeting with team members to discuss individual assessments and make a collective decision whether (or not) to resubmit.
4

If resubmitting, determine how to respond to reviewer criticisms.

  • List and prioritize all reviewer criticisms and discuss with your research team how to respond to each one.
  • Strongly justify rejection of any criticisms.
  • If your proposal was discussed by the review committee (i.e., not triaged), contact your Program Officer to discuss your strategy for resubmission. Visit the Contacting a Program Officer section for helpful tips.
  • Prepare your response to reviewer criticisms. Depending on the agency, this response can take different forms. For tips on preparing the Introduction section to an A1 proposal (resubmission) see Writing your Introduction (NIH) below.
5

If the weaknesses are inherent and not correctable

  • You may be more successful in developing a new idea, and reconsidering the funding mechanism and/or agency. For helpful tips on all stages of the proposal development lifecycle, visit the Proposal Development section.

Writing your Introduction (NIH)

At the NIH, resubmission applications must include an introduction that:

  • Summarizes substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application,
  • Responds to the issues and criticism raised in the summary statement, and
  • Is one page or less in length, unless specified otherwise in the FOA or is specified differently on the NIH table of page limits.

Helpful tips:

  • Be responsive to all constructive criticisms; save space by only responding to criticisms and not reiterating identified strengths.
  • Prioritize your response by addressing the areas of greatest weakness for each of the review criteria.
  • Reference where changes have been made (e.g., see Research Strategy-Innovation); this will save space
  • Provide pre-submission reviewers this information so they can evaluate your response.

Agency Resubmission Policies

  • The NIH’s proposal resubmission policy is found on the NIH Resubmission Applications website. A list of frequently asked questions is found on the Frequently Asked Questions: Resubmissions of NIH Applications website.
  • The NSF’s proposal resubmission policy is found in the NSF PAPPG Chapter IV:E. Resubmission, and is reproduced here for convenience:

“A declined proposal may be resubmitted, but only after it has undergone substantial revision. A resubmitted proposal that has not clearly taken into account the major comments or concerns resulting from the prior NSF review may be returned without review. The Foundation will treat the revised proposal as a new proposal, subject to the standard review procedures.”

  • NASA’s proposal resubmission policy is found in the Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Funding Announcement, and is reproduced here for convenience:
    “Non-selected proposals may not be submitted as an unsolicited proposal. The non-selection of a proposal does not restrict the submission of a similar or even the same effort by the proposer(s) in response to appropriate future NASA FAs or to other appropriate funding agencies or organizations. However, if a proposal to NASA is contemplated, proposers are strongly urged to carefully consider the entirety of comments offered during their debriefing, as well as the proposal guidelines, before making the decision to resubmit the same, or nearly the same, proposal. Merely correcting any perceived deficiencies in a proposal as noted by a review process for one FA in no way guarantees a higher rating or selection in response to another FA.”
  • NEH proposal resubmission policy
    • Applicants may (or may not) revise and resubmit a proposal that was not recommended for funding. Check specific program guidelines.
    • All applicants can receive upon request the evaluators’ ratings and written comments (source: NEH’s Application Review Process)
  • NIFA’s proposal resubmission policy is found in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Federal Assistance Policy Guide, and is reproduced here for convenience:
    “A resubmission is an application submitted for consideration under the same program previously but has not been approved for an award under the program. For competitive programs, this type of application is evaluated in competition with other pending applications in the area to which it is assigned. Resubmissions are reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria as new applications. In addition, applicants must respond to the previous panel review summaries, unless waived by NIFA. When reviewing a resubmission application the panel will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project. (7 CFR 3430.14).”

Assistance with Proposal Revision

RD Associates are available to assist you with interpretation of reviewer comments, contacting your program officer, assessing whether to resubmit, submit as new, and/or change funding mechanism or agency, as well as crafting your NIH Introduction (or equivalent required resubmission document).

Learn more about engaging RDS

On This Page