Proposal Development Guide

---

While there are few widely accepted rules and procedures for reviewing and approving grant proposals, there are some common elements from sponsor to sponsor. The decision to award a grant is a discretionary one and usually not subject to an appeals process.

Discretionary grants compete against one another for funding which differs from procurement or contract competitions. Contracts are awarded to satisfy a requirement of an agency. Once the requirement has been defined, a competition occurs to determine who can best satisfy the requirement. Grants, however, are awarded to assist organizations in meeting organizational requirements, needs and objectives that are consistent with those of the sponsor's grant program.

---

Proposal Receipt and Initial Processing

Sponsors often designate a program officer who is responsible for receiving and processing applications. The initial processing involves examining the application for: (1) legal and applicant eligibility; (2) original authorized signatures; (3) required clearances and assurances; (4) completeness; and (5) compliance with sponsor administrative requirements.

Some sponsors and programs receive applications on a continuous basis and do not have set application deadlines. Applications for these programs are reviewed as they are received. Other programs establish a closing date for receipt of applications for a given year or a specific funding cycle. Sponsors might also accept applications outside the scope of the announced competition. Such applications are screened to determine if they can be legally funded and if they are of such outstanding merit that an award outside the normal competition is justified.

---

Proposal Review and Evaluation

Each application is reviewed on technical merit using the criteria specified in the program’s application guidelines. Technical evaluations of grant applications are performed to determine whether: (1) there is a need for the project; (2) the project's objectives meet the sponsor's program objectives; (3) the proposed procedures or methods are capable of achieving the project's objectives; (4) the facilities and resources are adequate; (5) the qualifications of staff are acceptable; and (6) the value or the cost-to-benefit ratio warrant a grant award.

The actual review process differs among agencies. The peer review system is used most often for research grants and utilizes reviewers who are the professional equals of the applicants. At the federal level, peer review is often required by statute, and reviewers are generally faculty from other institutions.

Some sponsors review applications "in-house” by using full-time staff of the funding agency. Major foundations often will use a process which combines internal and external reviews. The initial screening and review is done internally, but the opinion of outside experts is also sought.

In addition to review for technical merit, grant applications generally receive some form of cost analysis. A cost analysis may result in an award amount that is different from that requested or in special terms or conditions being placed on the grant.

The sponsor may also take into account a grantee's financial strength and management capability including past performance, facilities, cost controls, accounting policies and procedures, audit practices, etc.

---

Review Panels

Federal agencies (and some non-federal sponsors) select panels of three or more qualified individuals or arrange a group of field readers to review applications. Each reviewer on a panel is given copies of the applicable statute, regulations, program announcement, priorities and criteria. Written scoring instructions and forms are also provided. Panel members may meet as a group to discuss the merits of individual proposals. Field readers function just as panels do, with the only difference being that they are physically dispersed and, therefore, unable to discuss the applications. Based on the scores, the agency evaluates each application and prepares a ranked list of the applications.

Some agencies, such as NIH, keep a membership list of review groups available for faculty reference and it is possible to recommend assignment of your proposal to a particular NIH group. An assignment by NIH can also be challenged if you think it is inappropriate. Other federal agencies including NSF permit the applicant to suggest possible reviewers as well as inappropriate reviewers.

For more information on proposal review, check the specific agency website or contact your Sponsored Research Officer.

---

Approval and Negotiation

Applications with the highest scores normally are funded. Sometimes program staff are not bound by the decision of the reviewers and can take into consideration more subjective criteria such as geographic distribution and uniqueness of the project.

Negotiations via phone or email may be held regarding individual budget items or the scope of activities, and to establish any necessary special terms and conditions. Except when stipulated by statute or regulation, the sponsor may also negotiate any required cost-sharing or matching. Please note that only the offices of Research Administration and Contract Administration are authorized to conduct grant or contract negotiations.

---

Unsuccessful Proposals

Unsuccessful applicants to federal grant programs are entitled to receive an explanation of why the application was not funded. The explanation may include information on the score or ranking of the application, the reviewer evaluation forms, summary statements, etc. The materials will exclude the name of the reviewer to preclude inappropriate pressure or influence.

It is recommended that applicants request reviewer comments, whether your proposal has been funded or rejected. Studying these reviewer comments is one way to significantly improve your next submission.