Writing a winning grant proposal can be a long and, at times, difficult process, so
it is beneficial to begin early. If you are new to the grant writing process, the
task may seem overwhelming. It is easy to want to cobble together text from previously
written documents, such as the author’s dissertation, prior journal articles, or previous
proposals. However, taking time to write a unique, targeted, thoughtful response will
produce far more readable and successful results. A good outline and a sound understanding
of proposals in general can make the grant-writing process less daunting. Please take
time to review the following overview, guidelines, and suggestions.
The aim of a proposal is to provide a compelling justification for a project to receive
funding, usually under a specific program solicitation. Answering all the reviewer’s
questions in a clear, well-organized manner helps make the proposal compelling. The
sponsor will determine what information is required and specify this in the program
solicitation. Most government agencies are very precise in their requirements in order
to allow fair, unbiased competition and evaluation for funding. Some requirements
(such as number of pages, margins, font size and type, funding priorities, and specifically
requested information) are so strict that deviating from them will cause a proposal
to be rejected without review. Please review the program solicitation carefully for
all requirements.
Proposals can range from very large, detailed manuscripts to one-page documents. There
are several basic types of proposals of varying lengths and purposes:
Letter of Inquiry (to a foundation or private, non-government agency) – 1 page. A letter of inquiry
is a brief summary of your project that is intended to assess the interest of the
funder in receiving a full proposal. The letter allows funders to determine whether
or not a project or activity is suitable to their funding purposes. The letter should
be attention getting, succinct, and demonstrate a good match with their funding priorities.
It should request an opportunity to submit a full proposal
Letter of Intent (to government) – 1 to 2 pages. A letter of intent indicates your non-binding intention
to submit a full proposal to a funding program, due at a later date. Funders use the
information to gauge the number of proposals likely to be submitted and to identify
the types of review expertise that will be required to evaluate the proposals. Letters of
intent usually ask for a brief synopsis of the project design and activities, as well
as specific identifying information about you, your project team, and your institution.
Concept Paper / White Paper – 2 to 5 pages. The purpose of a concept paper is to explain your project to potential
funders to garner their interest or support. Concept papers may be requested by the
funder, but may also be used informally in meeting personally with potential funders.
Pre-proposal – generally short, 3 to 6 pages. Pre-proposals are often requested by funders of
large grant competitions. They are usually much shorter than full proposals and do
not request a detailed budget or supplemental documents. Reviewers will request full
proposals from among those applicants they find most promising. This process is meant
to save proposers the time and expense of submitting proposals that are unlikely to
be funded.
Proposal Letter (to foundations) – 2 to 3 pages. If a foundation indicates that applicants should
submit a proposal or letter and no other instructions are given, they expect to receive a letter of 2 pages, possibly 3 pages with the budget. The
letter should be persuasive as to the need addressed, the viability of the proposed
solution, and the significance of expected outcomes for program participants.
Online Proposal (to foundations). To be in compliance with UVU policy, online proposals must have
their accounts setup by and be submitted by the Director of Contracts and Foundation
Grants. OSP will complete the required forms and attach institutional documents. You
will be asked to prepare the text of required fields in a Word document and submit
this to OSP to be uploaded. Often the text fields only allow for a limited number
of characters.
Full proposal, short (foundation, state or federal government) – 5 to 12 pages. These proposals usually
have specific requirements from the funder. If not, follow the general outline provided
below.
Full proposal, long (state or federal government) – 12 to 60 pages. These proposals have specific requirements
from the funder that should be carefully followed. They will probably require supplemental
documents and may allow for appendices.
Contract bid (state or federal government) – generally long. Contract bids always have specific
requirements from the funder.
Whether the proposal is short or long, the body of the proposal generally follows
the structure described in Write the Body of the Proposal. Having a good foundational knowledge of the general parts of a proposal will help
you organize the information you want to convey in a way that meets the reader’s expectations
and presents a clear picture of what you propose to accomplish.
Proposals must be clearly organized, well written, and easily understood by reviewers. Reviewers expect that a proposal will follow the order and format dictated by the solicitation, if given. PIs/PDs should study the program solicitation for the specific required elements for the proposal and follow these completely. The following section is provided to give an overview of proposals in general and an outline in those cases where specific instructions are not given. Most proposals contain the following elements (discussed in the subsections that follow).
Most program solicitations prescribe the format of the proposal, specifically the
body of the proposal. The solicitation will usually indicate the page limits, font
size, margins, and spacing for text and for tables and charts. If these are not indicated,
the standard is one-inch margins on all sides and 12-point font. The font should always
be of a legible size – generally no smaller than Times New Roman 11 point or Arial
10 point. The font in tables, charts, and diagrams may be smaller if permissible,
but must also be legible on a printed page.
Remember that reviewers must evaluate many excellent proposals in a short time. A
well-organized document with clear, logical formatting will make your proposal stand
out for reviewers and help them find the information they need for their evaluation.
In many cases, they will have a checklist of the grant requirements, and if they cannot
easily locate the elements they are supposed to evaluate, your proposal’s rating could
suffer. Make sure the proposal structure makes it easy for the reviewers to find what
they are looking for.
Some solicitations specify the structure of the proposal by identifying specific topics, headings, or criteria that applicants must address. In these cases, use their precise wording, in the order given, even if you think another arrangement makes better sense. Some solicitations provide the evaluation criteria that the reviewers will use to rate the proposal. The evaluation criteria can be used as an effective structure for the proposal. Here is some advice for structuring your proposal:
When the review criteria or scoring rubric is provided, write specifically with these criteria in mind. You may include additional information if appropriate, but be certain to address the criteria by which the proposal will be evaluated. These suggestions may help:
The body of the proposal is sometimes referred to as the Proposal Narrative, Project
Description, or Statement of Work. The body of the proposal should define the problem
or need to addressed, formulate the goals and objectives in response to that problem,
and explain the specific actions that will be undertaken to fulfill those goals and
objectives. The proposal should also address potential pitfalls, how the project will
be evaluated to determine its success, and whether it will be sustainable after the
funded project period has ended.
The body of the proposal should accurately reflect what the proposers intend to do
with the project, why it is being done, and how what is done will be evaluated. The
quality of the proposal should be sufficient to compete with other proposers at a
state or national level. The description of the need for the project and the explanation
of what will be done should be truthful, thoughtful, and accurate. The statement of
outcomes or deliverables should be both ambitious and attainable. The proposal should
only propose what can realistically be completed within the time and dollars available
to the project.
Again, the writer should study the program solicitation for the specific, required
elements of the narrative and follow these completely. The writer should also identify,
generally speaking, who the proposal reviewers will be and use sentence structure,
language, etc. that is appropriate for that audience. The following sections are generally
included in a proposal narrative, although they may be called by different names.
Problem to Be Addressed, sometimes called the Statement of Need, and may include the following:
The importance of the problem should receive considerable and persuasive attention. This section is critical, because if you do not convince the reader that there is a problem, then the other sections of the proposal are irrelevant. The section should include relevant citations from verifiable and reliable sources. It may include tables, charts, diagrams and other visual information that accompanies the written text. Here are some suggestions to strengthen your problem section:
The goals and objectives specify what the proposer intends to achieve and are generally the heart of a proposal. The goals and objectives should correlate directly with the statement of need, the project activities, and the project evaluation. The following definitions differentiate between goal and objective:
Goal – a broad statement of the intent or overall outcome of the program, conceptual and more abstract than the objectives. The goal might use visionary words such as develop, decrease, deliver, establish, improve, increase, produce, and provide. For a research proposal, this may be the hypothesis.
Objective – represents a step toward accomplishing a goal. In contrast to the goal, an objective is narrow, precise, tangible, concrete, and can be measured or accomplished in a specific timeframe. Here are some helps in articulating strong objectives:
Additionally, service-based or program proposals should include statements of intended
outcomes, either in the Goals and Objectives section, or in the Evaluation section.
Outcome – benefits that occur to participants of a program. Typically, outcomes represent an achievement or a change in behavior, skills, knowledge, attitude, status or life condition of participants related to participation in a program. Well-designed programs usually choose outcomes that participants would recognize as benefits to themselves.
Research-based and innovation-based proposals should discuss the significance or impact
that the achievement of the proposed objectives would have on the target audience,
the institution, the community, the academic or research community, or others. For
proposals to NSF, this could the section to include the required Intellectual Merit
and Broader Impacts statements. Note that a separately labeled section for each the
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts are now required in the Project Description.
See the discussion of these criteria in the section describing the Abstract and the discussion of the Merit Review Criteria in theNSF Proposals and Awards Policy and Procedures Guide.
The section of the proposal that describes what will be done is often called Implementation,
Plan of Work, Project Design, Research Design, or something similar. This section
sets forth in detail the plan of action to be taken in the proposed project. The plan
should correlate directly with the statement of need and with the project goals and
objectives.
Remember that no matter how good your ideas or noble your intentions, you must translate
them into a specific set of activities in order to secure funding. Whether you want
to establish a training program, demonstrate a novel approach to service delivery,
or conduct basic research, the task of moving from an idea to a practical work plan
is the same. Detail is key. If you don’t know how something will be done, find out.
Funders never give money up front for a plan that will be developed later. This section
is generally the largest section of the proposal and may include:
Activities – specific statements that identify the plan of action to be initiated in order to carry out the objectives. Each objective may have several activities identified.
Implementation Plan – a description in narrative form of how the proposers plan to implement the activities described for each objective, encompassing the how, when, and why. Tables and charts to clarify the project may be appropriate to accompany the text. The plan should take into consideration things that may go wrong and how they will be addressed.
Participant Selection – if the project requires the selection of participants, scholarship recipients, or the like, you should explain how they will be recruited and the criterion by which they will be selected. Indicate what strategies you will use to target specific audiences, if appropriate. Cite the institution’s non-discrimination policies.
Rationale – the scholarly basis for approach taken. For research proposals, a discussion of prior research results may be appropriate here. Academic literature might be cited showing that the approach is a proven best practice or as the basis for proposing a new approach. This section gives the project credibility.
Timeline Table – a table that lists in short form each objective and activity and gives the start
time and completion time for each; it should also name the person or persons responsible
and may give milestones for achieving project objectives. Sometimes this table can
go in an appendix.
Management Plan. This section explains how the project will be organized and managed so that the proposed
activities successfully achieve the project objectives. The Project Management Plan
might include the following information or subsections:
Project Organization – who is responsible for what and to whom; who is fiscally responsible. A project organization chart may be appropriate here. The section may describe the utilization of staff meetings, oversight committees, advisory boards, etc.
External Partnerships – a description of each of the partners and their roles and contributions to the proposed project.
Institutional Capacity – evidence that UVU supports the project and has the capacity to assist in achieving project objectives. If not provided separately, this section might describe the facilities, equipment, personnel, funds, and other resources UVU will commit. It may include a description of previous institutional efforts and successes that strengthen the proposal. This section is generally supported by letters of commitment or collaboration in an appendix.
This section should include a description of the role and duties of each person identified
in the implementation plan and the budget, and their time commitment to the project.
Résumés or Biographical Sketches (usually two pages or less) may be attached in an
appendix for most proposals.
The personnel section may also include a summary of the qualifications and duties
of people who may be hired or who have been designated to work with the project. For
new hires, include a description of the institution’s equal opportunity and non-discriminatory
hiring practices. Human Resources should be consulted in preparing job descriptions.
Some funding programs allow job descriptions to be attached in an appendix.
The evaluation section explains how the proposers will know whether or not the outcomes
of the project are of value. Keep in mind that funders want to know that their dollars
will serve their intended purpose. Thus, a strong plan to evaluate the results, outcomes,
and impact of the project is an essential part of a winning proposal.
Effective evaluation plans are built into the fabric of the proposal, not tacked on
at the end. One of the best ways to do this is to describe how the success of each
objective will be evaluated. If objectives are written to be measurable, this should
not be difficult. An evaluation table might be created that lists each objective (in
a shortened form) and explains how each objective will be evaluated to assess its
effectiveness. Columns in the table could include: Area of Evaluation, Measurement
Tool, Measurement Methods, Benchmarks and/or Anticipated Outcomes. Robust evaluation
plans generally utilize both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Quantitative measures – are designed to measure or count data. They attempt to answer the question: "How much?" using statistical analysis such as averages, means, percentiles, etc.
Qualitative measures – use direct or indirect contact with people. They can consist of interviews, observation, open-ended questionnaires, or review of relevant documents.
The accompanying text should explain who will be responsible for project evaluation,
who will keep records and obtain data, and how it will be done. The text should explain
who will be responsible for compiling and analyzing data, how will it be done, and
how it will be reported. Evaluation tools, especially nationally normed tests or tools
created for the proposed project (such as surveys and matrices) should be described.
An evaluation plan should include both formative evaluation and summative evaluation.
Formative evaluation – designed to determine the extent to which progress is being made toward a stated objective. It occurs during the course of the project and may be used to modify or improve the project in order to best accomplish the objectives. Formative evaluation should be accompanied by a managerial process for reviewing the findings and making needed adjustments in a timely manner.
Summative evaluation – designed to determine the extent to which the objective was accomplished. It occurs at the end of an operating cycle (project year) and at the end of the project. Findings typically are used to help decide whether a program should be adopted, continued, or modified for improvement. Note that in a multi-year project, the summative evaluation of one year may be used as a formative evaluation for the next year. Summative evaluations are used for the final project report to the funding agency.
For most proposals, a robust evaluation requires significant expertise that is outside
the PI’s qualifications. The use of either an internal or external evaluator has become
common in fields such as education and the social sciences and required by some funding
programs. It is often useful to get the evaluator on board as the proposal is being
developed to assure the project’s goals can be adequately evaluated. (See Section
3.f.1 on Locating and working with an external project evaluator.)
This section explains how the project will continue past the funding period. For service-based
grants, it might explain how the institution will adopt the changes introduced and
begin funding those aspects that require continued funding. For innovation-based grants,
it might explain the plan to continue to grow or expand the innovation. For research
grants, it should explain what is planned next and how it will be funded.
This section describes how the proposers will tell others in the professional/academic
community about what they have learned through this project. For some service-based
grants, this could include papers and presentations about how best practices were
implemented at the institution. For innovation and research grants, this section is
critical; it should tell how the proposers will get the word out to other interested
parties. If peer-reviewed journal articles or conference presentations are planned,
indicate which journals or conferences will be targeted. If a website is planned,
indicate how you will drive traffic to the site or link to other sites that could
direct traffic. Other more active forms of dissemination are encouraged, which include
sponsoring workshops or having colleagues at other institutions test, evaluate, or
implement the products of your project. Be sure to include monies in the budget to
cover the dissemination activities or indicate how they will be funded.
In addition to the body of the proposal, almost all proposals have additional requirements,
which vary by funding program. The most commonly required sections are discussed in
this section.
Some funding agencies have a special format for the cover page that must be followed.
This may be a form generated by an online submission program (such as Grant.gov, FastLane,
etc.). The standard form used by many federal agencies is the SF-424. Alternatively,
an additional page of information may be required. In the absence of such a format
or application form, a basic cover page should be attached. The cover page would include
information such as the name of the funding program, applicant institution (Utah Valley
University), project title, amount of funding requested, project time period, name
and contact information of the PI or PD, Co-PIs, and the name and contact information
of the signature authority of UVU. The title should be brief, clear, and as descriptive
of the actual project as possible. It should be suitable for use in the public press.
The abstract may also be called the Project Summary, Executive Summary, or Project
Aims. The abstract should, in general, be no more than one page though some abstracts
are limited to a certain number of words. The abstract or summary should give the
reader a good overview of the proposal as well as provide suitable text for publication
should the proposal be funded. It should be easily understood by a lay audience. An
abstract should generally include the following information:
For NSF proposals, theNSF Project Summary must contain the statements of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact, as described
below. Other proposals would benefit from addressing these issues where appropriate
in the abstract.
Intellectual Merit – the potential of the proposed activity to advance knowledge. This section might address:
Broader Impact – the potential of the proposed activity to benefit society. This section might address:
Sometimes a separate section is allowed for references (as opposed to including them
as footnotes in the body of the proposal). Each reference must include the names of
all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article
and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication.
If the document is available electronically, the internet address also should be identified.
Proposers must be especially careful to follow accepted scholarly practices in providing
citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the proposal.
This section should not be used to provide parenthetical information.
A proposal résumé is a summary of the relevant qualifications of the key members of
the project team. Résumés for proposals are generally limited to two pages, though
they could be more or less. They are usually included in an appendix or as an attachment.
The résumé should be tailored to the proposal, and not just a condensed version of
the curriculum vita.
The proposal résumé should be written to convince a reviewer that the personnel are qualified to conduct this particular project. It should emphasize experience related to the project and any special qualifications that uniquely qualify the person for the team. A proposal résumé generally includes the following:
NSF Biographical Sketches are a more specific type of proposal résumé. Specific guidelines for the Biographical
Sketch are found in the NSF Proposals and Awards Policy and Procedures Guide, and they are summarized with helps and examples in OSP’sRequirements for an NSF Biographical Sketch document.
An appendix containing job descriptions for new hires of key personnel is sometimes
requested. The job description should include the required qualifications, major responsibilities,
and time commitment to the project. Human Resources should be consulted in preparing
job descriptions.
Sometimes a detailed project timeline or research plan is requested to be included
as an attachment or appendix. A project timeline might list activities to be accomplished
during a year or other project period and indicate the time period or completion date.
It may name the person or persons responsible and may give milestones for achieving
project objectives. A research plan should break the methodology section into discrete
actions and list these in table format, including the method, timeline, and milestones.
Some funding agencies require a Data Management Plan. This supplementary document
should describe how the proposal will conform to federal and agency policy on the
dissemination and sharing of the products of research. The strength of the Data Management
Plan is an indication of the project’s potential for broad impacts. Specific guidelines
for the Data Management Plan are found in the NSF Proposals and Awards Policy and Procedures Guide. OSP has an NSF Data Management Plan – Instructions and Template and examples of Data Management Plans upon request.
The Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources section is required for NSF proposals.
This section is used to provide an aggregated description of the internal and external
resources available to the project from the sponsoring institution and its collaborators
if the proposal is funded. This includes both physical resources and personnel whose
time is being contributed by the University (not paid for out of grant funds). This
section, in conjunction with the letters of collaboration, will be used by reviewers
to determine whether or not the resources available are sufficient to accomplish the
scope of work described in the body of the proposal.
All resources necessary for, and available to, a project should be described in narrative
format. The section should describe only those resources that are directly applicable
to the project. The requested information should be provided in this section, rather
than in other parts of the proposal. The description must not include any quantifiable financial information. Although these resources are not considered cost sharing, NSF does expect that the
resources identified in the Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources section will
be provided, or made available, should the proposal be funded.
For proposals requesting major equipment, this section should describe the physical
facility where the equipment will be located, including floor plans or other appropriate
information. It should also include a description of the source of funds available
for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment.
The commitment of resources described in the Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
section should be substantiated in the letters of collaboration, with a letter from
each institution or organization agreeing to provide these resources. For more information
about this section, see the NSF Proposals and Awards Policy and Procedures Guide.
Many proposals require letters of collaboration, commitment, or support from UVU administrators,
partners, and other collaborators. The following descriptions explain the general
differences among these types of documents:
Letter of Collaboration – indicates the signatory’s intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as described in the proposal, should the proposal be funded. Note that NSF now only allows letters of collaboration (unless otherwise requested) and specifies how they should be written in its Proposals and Awards Procedures and Policies Guide. Please see OSP'sNSF Letters of Collaborationand theNSF Letters of Collaboration Template.
Letter of Commitment – indicates the signatory’s intent to commit resources to the funded project as specified in the letter. May also give the partner’s rationale for supporting the project and point to strengths of the organization that could be of value in implementing or sustaining the project.
Letter of Support – expresses the organization’s knowledge and support of the project, including why the project is important and how it relates to the organization’s mission or expressed goals. May address the proposer’s qualifications or abilities to complete the project. Such letters can add much additional information to strengthen the proposal.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – a document stating intention of a common line of action between two or more parties. An MOU indicates voluntary agreement among organizations to assist with the implementation plans of a grant-funded collaborative project. Generally, the document defines each partner, sets forth the action that they will accomplish (goals and objectives), and specifies what each partner will contribute to this action. The MOU is signed by the authorized signatory of each participating organization, not the PI.
Please see the document Letters of Commitment, Collaboration, and Support for examples of each.
The PI should solicit letters well in advance of the due date so there will be time
for signatures. Letters from partners should represent true, collaborative partnerships.
The PI should keep a signed original copy of the letter in case the proposal is funded
and audited. Letters from a UVU Vice President or Dean require a week for approval;
letters from the UVU President, which are rarely requested, require two weeks (10
business days). Those requesting letters should provide the administrator with a copy
of the proposal Abstract and, for NSF proposals, the Facilities, Equipment, and Other
Resources section. Please speak with the appropriate OSP Project Director if you have
questions about who should submit letters for your project.
Due to federal mandate, the University must certify that it conducts its activities
in accordance with specific federal laws or regulations associated with the obligations
of entities that received federal funds. These assurances to the federal sponsors
constitute a promise on the part of the University that it understands the sum and
substance of the regulations and that the University will do its best to comply with
the regulations. Acting as the certified official, the Senior Director of Sponsored
Programs will sign any certifications or representations requiring a signature.
Representations and certifications required to be submitted with the proposal vary, depending on the agency and contract amount. The forms are generally part of the grant application package for Grants.gov and FastLane, but sometimes a form may need to be added to an application. The grant application or the solicitation will clearly specify which certifications are required. If there are special forms required, please alert the OSP Director of Sponsored Research. Examples of commonly required certifications are:
Many agencies have a single form that covers a general set of certifications regarding
employment assurances such as non-discriminatory practices, accuracy of cost and pricing
data, employer identification number, etc.
Because certification requirements are constantly changing, OSP monitors federal requirements
in these areas. Whenever there are questions about required certifications and representations
please direct them to OSP.
As explained in Step 3, preparation of the budget for a proposal is generally a multi-stage process as depicted below. Stages 1 and 2 were described in Step 3 and an explanation of budget items are provided as a separate printable document entitledProposal Budget Line-Item Guidance.
Stages 1 and 2 were explained in Step 3 of the Grant Life Process. Stage 3 is described
in this section. Stage 4 is described in Step 5.
Using the budget spreadsheet (generally theOSP Budget Worksheet)you prepared in Step 3 and reviewed with the appropriate OSP Program Director, prepare
the budget in the format required for submission. The budget format generally consists
of the budget sheets (tables) that accompany a proposal submission file, such as Grants.gov
with the standard SF-424A form and FastLane with an NSF-specific form. Always check
the program solicitation to see what format is required. The solicitation will have
a section devoted to budget requirements. Study this carefully and address all requirements.
Standard forms for federal programs consolidate costs under specific budget categories
(as in the last page of theBudget Worksheet), including both direct and indirect costs. The forms generally require you to give
the combined total for each category. Some programs require you to submit a budget
for each year of the project with an additional budget summary page that contains
the cumulative total in each category for all years. Other programs only require that
you submit a budget for the first year of the program. (These are generally programs
that base subsequent years’ funding on the program’s performance each year.)
The specific budget categories are described in detail in the documentProposal Budget Line-Item Guidance. Here is some guidance to help as you review your budget.
The budget narrative is sometimes referred to as the budget justification and is considered
a companion document to the budget forms. The budget narrative serves two purposes:
it explains how the costs were estimated, and it justifies the need for the cost.
It may be attached as a supplemental document or included as part of the body of the
proposal. The budget narrative should breakdown costs for each of the major cost categories
(salaries, fringe benefits, equipment, travel, supplies, other direct costs and indirect
costs), as well as any additional categories required by the sponsor. Each item must
correlate to specific activities described in the body of the proposal; cumulative
totals for each category must correlate with the budget tables.
The budget narrative should describe each line item in the budget and show the calculations
used to derive the costs. The format of the budget narrative may be entirely narrative
text, a combination of narrative text and accompanying tables, or one-line item table
with text explanations in the table (seeBudget Narrative Examples).Every item in the budget narrative should relate to the body of the proposal, and
every expense in the body of the proposal should relate to the budget narrative. Explain
items of the budget in detail, especially items that may not be clear to the reader
or may need further discussion to establish their necessity. For instance, if the
budget includes funds for travel, explain how many people will be traveling to attend
what conference for what purpose and include an estimated itemization of expenses.
Or you might explain why purchasing one piece of equipment is preferable to another.
The information should be sufficiently detailed to address all sponsor concerns with
respect to cost and need.
The documentProposal Budget Line-Item Guidance describes the specific budget categories in detail and gives suggestions about addressing
these items in the budget narrative. Common explanations in the budget narrative include,
but are not limited to:
The primary organization to submit a proposal and be awarded for a sponsored program
may choose to allocate a portion of the scope of work to another organization to complete.
A subcontract will be generated to obligate a specified amount of funding to the receiving
organization to complete a defined portion of work. For federal awards, OSP will help
to determine if the receiving organization qualifies as a sub-recipient or contractor/vendor.
Federal guidelines in 2 CFR 200.330 help distinguish these roles by the following criteria:
|
SUB-RECIPIENT |
CONTRACTOR/VENDOR |
|
Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance; |
Provides the goods and services within normal business operations; |
|
Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met; |
Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers; |
|
Has responsibility for programmatic decision making; |
Normally operates in a competitive environment; |
|
Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and |
Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and |
|
In accordance with its agreement, uses the Federal funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the pass-through entity. |
Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program as a result of the agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons. |
In a sub-recipient arrangement, UVU is the project lead; in a sub-award arrangement, UVU is a collaborator to another institution who is the project lead.
It is the responsibility of the project PI/PD or the lead at UVU to notify OSP about
any sub-contractual agreement and facilitate the work required by OSP, as described
below.
Documents required for submission when UVU is the lead. The project PI/PD should submit to the UVU OSP:
The sub-recipient’s OSP should submit to UVU OSP:
Documents required for submission when UVU is subcontracted. The project PI/PD should submit to the UVU OSP:
The lead organization’s OSP should submit to UVU OSP:
Review of the proposal and budget by the project team and by other peers is critical to getting a proposal funded. Reviewers see things that the writer(s) may have overlooked. They can identify issues that are unclear, lack sufficient explanation, or may raise reviewer concerns. Reviews by both those who are familiar with the project (the project team) and by those who are unfamiliar with it (other experts in the field) will be helpful. If someone on your project team is not a good copy editor, find someone who is to review the proposal carefully. It is useful to have a non-expert provide a review to ensure the content is easily understandable and free from disciplinary jargon and acronyms. The document needs to be stylistically clean, easy to read, and free from grammatical error.
The proposal should be reviewed by the writer(s) and members of the project team.
The reviewers’ time and effort will be more productive if they are given some guidance
or asked to respond to some specific questions. Reviewers might be asked the following,
in addition to questions of your own:
The PI/PD should seek other reviewers who have expertise in the field or similar fields
but who have not been part of planning the project. These reviewers might be faculty
members or administrators at UVU or another institution. (UVU OSP has a list of some
UVU faculty or retired faculty who would be willing to serve as reviewers.) Again,
reviewers’ time and effort will be more productive if they are given some guidance
or asked to respond to some specific questions. Reviewers might be asked the following,
in addition to questions of your own and the questions above:
For research proposals:
For service-oriented proposals:
The Office of Sponsored Programs has created and compiled a number of proposal development resources to aid you in proposal preparation. Some are general to most proposals and others are specific to the National Science Foundation. Please go toGrant Writing Resourceson the OSP website and become familiar with this selection.
