Proposal Preparation

Submitting a full proposal requires a series of orchestrated steps. But what seems a daunting task with its many forms and must-have approvals can be quite manageable if you follow these steps.

Understanding the RFP (Request for Proposal)

  • Determine whether the sponsor’s proposal due date can be met comfortably per SC&I and RU deadlines whether it is an LOI, pre-proposal, or full proposal. The grants team’s Research Project Coordinator (RPC) is the first point of contact and can advise on this and other matters.
  • With ongoing support from the RPC, the Writer-Editor, and the assigned Business Specialist, an investigator becomes acquainted with the most relevant sponsor requirements for the proposed project.
  • A read of the RFP will prompt these questions: Is the proposal doable and results measurable? Is there initial research that would provide an edge with the merit reviewers? Are the co-investigators or senior personnel experienced enough to execute the project?
  • The Business Specialist can determine whether the sponsor’s budget parameters align with the proposal’s research costs, including supporting personnel, F&A, and fringe.
  • Discuss any red flags in the sponsor’s RFP or research criteria with relevant colleagues, including the department chair, the Associate Dean for Research, and the RPC. The program officer is a go-to source, too.

Proposal Submission

Purpose: Some federal and many foundations within their RFP require submission of an LOI as a prerequisite for advancing to a full (invited) proposal. While this generally short document is not externally evaluated or used to determine funding, it serves various purposes by the funders. An LOI typically contains much of this information in an abbreviated form: tentative project title; summary; budget request; rationale for pursuing; objectives; study design; and expected outcomes/significance.

Processing: An LOI may be processed via RAPSS, a Funding Proposal (FP) created, and  could be routed for approval to the school, chair, and Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP).

Purpose: Some sponsors solicit pre-proposals, and they typically include a project summary and a few supporting documents (i.e., bio sketches, letter of institutional support). At the NSF, for example, the solicitation determines the type of decision to be made upon review. An “invite/no invite” determines who can submit a full proposal.

Processing: The submission process is typically the same as for a full proposal, requiring a RAPSS FP, SC&I chair, and dean approval, and an authorized signature from RSP.

Purpose: Whether a federal agency or foundation submission, it contains all the required information by the sponsor, which may include detailed project plans, staff capabilities, budgets, and facilities, among others. The NSF prioritizes the intellectual merit and broader impacts of a proposed project, but these are goals all investigators should explore in their submissions regardless of the type of submission or funder. All documents, particularly the narrative, should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper being submitted for academic publication.

Processing: Requires a RAPSS FP, SC&I chair, and dean approval, and an authorized signature from RSP.

(Varies by funder; the SC&I grants RPC can assist with these and other documents.)

  • Sponsor’s budget and/or RU’s budget template
  • Budget justification
  • Bio sketches
  • Narrative (“science”/”technical”)
  • Abstract/summary
  • References cited
  • Current & pending support (CPS)
  • Facilities, equipment, and other resources
  • Collaborators & other affiliations (COA)
  • Data management plan
  • Letter of institutional support
  • Letters of Collaboration (LOC)
  • Mentoring plan
  • Subaward forms

The subaward documents pertain to the work of the subrecipient, not the entirety of the project, and many require the signature of the requesting investigator and an authorized official from the subawardee’s  organization (i.e., its RSP office). If a subagreement is anticipated, the primary institution collects relevant documents from subaward institution(s) for submission to the sponsor during the proposal stage. These may include the following:

  • Subrecipient Commitment Form:  Collects disclosure information such as compliance and institutional contact information when Rutgers is the awarding institution. Other institutions typically require similar forms when Rutgers is the subaward institution. Rutgers’ institutional information  can be useful in completing documents sent by an outside institution.  
  • Subrecipient Letter of Intent:  Indicates a potential research collaboration as well as confirmation that the subaward institution is prepared to agree should an award be made. Other institutions typically require a subrecipient letter of intent when Rutgers is the subaward institution.  
  • Scope of Work: An outline of the expected work to be completed. 
  • Budget and Budget Justification:  Categorizes and justifies the expected costs of conducting research.  

RU Compliance

  • Rutgers’ Electronic Conflict of Interest Disclosures (eCOI+) research certifications are specific project-related disclosures only required by project personnel when an award is received.
  • All project personnel named in the proposal must  have  a  current general  financial conflict of interest disclosure.
  •  The RPC is designated as the SC&I eCOI+ monitor and must be listed as the departmental reviewer/supervisor for all research-initiated disclosures.

The proposal’s compliance review by Rutgers’ IRB needs approval before an awarded new  project is set up for a project account by RSP/Grants and Contract Accounting.  Therefore, it is recommended that the PI submits the protocol for IRB approval quickly after the submission of the proposal to the sponsor. 

  • If the human subjects’ protocol is not approved, this could delay project set-up which, in turn, might delay the hiring and paying of personnel, along with the purchasing of equipment, etc., for the new project.
  • Some sponsors will not issue an award (e.g., NSF) before it receives proof of IRB approval. In some instances, a delay in showing IRB approval may lead to the award not being made.
  • The Rutgers’ IRB turnaround time is two to three weeks. If you do not hear back from the IRB by then, please contact the IRB @IRB Office.
  • The approval timeline depends on the specifics of the study and the completed documents submitted to the IRB for review. 
  • Acquaint yourself with the IRB submission and approval processes by visiting its sites:

IRB website, Toolkits, Pre-review Services, Guidance Topics