Proposal Development

YOUR NEXT AWARD STARTS HERE!

Not sure where to look to get started? Pre-Award can help you identify funding opportunities that match your research focus, career stage, and area of study — whether that’s a federal grant, a foundation grant, or an internal seed funding program. Reach out to set up time with a Pre-Award team member to talk through your research goals and get a curated list of relevant sponsors and deadlines.

Once you’ve found a research opportunity, it’s time to build your case. At this stage, you’ll define your research scope, draft your budget, and identify any subrecipients or collaborators. Your Pre-Award team is your go-to partner here — they’ll help you interpret sponsor guidelines, prepare budget justifications, and confirm your proposal meets institutional and federal requirements before it moves any further.

---

---

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ELIGIBILITY 

Persons holding the following positions may be designated as Principal Investigators (PI) in applications for externally sponsored funding:

• All tenured and tenure-track Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors and Librarians.
• All persons holding appointments as Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor and Research Professor, and Clinical Professors.

Outside of the positions listed above, special conditions must be met to be a PI:

• All persons holding Adjunct, Visiting, Emeritus or other faculty positions at the UNTHSC not included above, and who have the written approval of the department chair the Dean of the relevant School or College, and the VPR. PI’s in one of these categories should also include a Co-Investigator from appointment types included above. In the event a Co-Investigator is not named, the Department Chair and, also, the Dean of the relevant School or College shall accept full fiscal and administrative liability and responsibility for the actions of the Principal Investigator included in this category.
• All Post-Doctoral Fellows who have the written approval of the department chair the Dean of the relevant School or College, and the VPR. The Post-Doctoral Fellow’s mentor must be listed as a co-investigator.
• All Professional Staff (ex. Directors), employed in a full-time position, who are not also students, provided they have the written approval of the department chair, the Dean of the relevant School or College, and the VPR. PI’s in one of these
  categories should also include a Co-Investigator from appointment types included above.

Neither undergraduate nor graduate students may be designated as PIs. When a Sponsor’s program guidelines require the student to be listed as PI on the Proposal application, the student’s mentor/advisor shall be the PI of record on External Proposal Transmittal Form and responsible for the conduct and oversight of the project.

---

BUILDING YOUR BUDGET

A competitive proposal needs a budget that is both defensible and complete. Your Pre-Award representative will work with you on direct costs (Personnel, Travel, Equipment, Supplies, Subcontractors, Subawards, etc.), applicable Facilities & Administrative (F&A) rates, and any cost-sharing commitments before the proposal is routed for institutional sign-off. Budget justifications should tie every line item back to the scope of work so reviewers — and OSP — can see exactly why each cost is necessary.  

---

SUBRECIPIENTS VS SUBCONTRACTOR

If another institution or organization will carry out a substantive portion of your project's scope of work, that relationship is a subaward or subrecipient (not a purchase of services), and it needs to be identified during proposal development rather than after an award is received. Pre-Award can help you determine whether a collaborator should be classified as a subrecipient or a contractor, and will request a scope of work, budget, and letter of intent from each subrecipient to include in the proposal package. Planning for these pieces early gives your collaborators time to route the request through their own institution's approval process before the sponsor deadline.

Below are some key differences between Subrecipients and Subcontractors:

	SUBRECIPIENT	SUBCONTRACTOR
Nature of Work	Substantive programmatic work representing a significant portion of the project	Routine goods or services with no analysis or discretionary judgement.
Role in Project Design	Collaborates on design and development, makes programmatic decisions	Does not participate in project design or development
Controls over Methods & Results	Exercises considerable discretion and controls the methods and results of its portion of the work	Follows the recipient's specifications; provides a defined deliverable
How Performance is Measured	Against the project's objectives	Against delivery of the purchased goods or services
Proposal Documents	Detailed Scope of Work, Budget and institutional approval or letter of intent	Quote or cost estimate
Post-Award Oversight	Risk assessment, monitoring, invoice review, and audit follow-up by the pass-through entity	Governed by procurement standards

Distinguishing between a subrecipient and a contractor can be challenging in the early stages of proposal development. When in doubt, contact the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) Pre-Award and Contracts team for guidance before finalizing your budget.

---

ENSURING COMPLIANCE BEFORE YOU SUBMIT 

Certain elements of a proposal require institutional review before they leave UNT Health, regardless of sponsor. This includes confirming the proposal aligns with Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200) for federal awards, flagging any human subjects or animal use components so IRB/IACUC coordination can begin early, and completing a Data Management and Sharing Plan where the sponsor requires one. Building these steps into your proposal timeline — rather than addressing them at the last minute — keeps your submission on track.

---

NIH GENERAL GRANT WRITING TIPS

---

1. MAKE YOUR PROJECT'S GOAL REALISTIC AND CLEAR 
Before you dive into the full writing process, we encourage you to start with a first draft of your specific Aims. Use feedback on your Aims from prereaders to revise, refine, and clarify further.  Before you start writing the application, think about how the budget is related to your research plan. Everything in the budget must be reasonable and justified by the work you propose. Be realistic. Don't propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period. Make sure that the personnel have appropriate expertise and training.

2. BE ORGANIZED
Reviewers are accustomed to finding information in specific sections of the application. This creates an efficient evaluation process and saves reviewers from hunting for required information.  Consider starting with an outline that reflects everything that the Application Guide and your funding opportunity announcement instruct you to include. There are also special content rules for Resubmission and Competing Revision applications.

As you organize and draft each application section and attachment, we recommend:

• Be specific and informative, avoiding redundancies. The thought process of the application should be easy to follow.
• Make your application as easy to read as possible. Establish a clear, organized structure with headings. Use short paragraphs, bulleted or numbered lists, adequate white space, and indents.
• Use bold text judiciously to highlight key concepts, allowing reviewers to scan the pages and retrieve information quickly.

3. WRITE IN CLEAR, CONCISE LANGUAGE
Reviewers must read quite a few applications in full detail. Your application has a better chance of being successful if it is easy to read and well-written.

• Write a clear topic sentence for each paragraph with one main point or idea. This is key for readability.
• Keep sentences as clear, simple, and short as possible. Sentences of 20 words or less are easier to read.
• Make your points as directly as possible. Avoid jargon or excessively technical language. Remember, not all reviewers will be experts in your field.
• Be consistent with terms, references, and writing style.
• Write in the active voice: "We will develop an experiment.” Active voice clarifies who will take which actions. Avoid using passive voice: "An experiment will be developed."
• Spell out all acronyms on first use within each narrative section.
• If writing is not your forte, seek assistance.

4. YOUR REVIEWERS ARE YOUR PRIMARY AUDIENCE
Capture the attention of your peer review group by making an evocative case for why NIH should fund your research.

• Your funding opportunity notice lists all the Review Criteria, including any opportunity-specific criteria. Make it clear how well your project fits all the criteria.
• Stress the significance of your proposed work. Doing so can enhance the application’s appeal.
• Describe how your planned project reflects principles of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and transparency.
• Include enough background information to enable the reader to understand your proposed work. Spell out acronyms and minimize jargon.
• Consider adding figures, diagrams, charts, and other graphics to summarize your data and project plan.

All reviewers are important to you because each gets one vote. Your application should be clear enough to inform and convince reviewers with different levels of expertise. In a sense, you have two audiences of reviewers:

• The majority of your peer reviewers will not be experts in your niche scientific area or familiar with all of your techniques.
• A smaller number of reviewers will be familiar.

5. EDIT YOURSELF
It can be challenging to edit your own text. Our advice:

• Set your draft aside for a few days, then return when you have fresher eyes.
• Reread and consider whether the content flows well.
• Have zero tolerance for typographical errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes, or messy formatting. If the application is sloppy or disorganized, reviewers may think your research could be conducted in the same manner.
• Remember the details! Follow the requirements when you Format Attachments, such as font size, margins, and spacing. Label sections as directed. You don’t want your application removed from funding consideration because of missed rules.
• Try reading your draft text out loud to catch any odd phrasing, typos, and missing or duplicated words.
• Conduct a self-review based on the peer review criteria in your funding opportunity notice. How would you rate your own application?

6. ENLIST HELP, SHARE FOR COMMENTS 
It can help to recruit someone else to review your content, check your punctuation, and give you feedback on whether the content flows.

• Consider asking your peers to be pre-readers, such as mentors, collaborators, experienced investigators in your organization, or colleagues elsewhere. If possible, have both experts in your field and those who are less familiar with your science provide feedback.
• Early in the process, ask pre-readers to review a first draft of your specific Aims. Refine as needed, then move ahead to draft more sections. This step can save lots of valuable time.
• Ask if your pre-readers would also review other parts of your draft application.
• If more than one investigator contributes to writing the application, you can review each other’s text for consistent tone, style, and proofreading.
• If possible, get an experienced editor to check clarity and proofread.
  

Although NIH developed these tips for its own applicants, they offer sound guidance for strengthening proposals across state, federal, foundation, and industry funding opportunities.

---

NEED FURTHER ASSISTANCE?

If you have questions about proposal development that weren't addressed here, the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) Pre-Award team is here to help. Our experienced staff is happy to support you at every step of your grant proposal, so please don't hesitate to reach out. We're all in this together.

Contact Pre-Award

---

Next Stage >
Proposal Submission