Step 3: Develop Your Proposal

ORSP works alongside you to prepare a complete, compliant proposal — from budgets to forms and authorizations. Because these services take time, getting materials to ORSP early is essential; without sufficient lead time, some services are difficult or impossible to provide. Please note that not all sections are required for every proposal; refer to the sponsor’s application guidelines to find the relevant sections below.

Review sponsor guidelines & disclosures

Have questions about interpreting sponsor guidelines or disclosure requirements? Expand this section to see when to contact ORSP or the Research Security team and why accurate disclosure matters.

• ORSP advises on the correct interpretation and use of the sponsor’s guidelines, upon consultation. Please contact your GCM first, who will connect you with the relevant resources within ORSP if needed.
• Guidance for each agency includes requirements for disclosing project support. Federal sponsors closely examine the full disclosure of project support due to concerns about underreporting of research funding and foreign sources. It is crucial to provide complete and accurate information about research support in all grant and contract proposals as required.
• Disclosures of collaborations are receiving increased scrutiny and the definition of a collaborator has expanded for some agencies to include all co-authors. Consult with the Research Security office if you have questions or are considering starting a new foreign collaboration.
• Since disclosure requirements for project support can vary by sponsor, ensure that you include all necessary information in accordance with each agency’s instructions.
• For NIH, where to update foreign co-authors depends on whether you are in the pre-award or post-award stage. However, no matter what stage, all PIs should ensure the following are as up-to-date as possible:
  • Senior/Key Personnel Form
  • ORCID ID profile or other digital persistent identifier
  • For the pre-award stage,  the PI must “Check Yes” to the Foreign components sections of the R&R Other Project Information Form if you anticipate co-authorship or collaboration with someone foreign.  Collaboration is defined in the NIH notice, and it includes co-authorships.
  • During the post-award stage, the PI must get Prior Approval from the NIH. Please contact your GCM and ORSP will send it to NIH for prior approval before working with a new foreign co-author.  
  • If you have already collaborated with an individual without prior approval, please email the Research Security Team () so they can review it. They will follow-up with questions regarding the collaboration to ensure it was compliant (i.e., what data was used and shared, was there any in-kind support, is this from a country of concern/non-country of concern, etc.). If there is no issue, they will help craft a response to NIH to properly disclose and submit a prior approval form. They are already engaged in this process with our faculty. 
  • Afterwards, you should list your collaborators in your progress reports moving forward.

Write, edit, and review proposal

Want editing help or feedback before you submit? Expand this section for editing resources, mentoring support, and recommended timing for your draft.

• Provide a draft 3-4 weeks before the submission date for the best result
• ORSP can connect you to multiple resources, including:
  • A copy editor
  • Hanover and Eloquenti
  • Contact Lori Gabriel (), ORSP, to discuss options and make initial arrangements 
• Success in securing external funding requires more than just a great idea; it requires a strategic approach to proposal development. CULTIVATE is our signature grants mentoring program, designed to pair faculty with experienced peers and resources to sharpen their grant-seeking skills.
• For proposal review and feedback prior to submission, consult with the Research Team () in the Provost’s Office with questions and information about spring Quality Circles and Hanover Research resources prior to submitting grant.

Develop the budget

A strong budget takes real lead time, especially for projects involving interdisciplinary teams, external consultants, or subrecipient agreements. This section covers everything from personnel costs and fringe rates to equipment, supplies, and indirect costs. Follow the link below for detailed guidance on building and justifying each part of your budget.

Build the budget justification

Expand this section for tips on keeping your justification accurate, complete, and consistent with your final budget, so routing doesn’t have to restart due to mismatched information.

• Ensure this matches the final budget. This step is critical for ensuring that routing does not have to restart due to mismatched information.
• Your budget justification is an important part of your proposal.  It should match the scope of work proposed in the grant and include all necessary costs to complete the proposed work.
• If you use a template, make sure to read through the final version carefully to ensure that you have deleted the items that are not included in your project budget. For example, if you don’t request academic year salary support, remember to remove the associated fringe from the justification.

Prepare ancillary documents

Expand this section for guidance on required disclosures like Other Support and biosketches, and the registrations (ORCID, SciENcv) sponsors increasingly require to complete them.

• Standard Institutional Information
• Other Support and disclosure guidelines
  • All external grant submissions must follow the sponsor’s regulations regarding Current and Pending or Other Support declarations. You must disclose every resource supporting key personnel research, even those without monetary value. This reporting prevents budgetary, scientific, or effort overlaps, safeguarding the integrity of federal research funding. 
  • Federal agencies are also beginning to require that individuals register for a unique identifier that can be used across systems, and to integrate proposal materials seamlessly. Register for an ORCID iD online, and utilize ORCID’s help documentation to get started.
  • In an effort to streamline proposal component requirements, federal funding agencies are now requiring SciENcv for compiling and certifying Current & Pending/Other Support and Biosketch materials. SciENcv is a function within the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s My NCBI web application.  NIH eRA Commons, NSF, and ORCID account holders who link their accounts to NCBI can populate their SciENcv profiles with the information stored in their eRA, NSF, or ORCID accounts.  
  • SciENcv provides documentation online to help users get set up and integrate with ORCID.
  • Please note: all co-authors are considered collaborators and must be disclosed. See Review Sponsor Guidelines section above for details.
  • Contact with any questions or for support.

Consider collaborative proposals

Working with other WFU investigators or a subaward institution? Expand this section for the forms and steps required, especially if foreign subaward partners are involved.

• When multiple Reynolda campus investigators are committing/will commit effort to a project, submit the Co-Investigator Addendum (PDF) to your GCM to ensure the department or college is aware of all the requirements of the project and is committed to providing them.
• A subaward should be included in your budget and supporting documents if your research involves another institution managing a portion of the project. Following successful funding, ORSP facilitates the partnership by establishing a formal agreement with the partner organization.
  • If WFU is the lead institution, ORSP obtains the collaborator’s budget, forms, and authorization; if WFU is not the lead, ORSP obtains the lead institution’s requirements. Please contact your GCM to learn about the process and deadlines.
  • Required for subawards: Subrecipient Commitment Form (PDF)
  • Foreign Subaward Institutions. For projects involving new foreign subaward institutions, ORSP recommends that the PI or department administrator initiate contact at the time of proposal. Securing necessary monitoring documentation can be a lengthy process; starting early is essential to avoid significant delays in activation.

Ask for letters of support

Wondering which letters you need, or whether a sponsor even allows them? Expand this section for guidance on letter types, what makes them effective, and when ORSP needs to review one.

• When to include them. Some sponsors require specific letters; others restrict or prohibit them. NSF, in particular, limits letters of collaboration to a short, prescribed format and does not permit substantive endorsement letters — an unallowed letter can make a proposal noncompliant.
• A strong proposal often rests on people, partners, and resources beyond your own lab, and (when allowed) letters of support are how you prove those pieces are real and committed. To a reviewer, a good letter is evidence: it confirms that a collaborator is genuinely on board, that you’ll have access to the site or dataset you’re counting on, or that your department backs the work with space and time. They help establish feasibility and the strength of your research environment — which is exactly what reviewers are weighing. A vague “we think this is wonderful” letter adds little; a specific, project-tailored commitment adds a lot.
• Common support letter types to consider:
  • Collaborator and consultant letters — from named co-investigators, collaborators, or consultants, stating exactly what they’ll contribute (their expertise, effort, a method, a reagent, a service) and confirming their commitment. NIH expects a letter from each consultant noting their role and rate.
  • Institutional or departmental commitment letters — from a chair, dean, or center director committing resources such as space, equipment, protected time, cost-share, or bridge funding. These are common for NSF CAREER awards, training grants, center grants, and equipment proposals — and because they commit University resources, they must be coordinated through your chair and ORSP.
  • Partner and stakeholder letters — from community organizations, clinical sites, schools, companies, or agencies confirming access, participation, recruitment, data, or in-kind contributions. These are essential for community-engaged, translational, and education research.
  • Resource and access letters — confirming you’ll have access to a core facility, biorepository, cohort, dataset, or specialized equipment your project depends on.
  • Mentor and co-mentor letters — for fellowships and career-development awards (such as NIH F and K mechanisms), describing the mentoring plan, commitment, and track record. These differ from letters of reference, which referees submit separately and which evaluate you rather than commit resources.
• Ask early and make it easy. Give each writer a brief template or talking points, the project title, your role, and your deadline — well before your internal routing deadline.
• Be specific. The best letters name the exact commitment — hours, services, access, dollars — rather than general enthusiasm.
• Keep them clean and current. On letterhead, signed, dated, and addressed to the right program.
• Who to contact: ORSP must review any letter that commits University resources such as cost-share or space.

Include mentoring plans for graduate students and postdocs when required

Requesting support for graduate students or postdocs? Expand this section to see whether your sponsor requires a mentoring plan, what it should include, and where Individual Development Plans fit in.

• If your budget supports graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, many sponsors now expect you to describe how you’ll mentor them — and reviewers read that plan as a sign that your training environment is real and well thought through. A mentoring plan isn’t boilerplate; it’s a short statement of how you’ll help the people on your project grow toward independence. The success of training proposals often rests on the strength of your mentoring plan.
• When it’s required:
  • NSF. Under the current PAPPG (NSF 24-1), any proposal that requests funding to support postdocs and/or graduate students must include a one-page mentoring plan. The requirement was previously limited to postdocs; it now covers graduate students — both master’s and PhD — as well. It’s uploaded under “Mentoring Plan” in the supplementary documents section of Research.gov, and a single plan can cover both groups, optionally noting how components differ for each. A proposal missing a required plan can be returned without review.
  • NIH and other sponsors. Standard NIH research grants (e.g., an R01) don’t require a separate mentoring plan, but fellowships (F), career-development awards (K), and training grants (T) require detailed mentoring and training plans and mentor statements — often the core of the application. Other agencies increasingly require them too, so always check your specific solicitation.
• What a strong plan covers:
  • Regular, structured meetings and feedback, with a clear path toward independence
  • Professional development — grant and manuscript writing, presenting, teaching, lab management, networking, and career counseling across both academic and non-academic paths
  • Responsible Conduct of Research and research-integrity training
  • An inclusive, supportive lab environment
  • How mentoring will differ for a postdoc versus a graduate student, if you support both.
• Individual Development Plans (IDPs):
  • NSF requires that each postdoc or graduate student who receives “substantial support” — generally one person-month per year or more — have an Individual Development Plan, updated annually, and that PIs certify in their reports that these IDPs exist, though NSF does not collect the IDPs themselves. An IDP is a living document, owned by the mentee, that maps their goals and development. NIH likewise expects IDP use and asks about it in progress reports.
  • Resources for IDPs:
    • myIDP: A Career Planning Tool for Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Students (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    • Individual Development Plans  (National Institute of General Medical Sciences)
    • Mentorship Matters for the Biomedical Workforce (Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH)
    • Career Planning Resources (National Postdoctoral Association)
    • Imaginephd.com
    • ChemIDP – American Chemical Society’s Career Planning Tool
• Make it count:
  • Check the solicitation for whether a plan is required, its page limit, and where it’s uploaded — it’s typically a supplementary document that doesn’t count against your project description.
  • Tailor it to your actual lab and people; reviewers can spot a generic plan.
  • Start the IDP habit early, since you’ll be certifying it later.