Grant Proposal Requirements

Comprehensive requirements and formatting guidelines for major federal and private foundation grant programs.

Last Updated: 2024

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Overview

Agency: National Science Foundation
Typical Award: $100K-$500K per year, 3-5 years
Success Rate: 20-25% (varies by program)
Review Criteria: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)

NSF Standard Grant Proposal

Page Limits (NSF PAPPG - Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide):

Component	Page Limit	Font	Spacing
Project Summary	1 page	Any readable, 10pt+	Any
Project Description	15 pages	Times Roman 11pt or similar	Single
References Cited	No limit	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Biographical Sketch	3 pages per person	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Budget Justification	3-5 pages	Any readable	Any
Current & Pending Support	No limit	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Facilities, Equipment	2 pages	Any readable	Any
Data Management Plan	2 pages	Any readable	Any

Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides (strictly enforced)

NSF Project Summary (1 page)

Required Sections (clearly labeled):

Overview (1-2 paragraphs)
- Concise description of research activity
- Objectives and methods
Intellectual Merit (1 paragraph)
- How project advances knowledge
- Innovation and transformative potential
- Qualifications of research team
Broader Impacts (1 paragraph)
- Benefits to society
- Broadening participation
- Dissemination and outreach

Format: Can be full-page text or sectioned
Audience: Non-specialists (broad scientific community)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex

NSF Project Description (15 pages)

Typical Structure:

Introduction/Background (2-3 pages)
- Current state of knowledge
- Research gap
- Preliminary work/feasibility
- Team qualifications
Research Plan (8-10 pages)
- Objectives and hypotheses
- Methods and approach
- Timeline and milestones
- Expected outcomes
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
- Educational activities
- Broadening participation (underrepresented groups)
- Dissemination (publications, conferences, public outreach)
- Societal benefits
Results from Prior NSF Support (1 page, if applicable)
- Required if PI has had NSF support in past 5 years
- Intellectual merit and broader impacts of prior work
- Publications from prior NSF grants

Key Requirements:

Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts integrated throughout
Figures and tables allowed (count toward page limit)
Citations to references (use References Cited section)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex

NSF Biographical Sketch (3 pages)

Required Sections:

Professional Preparation: Institutions, degrees, fields
Appointments: Current and previous positions
Products: Up to 5 most relevant, up to 5 other significant products
- Can include publications, datasets, software, patents
Synergistic Activities: Up to 5 examples of impact beyond research

Format:

NSF template must be used (SciENcv or NSF-approved format)
No longer uses "Publications" but "Products"

NSF Broader Impacts

NSF-Recognized Categories (demonstrate ≥1):

Advance discovery while promoting teaching/learning
Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
Disseminate broadly to enhance scientific/technological understanding
Benefits to society (economic, health, environment, national security)
Develop scientific workforce and infrastructure

Best Practices:

Be specific with measurable outcomes
Explain how activities will be assessed
Integrate with research (don't treat as "add-on")
Budget for broader impacts activities

Examples:

K-12 outreach programs
Curriculum development
Training underrepresented students
Public science communication
Open-source software development

NSF Budget

Typical Categories:

Senior Personnel: PI, co-PIs (% effort, salary)
Other Personnel: Postdocs, graduate students, undergrads
Fringe Benefits: Institutional rates
Equipment: Items >$5,000
Travel: Domestic and foreign
Participant Support: Workshops, conferences (separate category)
Other Direct Costs: Materials, publication, subawards
Indirect Costs: Institutional F&A rate

Budget Justification: Explain need for each item

NSF Data Management Plan (2 pages)

Required Content:

Types of data produced
Standards for data format and metadata
Policies for access and sharing
Policies for re-use and redistribution
Plans for archiving and preservation

Acceptable Approaches:

Deposit in domain-specific repository
Institutional repository
Data available upon request (with restrictions justification)

NSF Review Process

Review Criteria (equally weighted):

Intellectual Merit:
- What is the potential to advance knowledge?
- How well-conceived and organized?
- Qualifications of PI and team?
- Availability of resources?
Broader Impacts:
- What are the potential benefits to society?
- How well-suited to achieve broader impacts?

Panel Review: Proposals reviewed by panel of experts
Timeline: Typically 6 months from deadline to award decision

NSF LaTeX Templates

Full Proposal: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex
Project Summary: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex
Biographical Sketch: Use NSF SciENcv or template

Resources:

NSF PAPPG: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
NSF Fastlane: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/

NIH (National Institutes of Health)

Overview

Agency: National Institutes of Health
Funding Mechanisms:

R01: Research Project Grant (most common)
R21: Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant
K Awards: Career Development Awards Success Rate: 10-20% (varies by institute and mechanism)

NIH R01 Research Grant

Page Limits (Research Strategy):

Component	Page Limit	Font	Spacing
Specific Aims	1 page	Arial 11pt minimum	Any
Research Strategy	12 pages	Arial 11pt minimum	0.5 inch margins minimum
- Significance	Part of 12
- Innovation	Part of 12
- Approach	Part of 12
Bibliography	No limit	Arial 11pt
Biographical Sketch	5 pages per person	Arial 11pt

Margins: 0.5 inch minimum (all sides)
Paper Size: Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)

NIH Specific Aims Page (1 page)

THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENT

Structure (recommended):

Opening paragraph (2-3 sentences)
- Hook: Significance of problem
- Gap: What's not known
Long-term goal (1 sentence)
- Overarching research vision
Objective (1-2 sentences)
- What this proposal will accomplish
- Central hypothesis
Rationale (2-3 sentences)
- Why you expect success
- Preliminary data supporting hypothesis
Specific Aims (3 aims typical)
- Aim 1: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
- Aim 2: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
- Aim 3: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
Payoff paragraph (2-3 sentences)
- Impact and significance
- Innovation
- Future directions

Best Practices:

Crystal clear, compelling narrative
State hypothesis explicitly
Explain expected outcomes
Show innovation and impact

Template: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex

NIH Research Strategy (12 pages)

Required Sections:

1. Significance (typically 2-3 pages)

Importance: Critical barrier to progress
Knowledge gap: What's not known
Impact: How project advances field
Rigor: Scientific premise/prior work
References: Cite key literature

2. Innovation (typically 1-2 pages)

Novelty: New concepts, approaches, methods
Challenge paradigms: Shift thinking
Refined/new methodologies: Technical innovation
Novel applications: Existing tools in new ways

3. Approach (typically 7-9 pages)

For Each Aim:

Rationale: Why this aim
Experimental design: Detailed methods
Expected outcomes: What results mean
Potential problems & alternatives: Mitigation strategies
Rigor and reproducibility: Controls, replication, statistics
Timeline: When each aim completed

Additional Approach Content:

Preliminary data (critical for R01)
Power analyses for sample sizes
Statistical analysis plans
Rigor of prior research cited

NIH Biographical Sketch (5 pages)

Sections (NIH format):

Personal Statement (4 sentences explaining why you're suited)
Positions, Honors, and Scientific Appointments
Contributions to Science (Up to 5 contributions, up to 4 pubs each)
Research Support (current and completed grants, overlap checked)

Format: Must use NIH template (fillable PDF or format page)

NIH Review Criteria

Scored Criteria (1-9 scale, 1=best):

Significance: Importance, impact
Investigator(s): Qualifications, track record
Innovation: Novel concepts, methods
Approach: Feasibility, rigor, design
Environment: Institutional support, resources

Additional Considerations (not scored but noted):

Vertebrate animals
Biohazards
Human subjects protections
Inclusion of women, minorities, children
Budget appropriateness

Overall Impact Score: 1-9 (synthesizes all criteria)

NIH R21 (Exploratory Grant)

Key Differences from R01:

Research Strategy: 6 pages (vs. 12 for R01)
Duration: 2 years maximum
Budget: $275K total costs over 2 years
Preliminary data: Not required (exploratory nature)
Purpose: High-risk, high-reward projects; new directions

When to Choose R21 vs. R01:

R21: Early-stage, limited preliminary data, high-risk
R01: Established line of research, strong preliminary data

NIH K Awards (Career Development)

Mechanisms:

K01: Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award
K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award
K99/R00: Pathway to Independence Award (postdoc to faculty)

Key Components:

Career Development Plan: Training goals, timeline
Research Plan: 6-12 pages (mechanism-dependent)
Mentor(s): Letters of support, mentoring plan
Institutional Commitment: Environment, resources
Protected Time: 75% research effort typical

NIH Budget

Modular vs. Detailed:

Modular: ≤$250K direct costs per year (25K increments)
Detailed: >$250K direct costs per year

Modular Budget: Only need budget justification for personnel, consortium, equipment >$25K

Budget Period: Year-by-year (usually 5 years for R01)

NIH LaTeX Templates

R01 Full Proposal: assets/grants/nih_r01_template.tex
Specific Aims: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex
Biographical Sketch: Use NIH fillable PDF or format page

Resources:

NIH Application Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
SF424 Forms: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-e/general-forms-e.pdf

DOE (Department of Energy)

Overview

Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Offices:

Office of Science: Basic research (BES, BER, ASCR, NP, HEP, FES)
ARPA-E: High-risk, high-reward energy technologies
EERE: Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Typical Award: $200K-$1M per year, 3 years
Success Rate: 10-30% (varies by program)

DOE Office of Science Proposal

Page Limits (typical, varies by FOA):

Component	Page Limit	Format
Project Narrative	10-20 pages	Times 11pt, 1" margins
References	No limit
Budget Justification	3-5 pages
Biographical Sketches	2-3 pages each
Current & Pending	No limit
Facilities & Resources	No limit
Data Management Plan	2 pages

DOE Project Narrative Structure

Typical Sections:

Background and Significance (2-3 pages)
- Energy relevance
- Current state of knowledge
- Research need
Preliminary Work (1-2 pages)
- Team's qualifications
- Relevant prior results
Research Plan (10-15 pages)
- Objectives: Clear goals
- Technical approach: Detailed methods
- Milestones and deliverables: Specific, measurable
- Timeline: Gantt chart common
- Team and management: Roles, collaboration
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
- Workforce development
- Technology transfer potential
- Publications and dissemination

DOE-Specific Requirements

Energy Relevance: Must clearly tie to DOE mission

Basic science: Fundamental understanding for energy applications
Applied: Energy efficiency, renewable energy, grid, storage

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Often required to specify

TRL 1-3: Basic research, proof of concept
TRL 4-6: Component/subsystem validation
TRL 7-9: System demonstration, deployment

National Laboratory Collaboration: Encouraged

Include lab scientists as co-PIs or collaborators
Letter of collaboration from lab

Cost Sharing: Sometimes required (check FOA)

Can be in-kind (equipment, time)
Must be documented

DOE Budget Considerations

Allowable Costs:

Personnel (salaries, benefits)
Equipment
Travel (especially to DOE national labs)
Materials and supplies
Subcontracts
Indirect costs (negotiated F&A rate)

Unallowable:

Construction
Entertainment
Some indirect costs (depends on institution type)

DOE LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/doe_proposal_template.tex

Resources:

DOE Office of Science Funding: https://science.osti.gov/grants
EERE Funding: https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/eere-funding-opportunities

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)

Overview

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DoD)
Mission: High-risk, high-reward research for national security
Typical Award: $500K-$5M per year, 2-4 years
Success Rate: 5-15% (highly competitive)

DARPA BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) Response

Page Limits (typical, varies by BAA):

Component	Page Limit	Format
Technical and Management Proposal	20-25 pages	Times 12pt, 1" margins
Cost Proposal	Separate volume

DARPA Technical Proposal Structure

Key Sections:

Executive Summary (1 page)
- Vision and impact
- Technical approach overview
- Team qualifications
Heilmeier Catechism (1-2 pages) DARPA requires answering these questions:
- What are you trying to do? Articulate objectives without jargon
- How is it done today? Limitations? Current practice and shortcomings
- What is new in your approach? Innovation
- Who cares? Impact if successful
- If successful, what difference will it make? Transformation
- What are the risks? Technical risks and mitigation
- How much will it cost? Budget overview
- How long will it take? Timeline
- What are the mid-term and final exams? Milestones for success
Technical Approach (10-15 pages)
- Detailed technical plan
- Task breakdown
- Risk mitigation
- Innovation justification
Management Plan (2-3 pages)
- Team organization
- Key personnel roles
- Collaboration approach
- Milestone schedule (Gantt chart)
Capabilities and Experience (2-3 pages)
- Team qualifications
- Relevant facilities and equipment
- Similar past programs
Transition Plan (1-2 pages)
- Path to DoD transition
- End users identified
- Technology transfer approach

DARPA-Specific Considerations

Engagement with Program Manager (PM):

Strongly encouraged to contact PM before submission
Discuss idea alignment with program goals
PM can provide feedback on approach

Transformative Impact:

Must demonstrate potential for "game-changing" impact
Not incremental improvements

Technical Risk:

High-risk approaches acceptable (even encouraged)
Must show mitigation strategies

National Security Relevance:

Clear connection to defense applications
Dual-use (civilian + military) often valuable

Metrics for Success:

Quantifiable milestones
"Go/no-go" decision points

DARPA Budget

Full Cost Accounting: Detailed justification required

Labor: Hourly rates, hours per task
Materials: Itemized
Equipment: Justification for purchases
Travel: Specific trips with purpose
Subcontracts: Detailed subcontract budgets
Indirect Costs: Negotiated rates

Cost Realism: Budget must be realistic for proposed work

DARPA LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/darpa_baa_response.tex

Resources:

DARPA Opportunities: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities
BAA Listings: SAM.gov (formerly FedBizOpps)

Private Foundations

Gates Foundation

Focus Areas: Global health, poverty alleviation, education
Typical Award: Varies widely ($100K to $10M+)

Proposal Requirements:

Letter of Inquiry (2-3 pages): Initial screening
Full Proposal (if invited): 10-15 pages
Theory of Change: How intervention leads to impact
Monitoring & Evaluation: Metrics, data collection

Key Emphases:

Scalability and sustainability
Impact in low-resource settings
Partnerships with local organizations
Data-driven decision making

Wellcome Trust

Focus: Biomedical research, global health
Geographic: UK and international
Typical Award: £100K to £5M

Proposal Format (varies by scheme):

Investigator Awards: Track record and research vision
Project Grants: Specific research project
Career Development: Early/mid-career researchers

Requirements:

Research plan
Track record
Value for money justification
Patient and public involvement

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

Type: Investigator appointments (not grants)
Award: ~$9M over 7 years (renewable)
Focus: Biomedical research, early-career scientists

Selection:

Nomination by institution
Track record of innovation
Research vision for next 5-7 years
Scientific leadership potential

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI)

Focus: Science, education, justice & opportunity
Award Types:

Imaging: Advanced imaging technologies
Neurodegeneration Challenge: AD, ALS, PD, FTD
Single-Cell Biology: Tools and resources

Emphasis:

Open science (data sharing, open-source)
Collaboration across institutions
Technology development
Diversity and inclusion

Quick Reference Table

Agency	Typical Award	Duration	Key Criteria	Template
NSF	$100K-500K/yr	3-5 yrs	Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts	`nsf_proposal_template.tex`
NIH R01	$250K-500K/yr	5 yrs	Significance, Innovation, Approach	`nih_r01_template.tex`
NIH R21	$275K total	2 yrs	Exploratory, high-risk	`nih_r21_template.tex`
DOE	$200K-1M/yr	3 yrs	Energy relevance, TRLs	`doe_proposal_template.tex`
DARPA	$500K-5M/yr	2-4 yrs	Transformative, Heilmeier	`darpa_baa_response.tex`

General Best Practices

Writing Effective Proposals

Start early: 2-3 months minimum
Read the call carefully: Follow requirements exactly
Know your reviewers: Write for expert audience
Tell a story: Compelling narrative with clear logic
Be specific: Concrete objectives, methods, outcomes
Show feasibility: Preliminary data, expertise
Address weaknesses: Acknowledge and mitigate risks

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Vague objectives: "Understand X" → "Determine whether X causes Y"
Lack of innovation: Incremental vs. transformative
Poor broader impacts (NSF): Generic, unintegrated
Weak specific aims (NIH): Most critical page!
Missing preliminary data: Show feasibility
Unrealistic timeline: Be honest about what's achievable
Formatting violations: Auto-rejection possible
Typos and errors: Suggests lack of care

Timeline for Proposal Development

3 months before deadline:

Identify opportunity
Assemble team
Outline aims/objectives

2 months before:

Draft aims/objectives
Preliminary budget
Contact program officer (if allowed)

1 month before:

Full first draft
Internal review
Revise based on feedback

2 weeks before:

Final revisions
Proofread carefully
Assemble all documents

1 week before:

Institutional review/approval
Budget finalization
Submission system upload

2 days before:

Final check
Submit (don't wait until deadline!)

Resources

Grant Writing Guides

NSF PAPPG: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
NIH Application Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
GrantForward (database): https://www.grantforward.com/
Pivot (database): https://pivot.proquest.com/

Institutional Resources

Office of Sponsored Research (OSR)
Grant writing workshops
Internal mock reviews
Budget/compliance offices

Summary

Key Takeaways:

Know the agency: Different missions, different emphases
Follow the rules: Page limits, fonts, margins strictly enforced
Tell a compelling story: Clear problem, innovative solution, feasible plan
Demonstrate impact: Intellectual merit (NSF/NIH) or mission relevance (DOE/DARPA)
Show feasibility: Preliminary data, team expertise, resources
Budget realistically: Justify all costs
Proofread carefully: Typos undermine credibility
Submit early: Technical glitches happen

Remember: Grant writing is a skill developed over time. Seek feedback, revise, and persist!