Request for Proposal (RFP's):

Request for Proposal (RFP's):
Strategies for Successful Proposal Development
in the Field of Rehabilitation

Henry Williams, CRC,
Director Intensive Case Management
Bronx Psychiatric Canter

Abstract

This paper describes the application and review procedures that are widely used by public/federal grantors. The author also discusses the various funding sources from which the grants can be obtained. In addition, four basic principles governing the preparation of the application are identified and explained to assist applicants. Further, the author stresses the importance of following the guidelines and criteria set out by the grantor to complete the application process.

Introduction

This presentation will focus on application and review procedures as well as funding opportunities. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) (U.S. Department of Education) is the department that funds the Howard University Research and Training Center, the sponsor of today's conference. It also uses application and review procedures that are similar to those applied by other funding agencies. Therefore, understanding the process used by this department will enable you to develop more effective proposals when seeking funds from other public or private sector grantors.

Regardless of the funding source, four basic principles apply in preparing an application for a grant. They are best characterized as: Review, Evaluate, Adjust, and Develop -- in other words, READ -- all highly important objectives in our strategy. Let's look at each of them in detail.

REVIEW

All Requests for Proposals within the Department of Education are published daily in the Federal Register. The announcement of a Request for Proposal (RFP) will include information on its purpose, the selection criteria that will be applied, instructions for obtaining and transmitting application forms, as well as other pertinent information. Upon request, applicants will be sent copies of the necessary forms and instructions, together with information about the legislative authority for the specific RFP and procedures for submitting a proposal. Often, a contact person and telephone number are included to answer questions not covered in the application packet.

Once you receive the application packet, you must -- I repeat, MUST -- review ALL of its contents thoroughly. Each item, regardless of its seeming unimportance, is critical to the application process and must be fully integrated into the proposal planning process. For example, the description of the RFP's "purpose" is to provide applicants with a brief snapshot of the elements the Department of Education has identified as critical to the fulfillment of the legislative mandate that is the basis for the grant. Thus, this purpose will be at the heart of the various elements considered during the review process.

Next, the selection criteria must be carefully reviewed. As we will discuss later, these criteria have been weighted and will be scored during the review process on the basis of how well you cover aspects of the criteria as well as how completely you demonstrate an ability to satisfy each of them. The selection criteria will also affect how you outline and sequence your proposal narrative.

The budget you propose in your application should contain very detailed, focused information. When reviewing this section, you should pay particular attention to all potential cost factors, especially those that will be included in the matching or cost-sharing requirements of the grantor or as a minimum funding requirement for the project.

Submittal requirements are always very explicit and must be followed in every detail. Many applications are rejected simply because they fail to follow instructions regarding submittal timing, packaging, or delivery. These elements should be reviewed with great care. A checklist and calendar time line are often helpful in assuring that everything is being handled systematically and according to the RFP instructions.

EVALUATE

This is the point where the agency must analyze its ability to fulfill the requirements outlined in the RFP. Assuming you have carefully examined the application materials and discussed any questions with the grantor's staff, you must now focus specifically on what the grantor wants as well as your capacity for meeting its requirements and target dates. You must also evaluate the extent to which the RFP fits the mission of your agency and how well it can be integrated with ongoing program activities. Regardless of the financial considerations involved, a need for funds should not be the driving force in making a grant application.

In conducting your evaluation, you should use the selection criteria outlined in the RFP as your primary guide. Taking each one in turn, you must determine how well your agency meets each of the criteria. Generally, the grantor will use very specific language to describe each criterion. Evaluating them separately and also as a whole in a realistic way will help you decide what a particular RFP will do to help the agency fulfill its basic mission. Another point to remember: when the intent is primarily to secure funding or additional staff, it is usually evident to the reviewers and often results in an application refusal.

ADJUST

Adjusting your writing style and proposal content to the requirements outlined in the RFP may be one of the more difficult aspects of preparing an application. Agencies, like writers, have egos and points of view that may adversely affect their presentation. To present an application successfully, however, it is critical -- indeed, imperative -- that the proposal contain only the information requested in the RFP, rather that taking on a viewpoint that differs, even minimally, from those requirements. Responses to RFP's are not intended as a vehicle for expressing political or philosophical viewpoints, however, strong the beliefs.

DEVELOP

We have now arrived at the most tangible aspect of the application: the written proposal. Generally, applications come in at least three parts: 1) the face sheet; 2) budget forms; and 3) program narrative. Of course, other items of information may also be requested, but these three constitute the basics. There are two key elements to consider in writing your proposal. First, the budget should include narrative statements that cover ALL identified cost items. In developing this narrative, you should determine and state the importance of each budget item. Do not expect the reviewer to assume your intent. One approach is to develop a narrative that addresses your proposed budget in sequence, item by item. In deciding what to write, ask yourself how much information is necessary to assure that your reader can understand the cost/ benefit considerations of each item.

The second key element is the program narrative. I cannot stress too strongly the absolute need to organize this narrative so that it follows the order of the selection criteria and addresses the elements of each criterion in detail. The reader should not be obligated to search through the narrative to determine what elements of the RFP have -- or have not -- been addressed. In preparing your narrative, remember "less is more." Say only what needs to be said to describe fully your ability to meet each criterion and to account for each budget item. The application is not intended to display your language skills and wordy descriptions can often work against you in the review process. To be effective, be succinct.

Before we move on to the review process, let me again stress the importance of reading the RFP carefully and comparing it with the agency's response before submittal. In particular, be sure your response meets all of the requirements in every detail, including any submittal instructions. In presenting suggestions related to the review process, I will be using overheads to go through each step of the selection criteria process. My materials are taken from the Department of Education's October 1991 publication entitled, "Reviewing Applications for Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements: A Work Book for Application Reviewers." Let me remind you of my earlier comments on the significance of the "Selection Criteria" contained in an RFP -- EACH ITEM will be scored by your reviewer in order to obtain a total project score that will be used to rank the various proposals reviewed.

Basically, proposals are reviewed either by individuals or by panels. Copies of the evaluations will be made available to any who request them. However, while the names of the reviewers involved in the overall process are public information, you will not be told who did a particular evaluation. Let's start this portion of the program with a look at the approval cycle. I urge that you follow the components of the review process closely as detailed knowledge of what happens to the document after it leaves your hands can greatly improve your success in developing a "fundable" proposal.

GUIDELINES FOR ANALYSIS

1) The applicant's intentions must be clear and specific, not obscured by meaningless jargon.
2) The ideas presented must flow logically.
3) The application must provide a complete response to the selection criteria.
4) The activities outlined in the different sections of the application must be consistent with each other.
5) The activities proposed by the applicant must be consistent with current, accepted knowledge and ideas in that field.

EDGAR SELECTION CRITERIA

1) Meeting the Purpose of the Authorized Statute;
2) Extent of Need for the Project;
3) Plan of Operation;
4) Quality of key Personnel;
5) Budget and Cost Effectiveness;
6) Evaluation Plan; and
7) Adequacy of Resources

SELECTION CRITERIA OVERVIEW

Meeting the Purpose of the Authorizing Statute

1) What needs are outlined by the authorizing statute?
2) What are the objectives of this project?
3) How will these objectives further the purpose of the authorizing statute?

Extent of Need for the Project

1) What needs are outlined by the authorizing statute?
2) What needs does the applicant identify?
3) How did the applicant identify those needs, i.e.,
what specific documentation or evidence does the applicant offer to support the applicant's assessment of need?
4) Are the needs identified by the applicant consistent with the purpose of the authorizing statute?
5) Does the applicant identify too many or too few needs for the proposed time frame and resource of the project?
6) Are the outlined needs well defined so that the project can be focussed on them, or are the outlined needs very generic?

Plan of Operation

1) Do the project objectives serve the purpose of the authorizing statute?
2) How well is the project designed?
Are project objectives consistent with stated needs?
Are project activities consistent with project objectives?
Are project objectives measurable?
3) How will the applicant use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective?
4) Has the applicant developed an effective management plan that will ensure proper and efficient administration of the project?
5) Do project milestones represent a logical progression of times and tasks?
6) Does the applicant propose a realistic time schedule for accomplishing objectives?
7) Will the proposed activities accomplish the project's objectives successfully?
8) Are the educational approaches planned based on sound research that indicates they will be successful for the population to be served?
9) Does the project have clearly developed provisions for providing equal access to eligible participants who are members of traditionally underrepresented groups (racial or ethnic minorities, women, persons with disabilities, elderly persons)?

Quality of Key Personnel

1) Do the job descriptions adequately reflect skills needed to make the project work?
2) Are the duties of personnel clearly defined?
3) What relevant qualifications do the proposed personnel possess, especially the Project Director? (Focus on their experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, though other information may be considered).
4) Will proposed personnel need to be trained for the project?
5) How much time will the proposed personnel actually devote to the project?
6) To what extent does the applicant encourage employment applications from members of traditionally underrepresented groups (ethnic or racial minority persons, women, people with disabilities, elderly persons)?

Budget and Cost Effectiveness

1) Is the budget adequate to support the project's proposed activities?
2) Are overall project costs reasonable in relation to project objectives?
3) How much of the project's total cost is devoted to administrative costs?
4) Are budget items sufficiently justified?
5) Is the budget padded?

Evaluation Plan

1) Are the proposed methods of evaluation appropriate to the project?
2) Will the proposed evaluation be objective?
3) Will proposed evaluation methods measure the effectiveness of project activities in meeting project objectives?
4) Will the evaluation plan produce valid and reliable data concerning the accomplishment of project objectives?
5) Does the evaluation plan measure the project's effect on the project audience?

Adequacy of Resources

1) Are the proposed facilities adequate for project purposes?
2) Is the proposed equipment adequate for project purposes?
3) Does the applicant have access to special sources of experience or expertise?

Rules of Thumb for Review

1) What NEEDS justify the project?
2) Will project's OBJECTIVES meet these needs?
3) Will the project's ACTIVITIES achieve these objectives?
4) Will EVALUATION measure whether the objectives are in fact accomplished by the activities?

Now, let me share some personal observations gained from my experiences in writing and reviewing grant applications. I would also like you to know that whenever I did not stick to the advice I am about to share with you, my proposals got into trouble.

ORGANIZATION

Organize your proposal to match the sequence of the selection criteria given in the RFP. Nothing is more frustrating to a reader than having to skip around because the narrative is out of sequence. Skipping around also makes it more difficult to identify key elements and to score the presentation properly. I often found that poor organization results in moving to a new criterion before key arguments related to the present one have been properly addressed. In this context, you should always check to ensure that all aspects required in one criterion have been covered before advancing to a new section. Do not expect a reviewer to "read into" your narrative something that is not there. Finally, be sure to check your spelling and remove any typos from the final draft.

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

Here the key is whether the narrative hangs together and makes good sense to the reader. Syntax and the flow of language are very important in enhancing the reader's perception and achieving a positive reaction. You should also be sure that what you say in each sentence and paragraph is supportive of both your preceding and subsequent material.

FOCUS

It is very important to stay focused. Stick to the stated requirements and do not get sidetracked by superfluous ideas or overly long dissertations.

VERBAL ECONOMY

Short sentences and direct statements are very popular with reviewers. There is no more burdensome task than wading through pages of unnecessary words. Also, reviewers have limited time to look at each proposal and "overwriting" can be a distraction that may have a strong negative impact in the decision-making process.

BELIEVABILITY

Is your narrative believable? Does it have "reader credibility?" For example, if you are promising a benefit, have you indicated how this benefit will be achieved? In making your narrative believable, you must avoid the use of hyperbole. Overstating your case will only discredit your arguments and reduce the overall credibility of your proposal. Again, simple and direct is best!

CREATIVITY

To the extent possible, you should strive to make your proposal a creative solution to the problem or opportunity presented in the RFP. Try to avoid hackneyed approaches that only promise predictable outcomes and fail to present a clear resolution to the problem at hand.

INTEGRITY

While reviewers are supposed to be completely objective, most panels are composed of agency peers who are at least familiar with the issues presented in the RFP. Any statements in a proposal that such individuals feel are not an honest representation of the agency's operations, programs, staff, or other resources can have a devastating effect on the success of your presentation.

Table of Contents

Hypertext formatting performed by Megan Dodson
Page last updated on March 20, 1997 by Mary Kaye Rubin

Go to the top of this page. | Go to the upper category.