Twenty Reasons Proposals Fail

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Strother Martin. Cool Hand Luke

The following reasons proposals fail were taken from funder “de-briefin(GP&R) on rejected proposals compiled over the last 15 years. They are listed in order of importance—and most can be avoided.

1. Deadline for proposal submission was not met.
2. Guidelines for proposal content, format and length were not followed exactly: “Overall, the most striking reason for low-marked proposals was the consistent failure of universities to be fully responsive to what was asked for in the RFP.”
3. Proposals are not organized such that their distinct sections can easily be matched up against the RFP evaluation criteria.
4. Proposed research question, research design and/or research methods were completely traditional. The proposed project offered nothing unusual, intriguing or clever and/or lacked significance.
5. Study or project was not a priority topic to the funder or the sponsoring agency.
6. Proposal was not absolutely clear in describing one or more elements. Or the proposal was not complete. For example, the proposal did not describe how the project would be managed, how activities would be monitored and results evaluated and reported.
7. In the literature review section or background section, the proposal writer showed he or she simply did not know the area of his or her subject matter. For example, sources cited were out-of-date, or the proposal writer overlooked important reference materials or previous studies and projects.
8. Proposed project appeared beyond the capacity of the individual or institution to carry out.
9. Method for conducting the research or carrying out the project was not explained or seemed unsuited to the project.
10. Budget was too high or too low.
11. Costs appeared greater than the benefits, or it was unclear who would benefit.
12. Rationale for choosing a particular approach as the best solution to a problem was missing or not very well thought out.
13. Constraints most likely to be encountered were inadequately considered, and no tactics for overcoming them were presented.
14. Lessons learned from previous projects were not shown and not made relevant to the proposed project.
15. Beneficiaries of project had no role in identifying problems and solutions, in designing project or in carrying out the activities. It seems unlikely that benefits will be sustained.
16. Work plans are too vague, lacking specifics on what activities are to be done, why, how, when, in what sequence and by whom.
17. Weak evidence is presented of ability to meet schedules. Detailed monthly or quarterly schedules are missing and timetables for accomplishing work plans are too optimistic.
18. Management responsibility and capability are not clearly demonstrated in terms of planning activities, budgeting funds, providing commodities, keeping records and writing reports.
19. Quality of the writing is poor. The proposal is hard to read, makes sweeping generalizations and illogical statements, is excessively repetitive and too long.
20. Document contains an unreasonable number of mechanical errors (for example: typos, pages upside down or in backwards) showing an inattention to detail and quality of work.