Proposal Development

For sponsored projects at South Dakota State University

1. Review funding opportunity announcement (e.g., request for applications, request for proposals, notice of funding opportunity, funding opportunity announcement, solicitation, etc.)
   • Are you and SDSU eligible to apply?
   • What is the deadline?
   • What is the budget limit?
   • Is cost share required?
   • What is the project period?
   • Does the facilities and administrative rate vary from SDSU’s negotiated rate?
   • Is submission by the principal investigator or authorized organizational representative?
   • Do you need to register with the sponsor?
2. Visit with the unit director or department head regarding your effort, budget and support needs.
3. Gather your team, including project personnel, advisers or consultants and support specialist(s).
4. Meet with a grant analyst or specialist to review budget guidelines and draft a budget.
5. Do you require contracts or agreements? Learn more at the division's contracts and agreements page.
6. Will you require human subjects (Institutional Review Board), animal subjects (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) or biosafety (Institutional Biosafety Committee) review? If so, familiarize yourself with the relevant requirements.
7. Prepare the application per sponsor guidelines. Required items may include:
   • Personnel documents: Biographical sketch or CV, current and pending support, conflict of interest or collaborators and other affiliations.
   • Project summary or abstract (National Institutes of Health: abstract and narrative)
   • Project description (National Science Foundation), narrative (U.S. Department of Agriculture) or research methods (NIH)
   • References cited or bibliography
   • Budget and budget justification: Review sponsor guidelines for requirements.
   • Supplementary documents: Data management plan, project management plan, facilities and equipment, post-doc management plan (NSF), logic model and similar.
   • Letters of commitment, collaboration or support: Review sponsor guidelines for requirements.
8. Gather subaward documents for SDSU administration, in addition to sponsor requirements.
   • Budget and budget justification
   • Letter of commitment addressed to SDSU (see institutional information)
   • Statement of work from subaward personnel.
   • Subaward vs. contractual form (available in the routing form; also required for the contractor).
9. Submit your project for administrative approval (aka routing or funding routing request)
   • PIease must submit for approval at least seven business days before the submission deadline.
   • Information and documents you need:
     • Project title and abstract
     • SDSU personnel information and fund numbers
     • Prepared budget and budget justification (recommend using SDSU templates)
     • Application guidelines (e.g. request for applications, request for proposals, notice of funding opportunity, funding opportunity announcement, solicitation, etc.)
     • Guidelines for facilities and administrative limit or cost share/match
     • Subaward documents for SDSU
     • Cost share/match source
   • Tip: You can save the form to complete later.
   • For smoother approval, review the budget with the grant analyst or specialist prior to submitting routing.
10. Notify authorized organizational representative in the Division of Research when the application is ready for submission. We highly encourage submission at least two days before the deadline.

• Subaward: A subaward is provided to another organization under the lead or prime organization who receives the award. The lead manages the award and passes funds to the subaward organization.
• Tuition Remission: These funds are charged to the project in relation to tuition provided to a graduate research assistant.
• Participant Support Costs: Costs budgeted to support participants in a project or program. Participants are not employees. Participants are provided training or workshop as part of a sponsored project. Costs may include stipends, per diem, travel and scholarships.
• Cost Share or Match: Funds or in-kind services provided by the applicant and/or partners to support the project, as required by a sponsor. These are included in a project budget if the sponsor requires cost share or match.
• Travel Calculation: Refers to the process of estimating and budgeting for the costs associated with travel for a research project. These costs may include airfare, lodging, meals, transportation and other expenses related to travel. When preparing a budget, refer to the state travel reimbursement rates.
• Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Rate: Also known as indirect costs. F&A costs are defined in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) as costs that are "incurred for common or joint objectives and therefore cannot be readily and specifically with a particular sponsored project, and instructional activity. or any other institutional activity."
  For more information F & A Rate FAQ, Indirect Cost Recovery (F&A), Current Indirect Rate Agreement Effective 7/1/18 through 7/1/23
• Policies and Procedures  (Budget, Pre-award, Post-award, etc.)
• For help in creating a proposal budget, contact the Office of Grants and Contracts Administration or your college grant specialist.

• Working with external collaborators can serve to expand a project's capacity, impact and opportunity for success. These relationships can take different forms based on the nature of the work and of the collaborator.
• Subaward (to a subrecipient): means the lead organization is a pass-through for the award to its collaborator. A subawardee is responsible to the objectives of the project and programmatic decision-making. A subawardee is responsible for providing a budget and other proposal documents to the lead organization during proposal development.
• Contractor: provides goods and services to the project and is not responsible to the project's objectives or decision-making. The goods and services a contractor provides are part of its normal business operations.
• The federal rule determining subrecipient and contractor status helps differentiate the roles.
• A project lead may choose to use an adviser or a consultant as an unfunded collaborator or a contractor, depending on the nature and length of the relationship. Refer to the sponsor's guidance to learn how to document an unfunded collaborator in the application.
• Personnel Salary and Effort: Project personnel who are key to project and have inputs in the direction of a project. Often, senior personnel provide quantified efforts and are salaried on a project.

The university provides a budget template for SDSU faculty and staff to use in preparing applications for sponsored funding.
The budget template includes calculations for F&A (or indirect) rates, fringe benefits, salaries for personnel and graduate research assistants and other items specific to sponsor and university guidelines. A budget justification template is also available.

Get the templates from InsideState

• Workshop on Evaluation of Educational Development Projects: (National Science Foundation) Addresses using goals, objectives and outcomes in project evaluation; evaluating cognitive and affective outcomes; interpreting evaluation data; writing an evaluation plan for a proposed project; and working with an evaluator.
• EvaluATE (ATE Evaluation Resource Hub): Check the resource library and webinars for evaluation education.
  • 10 Helpful Hints and 10 Fatal Flaws: Writing Better Evaluation Sections in Your Proposals (2020)
  • Three Tips for a Strong National Science Foundation Proposal Evaluation Plan (2016)
• Designing Evaluation Plans: (webinar slides, American Association for the Advancement for Science, 2020)
• Writing Research and Evaluation Plans for NSF Grants: (Jan. 2021, AAAS/IUSE)

Introduction

The growing use of artificial intelligence in proposal writing has changed the way tasks are accomplished, providing tools for streamlining processes and creating content. However, this convenience has considerable risks. Overreliance on AI can end creativity, compromise ethical standards, and expose sensitive data to privacy violations. AI-generated information frequently lacks the depth, accuracy and expertise required for professional and academic work.

AI has become a useful tool for researchers and groups looking for funds, from making rough drafts and generating ideas to analyzing huge datasets. When AI is misused, it can lead to mistakes, breaking ethics or applications being turned down. Furthermore, many organizations and funding agencies have strong rules or prohibitions on AI use, emphasizing the value of human insight and effort. Misuse of AI can lead to ethical violations, proposal rejections and damage to personal and professional reputation.

When AI is used in proposal creation, it can speed up the process and make funding applications better. To keep the funding process honest, however, it must be used in a responsible, moral and legal way that follows all relevant rules and policies. Here are some important guidelines from different funding agencies.

Last Updated: March 24, 2025

Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in writing proposals for funding opportunities

1. Data Privacy and Confidentiality: Stay away from putting private, secret or sensitive data into AI tools that store data elsewhere, as this could make your data less safe. Make sure that data privacy laws and funding agency rules about using third-party AI tools are followed. Examples: names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, etc. (Example: Grammarly (for text editing), DALL-E (image generation) are AI tools that prioritize and minimize data collection)
2. Transparency: If the funding agency asks you to, make it clear what part AI played in the proposal development process. Make sure that all material created with AI meets the standards for originality and intellectual contribution by the applicant. This could be generating draft abstracts or initial idea brainstorming, to illustrate appropriate applications
3. Human Oversight: Know that the results that AI produces might have mistakes or claims that are not backed up. Before putting any text, analysis or suggestions that were made by AI into your proposal, you should always check and make sure they are correct. Check data that was generated by AI against data from reliable sources.
4. Ethical Use: Do not use AI to make up study data, findings or outcomes or to lie about them. When using material made by AI, make sure you follow the rules for authorship, attribution and intellectual property.
5. Following the rules: Read and follow the funding organizations’ rules about how to use AI in proposals. Some funding groups might want clear explanations about how much AI was used in the proposal-making process.
6. As a Guide: AI tools should be used to help and support human work, not in place of creativity, expertise and critical thinking. Ensure that the end proposals reflect the voice and goals of the lead researcher or research team.
7. Stay Up to Date: AI rules for funding methods are changing quickly. Check with funding agencies often to see if AI rules have changed. Use resources for professional development and training on AI ethics and the best ways to write a study proposal.
8. Make AI tools better in practice: Use AI to do things like writing initial sketches or summaries that are not too technical: looking for holes or trends in literature or making visual tools like graphs and charts. Do not rely too much on AI for jobs that need deep understanding or domain expertise.

Funding agency policies on the use of AI

• U.S. Department of Agriculture: USDA AI Compliance Plan
• National Institutes of Health: Artificial Intelligence – Office of Science Policy
• National Science Foundation: Notice to research community: Use of generative AI technology in the NSF merit review process
• Department of Defense: DOD Adopts Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence
• Department of Justice: Artificial Intelligence and Civil Rights
• NASA: NASA Artificial Intelligence Ethics

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I use AI to generate content for my funding proposal?
   Yes, but with caution. AI should be used as a support tool for brainstorming, summarizing and drafting, not as a replacement for human creativity and expertise. All AI-generated content must be verified for accuracy and originality.
2. Are there specific funding agencies that regulate AI use in proposals?
   Yes, agencies like NIH, NSF, USDA, DOD, DOJ and NASA have specific guidelines on AI use. Some, like NIH, prohibit generative AI in peer reviews to protect evaluation integrity.
3. What kind of AI tools are preferred for proposal writing?
   AI tools that prioritize privacy and minimize data collection (e.g., Grammarly for editing, DALL-E for image generation) can be used, if they comply with data privacy laws and funding agency policies.
4. Do I need to disclose AI usage in my proposal?
   It depends on the funding agency. Some agencies may require transparency regarding AI’s role in the writing process. Always check the specific guidelines of the funding organization.
5. How can I ensure AI-generated content is accurate?
   Always conduct human oversight by fact-checking AI-generated text, verifying references, and cross-checking with reliable sources before incorporating content into your proposal.
6. Can I use AI to generate research data or findings?
   No. AI should never be used to fabricate data, findings or outcomes. Doing so violates ethical research standards and can lead to proposal rejection or reputational damage.
7. How can AI enhance my proposal without violating guidelines?
   AI can be used for:
   • Drafting abstracts and summaries
   • Identifying gaps or trends in literature
   • Creating visual aids (charts, graphs)
   • Improving grammar and clarity in writing
8. What are the risks of using AI tools for proposal writing?
   Possible risks include:
   • Compromising data privacy
   • Unintended plagiarism
   • Producing inaccurate or misleading information
   • Violating funding agency regulations
   • Weakening originality and intellectual contribution
9. What should I do if an agency updates its AI policy after I’ve submitted my proposal?
   Stay proactive. If the policy changes before submission deadlines, revise your proposal accordingly. Look for an effective date, if changes occur after submission, consult the agency for guidance on compliance.
10. How can I be sure my data is secure?
    Be careful of the information you upload and input into the AI tool you are using. AI tools like generative pretrained transformers retain any form of data they are given. Stay away from putting private and sensitive data to ensure data privacy and confidentiality.

Read about the policies under these sections on the university’s Policies and Procedures:

Section 2

• 2:23 Public Access

Section 5

• 5:1 Contract, Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Review and Approval
• 5:8 Service Centers
• 5:15 Employee Travel
• 5:22 Research Subject and Incentive Payments
• 5:27 Fixed Price Award Residual Balances
• 5:29 Cost Share
• 5:30 Participant Support Costs on Sponsored Projects
• 5:31 Program Income from Sponsored Projects
• 5:32 Charging Direct Costs on Sponsored Projects
• 5:33 Cost Transfers on Sponsored Projects
• 5:34 Minimum Effort on Sponsored Projects
• 5:36 Department Responsibilities with University Funds
• 5:39 Award and Budget Revision to Sponsored Projects
• 5:40 Expenditure Monitoring of Sponsored Projects

Section 8

• 8:1 Export Controls
• 8:2 Responsible Conduct of Research Training
• 8:3 University Reporting of Applications for External Funding
• 8:4 Indirect Cost Recovery (facilities and administration)
• 8:5 Institutional Biosafety
• 8:6 Institutional Animal Care and Use
• 8:7 Protection of Human Subjects
• 8:8 Sponsored Programs Risk Management Fund
• 8:9 Research Infrastructure Improvement Fund
• 8:10 Unmanned Aircraft Systems
• 8:11 Dual Use Research of Concern
• 8:12 Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity Misconduct

Section 9

• 9:2 Intellectual Property Disclosure and Management
• 9:4 Copyright

Section 12

• 12.5.1 PI Responsibility
• 12.5.4 Advance Fund Setup

During the review process, a sponsor may contact the applicant for additional information regarding their proposal. Sometimes, these requests precede a recommendation for funding.

Common post-submission requests include:

• Budget revisions and clarifications.
• Proposal clarifications or response to reviewers.
• Abstract for public use.
• Additional or revised administrative documents.
• Updated personnel documents, such as current and pending support.
• Confirmation of Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee review and approval (human subjects or animal subjects).

If a budget revision is requested, the revised budget must be shared with the Office of Grants and Contracts Administration for review and record keeping. Work with your college grant coordinator, as well, in preparing a response to the sponsor.

National Institutes of Health uses a formal procedure called “Just In Time” to request additional information. Program officers will notify applicants, typically by email, with instructions. Information is then submitted via eRA Commons. Standard requests include certification of Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval and documentation of other support.

National Science Foundation’s proposal guide outlines the proposal processing and review procedures. Program officers will contact an applicant directly, often through email, with requests for information. If a proposal is under consideration for funding, a program officer will request a public abstract and updated current and pending support documents for senior personnel.

The AVP for Research Development and Administration is responsible for negotiating with sponsors to obtain mutually acceptable terms and conditions that will allow SDSU to accept the award in accordance with federal regulations, sponsor policies, South Dakota law and SDSU policies and practices. Award terms that generally require negotiation include:

• Publication rights
• Intellectual property
• Indemnification
• Governing law/jurisdiction
• Confidentiality
• Payment/invoicing terms

The need to establish advance fund may arise when:

• SDSU has received an award but spending is necessary prior to the official start date of the project so expenses will fall outside the period of performance of an award.
• Spending is necessary prior to the receipt of an award but expenses will fall within the anticipated period of performance of an award.

To initiate advance spending, the principal investigator completes the Request for Advance Fund Form that includes the following: routing number, any restrictions on the dollar amount and/or time restrictions and documentation of the sponsor's intent to fund the project. If the department head, director or dean approves the request, they should include an acknowledgment that the department/college assumes responsibility for any expenses not reimbursed by the sponsor. This approval and documentation should then be forwarded to GCA. Approval is contingent on the above criteria and satisfactory completion of applicable compliance requirements (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Institutional Review Board, Institutional Biosafety Committe and Conflict of Interest).

Advance spending funds are not allowed on a project with a private (nongovernmental) entity per SDSU 3P Guide to Practices and Agreements.

If a sponsor intends to fund a proposal but at an amount less than what was requested in the budget, the agency may request a revised budget. If a principal investigator is asked by a funder to revise a proposed budget, a new routing form is not required. The following steps should be completed before the submission of a revised budget to a sponsor agency:

• Update the routing budget and have GCA review and approve.

If changes to key personnel, notify the Division of Research so that it can be removed before awarded. It may affect the budget as well. Let us know who will replace that individual or if others will increase their effort.

Serving as a peer reviewer for a sponsor is an excellent way to learn about the sponsor, see the process from the review side and understand what might make a good proposal. It can also be an opportunity to network with colleagues and program officers and serve your research community.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020) presents in these slides the benefits, aspects and process of being a reviewer.

Generally, to be considered as a reviewer, contact the program officer for the area in which you’re interested. Often, they will request background information, including your biographical sketch or CV.

For specific programs and agencies:

• National Institutes of Health information for reviewers: This site is specific to reviewers for NIH, from how to become a reviewer, to meeting information and guidelines and tools.
• National Institutes of Health Early Career Reviewer Program: The program aims to help early career scientists become more competitive as grant applicants through first-hand experience with peer review and to enrich and diversify the Center of Scientific Review’s pool of trained reviewers.
• National Science Foundation’s general proposal review and processing: Program officers identify at least three external reviewers to review submitted proposals after they have conducted a preliminary compliance review. To serve as a National Science Foundation reviewer, contact the cognizant program officer of the program in which you're interested.
• National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program: Serving as a Graduate Research Fellowship Program Reviewer is an opportunity to apply your research and career expertise to help identify future science and engineering leaders and to gain valuable perspectives to share with faculty and students at your institution.
• National Endowment for the Arts review process: This page outlines the review process and offers a video on how to serve as a panelist.
• Register for the National Endowment for the Humanities: This registration form is intended for those who are new to National Endowment for the Humanities and have never applied for a grant. Complete the form if you’d like to serve as an National Endowment for the Humanities peer reviewer. Learn more about the NEH review process.
• USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture panelist information: National Institute of Food and Agriculture convenes peer review panels comprised of research, education, extension and other subject matter experts to review competitive grant proposals. Panelist duties include reviewing proposals; drafting and submitting individual ratings and written reviews; and attending and participating in a panel meeting.

Public Impact Research (Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities): The APLU defines public impact research as any research that benefits the public. The site offers examples of public impact research and an activation guide for best practices and recommendations.

What are Broader Impacts? (Advancing Research Impact in Society from National Science Foundation, 2023)

Communicating Science Workshops (American Association for the Advancement of Science): AAAS no longer host workshops as of July 2022. For resources, visit Communicating Science Seminar and the Communication Toolkit.

Advancing Research Impact in Society: The purpose of ARIS is to advance impacts of research for the betterment of society and the expansion of research.

• Broader Impacts Toolkit (hosted by ARIS)
• ARIS Resources: Including BI toolkit, inclusive science communication, outreach and engagement resources and activities, webinars and more.
• Broader Impacts Guiding Principles 2.0: The guiding principles and questions component breaks down each of the five criteria by which National Science Foundation reviewers are instructed to review the broader impacts of a proposal. It also includes principles and questions to consider when developing a plan to address the criteria (ARIS).

COMPASS Science Communication offers The Message Box and Core Principles of Science Communication. The Message Box tool allows users to develop their message for any number of channels and audiences.

• U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture offers a tip sheet to aid in preparing competitive grant proposals.
• The National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases with the National Institutes of Health offer sample applications and more.
• Use the Broader Impact Wizard to develop a persuasive broader impact section that will satisfy the National Science Foundation review criterion and strengthen your proposal.
• The Data Management Planning Tool will help you create, review and share data management plans that meet institutional and funder requirements. The site also provides resources and guidance on data management. See, for example, the data management plan primer posted in the document library on the right.
• Open PRAIRIE, SDSU’s institutional repository, is your comprehensive solution for storing, managing and sharing data. Posted in the document library on the right is a descriptive paragraph you may choose to include in your data management plan.

The incentive plan encourages faculty and eligible professional staff to secure externally-funded sponsorship for research, scholarship and creative activity and rewards them for their successes. The program offers a one-time incentive payment if the grant budget includes base salary and fringe benefits (not summer salary) and generates indirect facilities and administrative costs. See the policy for greater detail.

To be considered for the program, personnel must indicate as such on the key project personnel compliance questions from the routing form. This is then reviewed for eligibility during the administrative review process.

View the Policy

List of Glossaries

• Grants.gov Terminology
• NIH Clinical Trials terms
• USDA Glossary of Acronyms
• NIH Grants and Funding
• SAMHSA Glossary

Common Terms

• Biographical Sketch or Biosketch: A personnel’s list of training, appointments, publications, etc., like a CV or resume. Refer to sponsor guidelines for specific formatting and information requested.
• Budget: An estimate of a project’s costs. This can include salary, benefits, materials and supplies, travel, publications, contractual, equipment, etc.
• Budget Justification: A detailed narrative to explain and support the line items and categories in the budget request.
• Collaborative (National Science Foundation): multiorganization application, typically with subawards but sometimes submitted separately and simultaneously. If submitted simultaneously, each organization prepares an application in RGOV, which is linked within the system.
• Consortium (National Institutes of Health): collaborative or proposal with a subaward.
• Cost-share: Funds or in-kind provided by the application toward project costs per sponsor requirements. Cost-share is a portion of the project budget. Ex: 25% cost share on a $1,000 project is $250; $750 award plus $250 cost share equals $1,000 project budget.
• Indirect rate or Indirect costs, see also facilities and administrative costs: Defined in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) as costs that are "incurred for common or joint objectives and therefore cannot be readily and specifically with a particular sponsored project and instructional activity or any other institutional activity." These can be referred to as overhead costs, indirect costs, or facilities and administration costs.
• Key Personnel: Personnel who are key to a project and the direction of the project.
• Match: Funds or in-kind provided to supplement the funding request per sponsor requirements. Match is above the project budget. Ex: 25% match on a $1,000 request is $250; $1,000 award plus $250 match equals $1,250 project budget.
• Participant Support Costs: Costs budgeted to support participants in a project or program. Participants are nonemployees who are provided training or workshops, for example, as part of a sponsored project. Costs may include stipends, per diem, lodging, travel and scholarships.
• Prime: also known as the lead institution.
• Senior Personnel: Project personnel who are key to a project and have input in the direction of a project. Often, senior personnel provide quantified effort and are salaried on a project.
• Solicitation: Announcement requesting or soliciting proposals for funding (typically seen at National Science Foundation).
• Subaward (also known as a subcontract): A subaward is provided to another organization under a lead (or prime) organization that receives the award. The lead manages the award and passes funds to the subaward organization.
• Tuition Remission: Funds charged to a project in relation to tuition provided to a graduate research assistant.

Administrative Acronyms

• AO: Administrative Official
• AOR: Authorized Organization Representative
• EIN: Employer Identification Number
• F&A: Facilities and Administration
• NICRA: Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (see F&A)
• RICO: Research, Integrity and Compliance Office or Officer
• SAM: System for Award Management
• UEI: Unique Entity Identifier (issued through SAM to do business with the federal govt)
• SPO: Sponsored Projects Office
• TTO: Technology Transfer Office or Officer
• URC: University Research Council (SDSU)

Proposal Acronyms

• C&P or CPS: Current and Pending Support (list of current and pending grants and proposals)
• CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
• COA or COI: Collaborators and Other Affiliations (National Science Foundation) or Conflicts of Interest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, DOE)
• EPSCoR: Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
• FOA: Funding Opportunity Announcement
• GRA: Graduate Research Assistant
• JIT: Just In Time (National Institutes of Health)
• LOC: Letter of Commitment or Letter of Collaboration
• LOI: Letter of Intent
• LOS: Letter of Support
• NOA: Notice of Award
• NOFO: Notice of Funding Opportunity
• OAU (National Science Foundation): Other Authorized User
• PA: Parent Announcement (National Institutes of Health)
• PI: Principal Investigator (the project’s lead personnel)
• PD: Project Director or Program Director
• PO: Program Officer, typically with a federal agency’s grants program
• STTR: Small Business Technology Transfer
• SBIR: Small Business Innovation Research

NASA application guidelines

The NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual lays out instructions for applying to NASA.

The Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual serves as the umbrella guidance for NASA. Always refer to the funding opportunity announcement (e.g. request for applications of notice of funding opportunity) for specific requirements. The funding opportunity instructions supersede the instructions in the Guide.

NASA recently began requiring biographical sketches and current and pending support documents for all principal investigators, co-principal investigators and co-investigators. Please see this video for guidance on completing these disclosures.

Getting Started

2024 proposal and policy guide (NSF 24-1), effective May 20, 2024. New in 2024: Investigators should be aware of updates to the required personnel documents, mentoring plans for graduate students and post docs and guidance on working with tribal entities. 

Register for an account at Research.gov: Affiliate your Research.gov account with SDSU via "My Profile" then "My Roles/Add a New Role" You will select the "Add Investigator" or "Authorized User Role." Use UEI DNZNC466DGR7 to affiliate with SDSU.

Submit applications using Research.gov. National Science Foundation also accepts applications via grants.gov, however, we recommend using Research.gov for smoother compliance checks.

Key Components

Prepare your data management plan according to National Science Foundation’s general guidance. You may also find guidance specific to directorates and/or divisions for your data management plan. PIs can also use dmptool.org to generate their plans. The tool includes prompts and SDSU-specific language (log in using SSO).

Additional Resources

If you use LaTeX to create your proposal, National Science Foundation offers a library of LaTeX templates on GitHub.

General Advice on Writing Proposals to the National Science Foundation (2015). Note, while the general advice may be applicable, refer to the current National Science Foundation proposal guide for specific application instructions.

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture application guidance

The USDA NIFA Grants Application Guide (July 2023) lays out instructions for applying to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The Grants Application Guide serves as the umbrella guidance for the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Always refer to the funding opportunity announcement (e.g. request for applications) for specific requirements. The request for applications instructions supersede the instructions in the guide.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture Application Support Templates include those for conflict of interest, project summary and current and pending support.

Personnel documents: Refer to the application guide for the biographical sketch (page 47), current and pending (page 48) and conflict of interest (page 81). The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have a required template for the biographical sketch.

If a logic model is required, see Logic Model Planning: and refer to the NIFA Generic Logic Model example

A Data Management Plan is required for all competitive grants programs.

USGS Data Management Plan

A routing form is a shorthand for our online form that you submit for administrative approval of sponsored projects. If you are applying for grant funding or are working with a sponsor for a funded project, you are required to submit a routing form.

To route your project, do the following:

• Log in to Cayuse by using your SDSU single sign-on username and password.
• Click the "Products" dropdown menu button at the top right corner of Cayuse.
• Click "Sponsored projects" in the product dropdown menu.
• Complete and submit the form.

Learn more about Cayuse.

Applicants are to initiate this approval process at least seven working days prior to submission deadlines per the university policy (Policy 8.3: University Reporting of Applications for External Funding).

The routing is reviewed by your department head or director, your college's associate dean for research, the Grants and Contracts Administration and the Division of Research and Economic Development. Depending on project details, the form may also be reviewed by Facilities and Services (construction and remodeling), Office of Information Technology (software or computing needs), or the vice president for research (research and scholarship incentive plan).

The routing form also provides specific details about the project that Grants and Contracts Administration will use to set up your project once awarded.

Key Information and documents needed for a routing form:

• Project title and abstract
• SDSU personnel information and fund numbers
• Prepared budget and budget justification (recommend using SDSU templates)
• Proposal guidelines (e.g. request for applications, request for proposals, solicitation, funding opportunity announcement, etc.)
• Guidelines for facilities and administrative cost limit or cost share/match
• Documents from subawardees – letter of commitment, budget and justification and statement of work
• Cost share/match source
• Contractor vs. subaward form (linked in the routing form; if the project has a contractor or subaward)

Tip: You can save the form to complete later.

For smoother approval, review the budget with a college grant specialist or a grant analyst in the Office of Grants and Contracts Administration.

Routing Form (Internal)