Building Partnerships for Competitive Proposals

The most compelling proposals aren’t solos; They’re an orchestra, a choir, a jazz band, a symphony.

The strongest applications bring together a range of contributors, each bringing their expertise to create a unified initiative. Collaborating with external stakeholders can strengthen a proposal by adding expertise, resources, and credibility to a narrative. Including partners in your proposals can reinforce feasibility and make a project sound complete.  

But, as with any well-rehearsed performance, true harmony doesn’t happen at the last minute. Your audience, the proposal reviewers, can usually tell when a partnership has been created in a rush or just to check a box. The time to build meaningful relationships with project partners is now, before a funding opportunity you want to pursue opens, to give partners time to understand the project and contribute effectively to a competitive application.  

 

Types of Partners 

In a strong ensemble, each musician plays a clear role. The same is true for a strong project proposal.  Before you begin drafting, identify who could be in the project’s band and what role each partner will play. The right mix of partners will vary depending on the funding opportunity, but a few example types of partners that frequently appear in competitive applications include: 

• Technical and Data Partners, such as engineers, research institutions, technology providers, universities, or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). 

• Implementation Partners, such as industry partners, contractors, offtake or feedstock providers, or training organizations. 

• Community and Workforce Partners, such as local governments, community-based organizations, economic development groups, nonprofits, or tribal entities. 

The key is not simply to name a variety of partners, but to demonstrate why each one belongs in the project and how their contributions support the overall strategy. 

 

Engagement Timeline 

You can’t start rehearsing on opening night. Strong, authentic partnerships are built early, and starting conversations after the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is released is often too late! Many applicants underestimate how long it takes to secure meaningful partner input, align on roles, and gather required documentation. A proactive engagement timeline can make the difference between a coordinated proposal and a rushed one. We generally recommend the following timeline for partner engagement: 

As Soon As Possible: (3-12 Months Before NOFO Release) 

• Identify partners that align with project scope and goals 

• Initiate conversations 

• Discuss early commitments 

Upon Notice of Intent (NOI) or Rumors of NOFO 

• Give a heads up that deliverables may be needed soon 

• Hold planning or scoping sessions  

• For substantial partners or subrecipients: clarify roles, responsibilities, and budget 

NOFO Release to Submission 

• Finalize commitments and execute required agreements 

• Gather required documentation 

• Co-write key narrative sections  

• Confirm commitments align with scoring criteria and project budget 

 

Partner Deliverables 

Setting expectations early helps avoid last-minute scrambles and ensures every partner knows their part.

Pro tip: Read the NOFO closely! A generic Letter of Support is often not enough and, in some cases, may not even be requested. Competitive proposals usually require partner documentation that is specific, credible, and aligned with the project as proposed. 

• Letters of Support (LOS): These documents typically reflect broad organizational or community support. They are often non-binding, high-level endorsements that describe alignment with the project’s goals and anticipated benefits. 

• Letters of Commitment (LOC): These are more concrete. Letters of Commitment should outline specific roles and responsibilities and may describe resource commitments such as staff time, facilities, data, or cost share. In many programs, these letters are important for demonstrating readiness and may directly support competitive scoring. 

• Memoranda of Understanding (MOU): MOUs can help define roles, collaboration expectations, and governance or decision-making structures. They may be particularly useful for projects involving multiple institutions, formal coordination, or long-term implementation responsibilities. 

• Other Supporting Documentation: Depending on the program, additional materials may be needed to substantiate partner involvement. These can include contractor quotes with scope, timeline, and costs; feedstock or offtake agreements that demonstrate supply chain commitments; and needs assessments, impact reports, or feasibility studies that reinforce the project rationale. 

 

Reviewer Red Flags  

Signs of superficial or misaligned partnerships can make a proposal feel out of sync. These issues can undermine confidence in the project team’s preparedness. Strong partnerships should feel integrated throughout the application rather than an afterthought. Watch out for: 

• Generic or identical letters  

• Partners mentioned in the narrative but missing from the budget 

• Misaligned partnerships that don’t support the project  

• Partners with no clear role 

• Last-minute or inconsistent partner materials (e.g., letters that don’t match the narrative) 

 

Final Thoughts

The strongest proposals don’t just describe a project. They demonstrate a project team that is already in tune. When relationships are built early, roles are clear, and contributions are aligned, the final application is less like a collection of parts and more like a cohesive performance.  

That is ultimately what reviewers are listening for: not just technical merit, but coordination, credibility, and readiness. A strong partnership strategy will transform a proposal from a promising concept into a well-composed application, ready to perform.