Request for Proposals

Once the initiative is well planned, the next step is to launch its grantmaking program. Because the foundation has a very good idea of the outcomes and impacts it is seeking, it should not waste time considering grant requests from every organization that wishes to send in a proposal. Generally, only a certain group of potential applicants has the capacity to deliver the desired impacts. It therefore makes sense to make this a party by invitation only rather than an open house.

A few foundations, especially the peremptory ones, simply anoint organizations to be grantees within an initiative. Far more common, however, is the idea that the foundation should choose grantees through a competitive process. The means used to accomplish this is called by many names, but the most common is a request for proposals, or RFP. Typically, after having been advised by stakeholders and other partners, the foundation will, as a part of its initiative planning, send the RFP to a certain number of organizations. The RFP is essentially an invitation to submit a proposal for funding under the aegis of an initiative. In many cases, RFPs are sent only to those organizations specifically chosen by the foundation; in others, the RFP is disseminated through certain channels, such as associations of nonprofit organizations, to be shared only with their membership. In rarer instances, the RFP might be openly published, giving any organization a chance to apply. The RFP sets criteria for applications, along with a deadline for applying. The foundation then chooses the strongest of the proposals that the RFP stimulates.

The RFP need not be a long or arcane document, but there are some elements that it must include in order to be effective. A poorly written RFP can mire the initiative in process just as it ought to be bursting out of the blocks.

To construct an effective RFP, it is mandatory to craft clear criteria for eligibility, selection, management, and closure of grants: Which organizations are eligible to apply, and which are not? What is the overall objective of the initiative, and what outcomes and impacts are expected? What are the deadlines for submission of a grant application?

The great desideratum for the foundation is to write the criteria so that unsuitable organizations do not apply and so that suitable organizations that do apply will submit relatively uniform applications. Uniformity makes it easier for the foundation to directly compare proposals and choose the strongest. Therefore, the criteria should include the exact format in which the foundation wants to see its proposals; the minimum and maximum acceptable page length; any dollar or time limits; whether attachments are acceptable, and if so, what kind; and any other foundation-imposed expectation, such as requirements that the grantees invest some of their own money in the project or that they must cooperate with the cluster evaluator.

The RFP should openly share the criteria for project selection. What elements must the proposal address? What will be the minimally acceptable outcomes? What budgetary amount and line-item distribution will be allowed? Are there any line items that must be included in or excluded from the budget? The document should share the basic method by which the proposals will be ranked; for example, if continuation and evaluation plans are important, this should be disclosed. The RFP should also inform applicants about when the funding decisions will be made and how applicants will be informed of the verdict.

The RFP should carefully define the criteria for grant management. What are the foundation's expectations regarding reporting on progress? Will there be networking meetings? What are the rules regarding budget management? The document should take particular care in discussing the expectations surrounding evaluation. At the project level, it should cover the importance of both formative and summative evaluation; at the initiative level, it should discuss cluster evaluation activities. And the RFP should explain the foundation's expectations with regard to strategic communications.

Perhaps counterintuitively for a document that is mainly prospective in nature, the RFP needs to share clear criteria regarding project closure. What are the predicted timelines for the initiative? Are grants renewable? If so, by what procedure? If not, what are the exit procedures? What obligations might there be to share lessons learned? Even after the formal grant period ends, foundations often expect that the grantees will remain networked with still-active portions of the initiative, perhaps as part of an effort to bring the projects to scale or possibly in terms of strategic communications efforts. If the foundation has such a requirement, the RFP must spell it out.

Although no foundation hopes to issue a four-hundred-page RFP (and none would be forgiven for doing so), the RFP is one document that should not be mindlessly foreshortened. Many a foundation has issued short documents in haste and then repented at leisure when the lack of clarity or completeness caused problems later. It is far better to write a long RFP that spells out all the rules than a short one that omits key points or explains them insufficiently. The general rule for RFP writers should be “When in doubt, spell it out.”