This is the next in our series on preparing for short-turnaround and new funding opportunities. Last week, we focused on assessing fit quickly. Once you decide that an opportunity is worth pursuing, the next practical question is whether you are ready to move.

Short-turnaround opportunities are difficult because you can feel the clock ticking from day one. There is a greater risk that the proposal effort can fail not because the core idea is weak but because a PI is unable to put the required pieces together quickly. That is why you want your proposal infrastructure in place before you need it.

Start with the boilerplate documents. These include your biosketch, facilities and equipment, current and pending support, and other items that are often required across submissions.

These are important in every proposal but they may become even more so for certain new opportunities. If the project description is brief, such as eight pages, you will not have much room to cover anything extra in your main narrative. That can place more weight on the supporting documents to communicate your capacity to execute.

Version control matters here. Use a file-naming system that includes the date, so you know which version is current. If you maintain multiple versions tailored to different types of opportunities, label them clearly. You may have one version of a facilities document that emphasizes certain equipment and another that emphasizes a particular research direction.

Also consider including your name in the file name. That may seem unnecessary when the file is sitting on your own computer, but once documents are being shared with collaborators, editors, or the Research Office, it helps everyone know whose material they are reviewing. Small steps like this reduce the chance that something gets confused, misplaced, or mixed up with another submission.

The next issue is delegation.

When you are short on time, ask two questions: (1) What does not need to be done? (2) What could be done by someone other than me?

For proposals, the first question often has limited usefulness because so many pieces are required. You may not be able to omit them. This makes the second question especially important.

What can be done by someone else?

As the PI, you are the one who needs to drive the scientific or technical substance. You need to define the idea, the argument, the approach and the fit. But much else can be supported by others -- editing, formatting, figure development or improvement, collecting biosketches from others and ensuring consistency across the package.

Support can come from inside your institution or from people you hire independently.

Internally, your Research Office can help with understanding deadlines, budget questions, policies, institutional requirements and official submission processes. They may also be able to provide guidance on boilerplate or other required materials. Stay in good communication with these folks. Be responsive when they need something from you. Make their work easier when you can. If you are easy to work with, it is more likely that they will help when time is short.

Nevertheless, institutional staff have limited bandwidth. Even those who are highly qualified and want to help have only so many hours they can devote to a single submission. This is why it can be helpful to identify additional resources before a deadline approaches.

Freelance support can be very valuable. Academic editors especially can help with tasks that take time but do not require your full attention. AI tools have helped many PIs improve their writing, but an experienced science editor can also do a great deal. They can smooth language, improve the flow of text and spot inconsistencies, all of which improve the final document. Editors can also help with formatting, references, headers, style consistency and assembly of multiple pieces into a single coherent package.

But you must establish these relationships before you urgently need them. A freelancer may be available on short notice but you first have to find the right person, make contact, explain the work, confirm availability and sometimes set up payment arrangements, all of which can take days or weeks. Once the relationship exists, getting help becomes much easier. A person who already knows your work, standards and usual documents may be able to step in quickly when needed.

You should also keep your relationships with potential collaborators warm. Many new opportunities require partnerships across disciplines, institutions, industries or governments. If a solicitation appears and you need to build a team quickly, you are in a much better position if you have been in contact with prospective collaborators within the past six to twelve months. This is different from reaching out to someone you have not spoken with in several years and asking them to join a proposal on short notice.

When the above pieces are in place you can put more of your focus on communicating the research vision and plan while someone else is improving a figure, editing, or formatting documents.

Short-turnaround opportunities will still require hard work and no amount of preparation can remove that. However, preparation can help ensure that when the right opportunity appears your time is spent strengthening the proposal rather than searching for files, reformatting documents, looking for an editor, or waiting to find out whether collaborators will respond.

Many faculty wait for the “perfect” DARPA opportunity to appear—when Dr. Rohith Chandrasekar (former DARPA Program Manager, now at Leidos) argues the real advantage comes from engaging early and often. In this interview, Rohith explains how DARPA PMs think about capabilities vs. technologies, what to bring to a first conversation, and why the second meeting is often the one that really matters.

Need to get your research funded, this year? Check out our 12-week program to get you there.

Ready to book a call to discuss how our program can support faculty at your institution? Let’s chat!