Where am I going wrong with my MRFF Submission?
- Dr Sharon Brennan-Olsen
- Dec 12, 2025
- 3 min read
(aka: Grant Expectations – the classic mistake of skipping the guidelines)
Picture this: you’re a seasoned research grant applicant. You’ve crafted a beautifully detailed project plan. It fits the MRFF Grant Opportunity like a glove. You’ve assembled a multidisciplinary dream team; lived experience, partner commitments, the lot. It should be competitive.
But MRFF still says: Not competitive.
Ouch.
Sometimes it’s not your grant-writing skills. It’s not even the quality of your idea.
It’s the guidelines.
Specifically: not reading them closely enough.
Below are four guideline details applicants commonly miss. One can get you ruled ineligible. The other three can sink your competitiveness.
1. The big one: the ineligibility trap
If you’re applying for an NHMRC-administered MRFF Grant Opportunity, don’t skip the italicised note at the top of the Grant Proposal Template. It says:
“Applicants are requested to commence this section… by substantiating that the research addresses the desired outcomes of the grant opportunity…”
Translation:
Put a short substantiation statement at the very top of page 1. No statement = MRFF may not be able to determine eligibility = your application can be labelled NFFC (Not For Further Consideration). Game over.
What does this statement look like?
Just a tight paragraph covering:
how your project aligns with the desired outcomes
any stream-specific eligibility criteria (team characteristics, geographic requirements, methodology rules)
the Priority Population, if relevant.
Two to four sentences. Simple. Essential.
2. Don't default to academic track records
Many applicants don’t realise this, but MRFF guidelines explicitly say you don’t have to include traditional academic metrics (papers, grants, conferences) when addressing Capacity, Capability and Resources.
Cue the shocked reactions: “Wait… what?”
MRFF wants to know about real-world impact, not just academic achievements.
The strongest statements we’ve seen:
used only a couple of lines on traditional track record
spent the bulk of the response explaining:
what their research changed
for whom
by how much
when
whether the impact lasted.
backed each claim with verifiable evidence.
Not every CI will have non-academic impact individually, but the team overall should clearly demonstrate translational strength.
3. Attachments vs appendices (they're not the same)
If you’re applying for a BGH-administered MRFF opportunity, know this rule by heart:
“You should only attach requested documents. We will not consider information in attachments that we do not request.”
Requested attachments include:
12-page Project Plan (excluding appendices)
CI list (MRFF excel template)
detailed budget
Measures of Success statement
risk management plan
IP arrangements
board/CEO support
trust deed and letters of support (if needed).
If you have extra info that assessors must see, add it as an appendix inside the 12-page Project Plan, not as a separate attachment.
How many appendices is okay?
First, trim repetition. Cut verbosity.
The best applications we see often have no appendices. If they do, it’s usually just a few short ones, used sparingly.
Clear. Concise. High-impact writing wins.
4. Chief Investigators without PhDs? Yes, really.
Many MRFF Grant Opportunities allow CIs who don’t hold PhDs. For some schemes – like the Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 Grant Opportunity – this is stated explicitly.
And more schemes are shifting in this direction.
Example: the MRFF EMCR Grant Opportunity now allows:
up to 20% of CIs without PhDs in Streams 1 and 2
up to 50% in Stream 3.
Why does this matter?
Because MRFF values consumer involvement and real-world partnerships. In consumer-driven schemes, it’s hard to justify not naming consumers or lived-experience representatives as CIs. The same applies to partner organisations—being a CI signals commitment and supports translation.
If the guidelines allow non-PhD CIs and your team has none, you’ll need to explain why.
Final Thought
Comments