In life sciences, strong ideas do not win on their own. Innovate UK, Horizon Europe and consortium funders reward technical rigour, clear execution plans and evidence of impact. The bids that rise to the top make assessors’ jobs easy, with structured narratives, verifiable data and credible teams.

Life sciences and R&D bids: why evidence and structure matter

The stakes for life sciences bids

Clinical timelines are long, cash cycles are volatile, and regulatory milestones are unforgiving. A well planned bid can unlock the next tranche of experimental development, validation or scale up. A rushed or loosely evidenced bid wastes time, damages credibility and ties up scarce experts in rewrites. The difference is almost always structure and proof.

What funders look for in Innovate UK and Horizon Europe

Across competitions and calls, three themes recur.

1. Novelty and need. Show a genuine technological uncertainty and a clearly defined patient or system problem. Separate scientific ambition from marketing claims.
2. Method and feasibility. Lay out a systematic plan of experiments, work packages and milestones. Prove that the team and partners can deliver.
3. Outcomes and value. Evidence routes to adoption, regulatory compliance, manufacturing scale and economic impact. Be precise about who benefits and when.

For Horizon Europe, add consortium excellence, pan European relevance and dissemination and exploitation plans that carry weight beyond the project end date.

The evidence that convinces assessors

Assessors are persuaded by artefacts that show real work, not assertions. Useful items include:

• Experimental logs with protocols, deviations and negative results
• Bench data and test reports with clear baselines and comparators
• Clinical or pre clinical plans mapped to standards and guidance
• Manufacturing readiness evidence for bioprocessing or devices
• Health economics outlines that connect performance to budget impact
• Letters of intent from NHS trusts, payers, KOLs or first adopters
• Freedom to operate checks and IP strategy notes
• Quality and risk registers aligned to ISO and GxP where relevant

If you mention it, reference it. If you cannot reference it, cut it or generate the evidence before you submit.

Structure that makes your case easy to score

Think like an assessor with a scoring sheet.

• Start with a one page executive summary. State the problem, your advance, the plan, the team and the expected impact.
• Use work packages that map to milestones. One owner, clear deliverables, measurable success criteria.
• Evidence at each gate. Define what must be proven by the end of each work package and how it will be verified.
• Write short, technical paragraphs. Avoid marketing language. Keep sentences tight.
• Cross reference sparingly. Use simple tags so assessors can find data in annexes quickly.

Consortium dynamics: how to build a team that can deliver

Successful life sciences bids balance scientific excellence, translational capability and real world adoption.

• Role clarity. Assign a lead for clinical evidence, a lead for manufacturing or CMC, a health economics lead, and a commercial or pathway lead.
• Complementarity. Pair an academic or institute for discovery with an SME or scale up for development, a clinical site for trials, and an NHS or payer partner for adoption signals.
• Governance. Agree on IP terms, data sharing, publication rights and decision rules early.
• Contingency planning. Identify at least one substitute site or supplier for critical activities.

“Assessors can sense when a consortium is assembled on paper. What convinces them is real complementarity and pre work that shows you can execute together,” says Dr Giuseppe Amoroso, Senior Bid Management Consultant at FI Group UK.

Costing and value for money

Funders expect a credible budget tied to method and milestones.

• Anchor costs to activities. Show how each task drives outcome measures and de risks adoption.
• Phase spending. Put high uncertainty experiments early and only fund scale up steps once technical feasibility is proven.
• Explain unit costs. For assays, reagents, GMP runs or device tooling, give sources and assumptions.
• Demonstrate leverage. Show co funding, in kind support or procurement intent where possible.

Common failure modes and how to avoid them

Failure mode

Why bids lose

What to do instead

Vague novelty claims

Assessors cannot locate the advance vs baseline

Specify the baseline method, show why it fails, and quantify the target improvement

Method reads like a wish list

No credible route to proof

Present a stepwise plan with testable gates and decision points

Thin adoption story

Benefits are theoretical

Add payer or provider letters, pilot commitments and a health economics outline

Budget disconnected from work

Looks inflated or naive

Tie each line to a work package, add quotes or rate cards, and phase spend

Weak consortium glue

Partners overlap or leave gaps

Assign distinct roles, confirm governance, and include a delivery Gantt

Planning timeline for competitive bids

• T minus 12 to 8 weeks: Define problem, advance and consortium. Secure letters of support.
• T minus 8 to 6 weeks: Freeze work packages, milestones and budget outline. Draft the executive summary.
• T minus 6 to 4 weeks: Write technical sections. Build annexes and evidence folders.
• T minus 4 to 2 weeks: Red team review for gaps, compliance and readability.
• T minus 2 to 0 weeks: Finalise budget, risks, governance and references. Complete portal checks and submit.

Documents that matter most

Document

Purpose

Owner

Risk mitigated

Executive summary

One page case for funding

Bid lead

Incoherent narrative

Work package specs

Method and measurables

Technical lead

Unscorable plan

Evidence annex

Data, logs, letters, references

Technical and clinical teams

Unsupported claims

Budget workbook

Assumptions, quotes, phasing

Finance lead

Value for money doubts

Governance pack

IP, data, ethics, risk

PMO or legal

Delivery and compliance risk

Final checklist before you click submit

• Is the advance vs baseline clear in the first 150 words
• Can a stranger score method and feasibility from the work packages alone
• Do annexes contain verifiable evidence for every major claim
• Does the budget phase spending and explain unit costs
• Are roles, IP and data clearly governed across the consortium
• Has someone outside the drafting team performed a red team review