This short guide explains what people mean by ARC DECRA funding rules and why strict budget compliance is a quick way to avoid preventable problems in eligibility checks, internal review and assessor scrutiny.
It sets clear expectations for what you can charge to a DECRA project, what you must not include, and how to justify each cost so it ties directly to the research plan and outcomes.
The guide is written for an Australian context and for DECRA 2027 planning. It aligns with university Research Office processes, RNTA timing and the australian research council scheme administration realities.
Core principle: scheme money must support the project itself, not general operations. Ineligible line items can undermine a proposal even if the idea is strong.
We preview eligible cost types — fieldwork, expert services, project equipment, consumables, dissemination, travel, workshops and web hosting — and common exclusions such as bench fees, capital works, indirect costs and CI/PI salaries.
Key Takeaways
- Budget compliance is one of the fastest ways to pass eligibility and assessor checks.
- Every cost must be defensible and tied to research outputs.
- Watch university deadlines for internal approvals and RNTA well before submission.
- Know major eligible categories and clear exclusions to avoid weak budgets.
- Use resources like the decra approach template when drafting justifications.
- Plan in advance as this is essential for early career applicants and the career researcher award pathway.
What the ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award supports
This award provides a three‑year package combining a supported position with project resources. It is designed as focused research support to help early career researchers build independent programs in teaching‑and‑research or research‑only roles.
Focused research support for early career researchers in Australia
The program normally funds up to 200 awards each year. Each award offers a salaried role and up to $50,000 per year in project funding for three years.
That support is an opportunity to deliver a clear research plan and grow a track record.
Typical award profile and project funding expectations
Think of the award as two parts: a funded position component (salary and on‑costs) and a separate project costs component (equipment, travel, services).
Assessors treat the budget as proof the proposal is feasible. Project funding expectations mean costs must be realistic, tied to timelines, and necessary to produce the stated outputs.
- Practical tip: ask whether each line is essential, not merely desirable.
- Be specific: broad institutional basics are unlikely to pass scrutiny.
Key dates and planning timeline for DECRA 2027 (Australia)
Map the critical dates for the 2027 round early to protect your research timeline and approvals. A compact, date‑driven plan makes the application process predictable and keeps your budget final enough for internal review.
Round opening and immediate actions
Round opening: 28 January 2026. At opening, confirm eligibility, map costs and start your RMS profile.
Tip: align with your mentor and area support straight away so you can begin drafting realistic project costs.
Internal milestones and clustered deadlines
- UQ information session: 3 February 2026, 2:30–3:30pm, 08‑212 Goddard, St Lucia Learning Theatre (Zoom available; recording to follow). Use this session to validate budget assumptions and common pitfalls.
- Internal deadlines — 11 February 2026: Notice of Intent, eligibility exemption requests and submission to the Research Office all due on this date. Draft budgets must be ready for certification.
- Request Not to Assess (RNTA): due to the Research Office by 20 February 2026. This form sits in RMS and is reviewed internally before ARC processes.
Submission, rejoinder and announcement timing
Applications to the ARC are due 11 March 2026. Late changes are rarely accepted, so finalise budgets early.
Anticipated rejoinder period: 12–25 May 2026. Anticipated announcement window: 19–30 October 2026. Plan contracts, travel and contingencies around these dates.
For institutional guidance and checklist items, consult your research office and the UQ guidance page: UQ DECRA information and submission guidance.
Who receives the funding and why that matters for spending
Knowing which organisation holds the award is central to how you budget and obtain approvals.
The Applicant is the Administering Organisation. Under the discovery program, funding is provided to that eligible organisation, not to an individual researcher.
Funding is administered by an eligible organisation, not an individual
This means purchases, payroll and contracts must follow institutional policy. Procurement thresholds, salary classifications and tax obligations are set by the organisation.
What “Administering Organisation” responsibilities mean in practice
The Research Office acts as the interface with arc and certifies proposals in RMS. It handles evidence requests and ensures the organisation meets reporting and governance requirements.
Practical implications:
- Budget lines must be organisation‑deliverable (quotes, on‑costs, procurement categories).
- HR appointments, travel approvals and purchasing flow through institutional systems.
- For collaborations, roles, funds and sign‑offs must match which organisation administers each part of a project.
Bottom line: the organisation carries legal responsibility under the Funding Agreement. That makes compliance a governance matter, not just a budgeting preference.
ARC DECRA funding rules for eligible project costs
Assessors apply a simple test: can the cost be shown to directly support the research project and its outcomes? Below are the common categories that normally meet that test when clearly justified.
Facilities and specialist infrastructure
Paid access to archives, national facilities, specialised labs or databases is allowable when you explain why institutional access is insufficient.
Field research essentials
Fieldwork costs such as technical support, logistics, travel and accommodation qualify where data collection happens outside normal workplaces and is integral to methods.
Third‑party expert services
Translation, transcription, specialist data processing or purchase of archival materials can be charged if you show why in‑house capability cannot deliver the required outputs.
Equipment, consumables and maintenance
Project‑specific items and their upkeep are eligible. Avoid broad items that serve a whole school or lab.
Personnel, dissemination and travel
Budget research assistants, postdocs and technicians with appropriate salary levels and 28% on‑costs. Publication costs, stakeholder workshops and essential economy travel that enable collaboration or data collection are also allowable.
Tip: link each line item to a method, milestone or output to satisfy reviewers.
For an example of how to justify costs in a chemistry proposal, see a detailed proposal example.
Costs you cannot charge to a DECRA grant
Some commonly requested items are explicitly excluded and can jeopardise eligibility. Be strict when you build budgets and treat this list as a pre-submission checklist.
Bench fees, capital works and general infrastructure
Bench fees or blanket lab access charges are not supported even if a facility is essential. Explain specific, project-level services instead — for example, sample processing by a named core facility — rather than generic access charges.
Capital works and campus fit-outs are out of scope. Do not request building refurbishments, major equipment for institutional use, or long-term infrastructure. Describe alternatives such as short-term hire, collaborator facilities, or partner contributions.
Indirect and non-research costs
Indirect costs include professional memberships, training courses, patent fees, visas, relocation, dependants, entertainment and insurance. These are not allowable charged items.
If such items are necessary, ask your organisation to cover them, seek philanthropic support, or budget them from other institutional sources outside the project budget.
Student fees and HECS/HELP liabilities
Fees for international students and HECS/HELP liabilities cannot be included. Where student contribution is needed, consider compliant stipend lines or scholarships governed by institutional policy and eligibility rules.
Salaries and on-costs for CIs and PIs
The award will not pay salaries or on‑costs for chief investigators or principal investigators. Applicants cannot use project money to top up their own salary.
Practical tip: run each line through this question — “Can I show this directly enables the research output?” If not, remove it.
- Common ineligible categories trigger budget cuts or compliance queries that hurt proposals and slow the approval process.
- Reframe requests to focus on project-specific services, short-term hires, or external partners.
- Use institutional support mechanisms for non-research or indirect items to keep the budget compliant.
Institution-provided basics you must not request from ARC funds
Basic campus services are the administering organisation’s responsibility. Treat these items as institutional support and do not list them as project expenses.
Practical meaning: library access, standard software licences and core reference materials are part of the research environment your organisation must provide. These are not eligible as grant charges.
Common items to remove from budgets
- Basic library collections, abstracting services and routine subscriptions.
- Standard office and lab space, furnished accommodation and general facilities.
- Standard desktop/laptop provision and generic software licences.
How to present institutional contributions
In the budget narrative, note that the organisation supplies baseline space, computing and library access. Say explicitly what is provided and why no grant line is needed.
Specialist exceptions and a quick check
Specialised equipment or bespoke software required for methodology may be justifiable. If an item is normally available to staff regardless of the project, mark it as an in‑kind contribution.
Sanity check: if staff normally use it, don’t request it. Instead document the institution’s contribution to strengthen feasibility.
Budget justification rules that assessors and the ARC will scrutinise
Assessors expect concise justifications that link every dollar to a method, milestone and measurable benefit.
Link every line item to the research plan and outcomes
Be specific. State where in the methodology a cost is used and what it enables.
Show the milestone it supports, and the output or benefit that follows.
Good practice: include a one-line rationale under each budget row in your application.
Avoiding “broad general use” equipment requests
Shared lab gear and general computing look like infrastructure rather than project resources.
Narrow requests by listing model numbers, unique capabilities and exclusive project use periods.
Tip: explain why institutional resources cannot deliver the same result.
Documenting non-ARC contributions and avoiding duplication of Commonwealth funding
List cash and in‑kind contributions from your organisation and partners to show support and reduce risk.
Disclose all current and requested Commonwealth grants for every participant so the arc will not duplicate support.
Do a pre-submission cross-check between RMS entries and institutional records to avoid late corrections.
Note: clear justification lowers rejoinder risk—assessors question necessity more often than price.
| Checklist | What to include | Why assessors care | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specificity | Model, unit cost, use phase | Shows necessity and value for money | Add one‑line justification per item |
| Method link | Where used in methodology | Connects cost to outputs | Reference methods section and milestone |
| Non-project support | Cash / in‑kind contributions | Demonstrates institutional commitment | Document partner contributions and totals |
| Duplication check | All Commonwealth grants disclosed | Prevents ineligible overlap | Cross-check RMS and institutional records |
For additional guidance on institutional review and policy alignment see the STA submission on ARC review.
Eligibility checkpoints that can affect your budget and project design
Confirming eligibility early protects your timetable and prevents wasted project costs. If eligibility is unclear, staffing, procurement and milestone timing can all be misaligned with a successful application.
PhD award date requirements and allowable career interruptions
Eligibility is assessed by the conferral (award) date, not submission or acceptance dates. The key threshold is 1 March 2021.
Allowable career interruptions can extend eligibility if properly documented. Use the official Eligibility and Career Interruptions Statement to match interruptions to the threshold date.
How eligibility exemption requests work (and what evidence you’ll need)
Follow a clear process: run the UQ eligibility calculator, complete the certified exemption request form and attach evidence for each interruption.
- Use the calculator to estimate entitlement.
- Certify the UQ DE27 Eligibility Exemption Request Form.
- Submit the form and evidence to [email protected] by 11 February 2026.
Note: external applicants must confirm school/centre support and an identified mentor before the Research Office can process exemptions.
While you wait, draft conservative budgets and role descriptions. Avoid non‑refundable commitments and keep line items flexible so project design and research priorities can adapt once eligibility is confirmed.
Medical and Dental Research exclusions you must consider early
Early assessment is essential because projects that shift toward clinical aims can be ruled ineligible even if their methods are sound.
ARC’s definition of medical and dental research
Medical and Dental Research means research and/or training primarily and substantially aimed at understanding or treating a human disease or health condition.
How to assess whether your proposal is “primarily and substantially” medical
Check aims, primary outcomes, participant populations and endpoints. If the main outcome is diagnosis, therapy or clinical translation, the work likely meets the exclusion.
- Practical risk: technically excellent proposals can fail eligibility when objectives read as clinical.
- Self‑assessment: examine language—words like “treatment”, “clinical”, “therapeutic” or explicit disease targets are red flags.
- Keeping eligible: frame the work as fundamental research, methodological development, or non‑clinical mechanism studies.
- Wording checks: ensure budgets and outputs describe general methodology and non‑clinical applications.
If your project sits near the boundary, consult your Research Office early. Late reframing is difficult and may alter the core project.
| Check | What to ask | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Aims | Do aims target a human disease? | Reword to emphasise fundamental mechanisms |
| Outcomes | Are endpoints clinical or diagnostic? | Refocus on non-clinical metrics or methods |
| Participants | Does the study involve patient cohorts? | Consider basic science models or data reanalysis |
For legal context and a precedent summary see the australian research council funding rules discussion.
Conflict of interest and confidentiality expectations for applicants
Transparency about connections and interests is a core expectation for anyone involved in the assessment or delivery of projects. Clear disclosure supports fair assessment and protects the research process from perception issues.
Who the policy applies to and when to declare
The arc Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy applies to all individuals engaging with the scheme: applicants, collaborators, advisors and assessors. At submission, declare actual conflicts, risks of conflict, and apparent conflicts that a reasonable observer could question.
Managing apparent conflicts during collaboration and assessment
Undisclosed ties can complicate assessment and governance even when the science is strong. Examples to declare include prior supervisor–student relationships, close personal or professional ties, and financial interests linked to project suppliers or partners.
Practical management strategies:
- Complete transparent disclosure at submission to the Administering Organisation.
- Document mitigation steps, such as recusal, independent review or separate procurement channels.
- Record decisions and hold a clear separation of procurement and evaluation roles.
Note: differing institutional expectations across collaborators can create gaps. Agree a shared declaration approach early and keep records with the lead organisation.
| Issue | When to declare | Management action |
|---|---|---|
| Prior supervisory link | At submission | Independent assessor or recusal |
| Personal/professional tie | When known | Documented mitigation and transparency |
| Financial interest with supplier | Before procurement | Separate purchasing and disclosure |
| Cross-institution mismatch | During proposal formation | Shared declaration and central record |
Final point: treat confidentiality and conflict handling as part of the submission process. Good practice reduces delays, protects applicants and strengthens the integrity of research proposals and projects.
Collaboration and cross-institution budgeting considerations
When multiple organisations contribute, budgets should show where resources flow and who is accountable.
Why scrutiny is normal: assessors and universities need confidence each organisation can deliver its part. Clear budgets reduce governance risk and prevent unfunded workload.
Ensuring each institution has the resources to deliver their component
Structure costs so money follows the work. Use subcontracting, service agreements or direct cost lines that match who performs tasks.
Document cash versus in‑kind support and ensure each cost is justified against the methodology and milestones.
Certification and sign-off expectations when partnering with other universities
Many institutions require a signed certification confirming committed resources. For example, the VU protocol asks that funding resources for a collaborator come to the university and that the Dean (or nominee) and Director, Research Services sign the Certification Page.
Practical step: confirm partner contributions early and record whether costs are cash or in‑kind to avoid duplicate claims.
| Risk | Solution | Who signs |
|---|---|---|
| Unfunded workload | Direct cash transfers or subcontracts | College Dean / Research Services |
| Duplicate claims | Itemised budgets and shared spreadsheet | Lead organisation finance officer |
| Delivery gaps (data, fieldwork) | Allocate travel, access and data costs to performing partner | Project lead and partner PI |
Final checklist: align costs to tasks, get internal sign-off early, and ensure the budget supports real delivery rather than aspirational statements. For a practical template to guide partner costings see the computer science proposal template.
Indigenous cultural protocols and allowable research activities
Building respectful partnerships with Indigenous artists must be part of the project design, not an afterthought. That approach protects community relationships and shows assessors your research is ethically sound.
Conforming to protocols when working with Indigenous artists and cultural material
The arc expects projects involving Indigenous music, writing, visual arts, media arts and performing arts to follow appropriate cultural protocols.
Permissions, attribution and culturally safe engagement are essential. Plan consultations and consent processes early so they are integral to the methodology.
Building compliant engagement and costs into the project plan
Budget for community-led consultation, payments to artists, travel for on‑country meetings and respectful dissemination formats.
- Link each cost to a specific activity (workshop, focus group, fieldwork or dissemination).
- Document how engagement methods support ethical practice and the research outputs.
- Show why costs are necessary to deliver the stated project milestones and outputs.
Practical step: talk to your institution’s Indigenous engagement unit and ethics team early to align eligibility, planning and budgets.
How to apply through RMS and meet administrative requirements
A clear administrative pathway through RMS reduces delays and strengthens proposals. Start early so profiles, certifications and internal checks do not hold up your submission.
Internal Notice of Intent (NOI). UQ requires a mandatory NOI for DECRA 2027. Faculties and institutes use NOIs to coordinate support and peer review. External applicants must secure school or centre backing and a UQ mentor before lodging an NOI.
RMS profile preparation and scheme reading
Update your RMS Person Profile as soon as possible. Ensure team members have access and that the Administering Organisation is listed correctly. Read the scheme and website guidance so budget categories align with expectations.
Drafting, PDF generation and templates
Use UQ templates for statements, budgets and CVs. Generate the whole-application PDF in RMS and confirm formatting. A compliant PDF avoids formatting rejections and speeds internal checks.
Submitting to the Research Office
Select “Submit to Research Office” in RMS, then email the completed Application Certification Form and the Pending/Newly Funded ARC grants form to [email protected]. RMS does not notify the Research Office automatically.
Request Not to Assess (RNTA)
Complete the RNTA in RMS and submit it to the Research Office by 20 February 2026. Timely RNTA handling helps manage assessor allocation and conflict issues.
Tip: common delays arise from incomplete profiles, missing certification and late internal review initiation—fix these early.
Resources and documents to use when building your budget
Before you finalise numbers, gather the definitive documents and templates that shape what can be costed and why.
GrantConnect and key policy documents
Use GrantConnect as the authoritative website for the current round documents. Log in and download the latest Guidelines and Instructions to Applicants. Rely on these rather than older templates.
Institutional templates and tools
Use your university’s Budget Justification and Details of Non-ARC Contributions templates. Run figures through the DE Budget Tool to keep on‑costs and partner items consistent.
Library support for evidence and metrics
The library can help with ROPE, publication metrics and engagement evidence. Tools include Scopus, SciVal, Altmetric Explorer, PatCite/The Lens and WorldCat to justify resource scale without inflating costs.
| Document | Why it matters | Where to find it |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Research Policy | Clarifies medical exclusions | GrantConnect |
| Policy on Experimental Development | Frames project development costs | GrantConnect |
| Eligibility & Career Interruptions | Determines applicant dates | GrantConnect |
| RNTA Instructions | Process for assessor requests | GrantConnect |
Tip: cross‑check institutional templates with the scheme documents early to avoid eligibility surprises and to strengthen your application.
Rejoinder and assessment: funding rule issues that often surface late
The external review stage commonly surfaces precise questions about cost justification and institutional contributions. Assessors read proposals with a focus on whether each project cost directly enables the research outputs.
What happens during external assessment and the rejoinder opportunity
External assessors evaluate proposals, moderators reconcile scores and decision panels finalise outcomes. Comments may note budget or eligibility concerns even when the science is strong.
Anticipated rejoinder dates: 12 May to 25 May 2026. This is a short, time-bound chance to respond.
Preparing evidence-based clarifications without changing your proposal
Use the rejoinder to clarify, not to rewrite. Point to existing sections, provide concise evidence, and restate why a line is needed for the project.
“Keep replies factual, tied to methodology, and within the scope certified by your organisation.”
Common late-stage issues include unclear links between costs and methods, equipment that reads as broad-use, travel that appears optional, and vague partner contributions.
- Reference exact pages or table rows in the application.
- Summarise necessity in one or two short sentences per item.
- Ensure any statement aligns with what the Administering Organisation certified.
Practical tip: attend Research Office sessions and use their tip sheets — local insight often matches assessor concerns from recent rounds.
Conclusion
The end point of good proposal design is a budget that is specific, defensible and institutionally aligned.
Keep each cost clearly tied to methods and measurable outputs. Document non-ARC contributions and show where institutional support covers baseline resources.
Avoid charges for bench fees, capital works, indirect costs, student fees and CI/PI salaries. Do not list standard campus items the Administering Organisation provides.
Treat eligibility and medical exclusions as design constraints from day one; they shape both your narrative and the budget.
Remember internal dates — NOI, eligibility exemption, Research Office submission and RNTA — and let those deadlines drive your budgeting timetable for DECRA 2027.
Final checklist: re-check GrantConnect documents, confirm administering organisation requirements, validate quotes and salary assumptions, and run a pre-submission compliance checklist before certification.
FAQ
What can I spend a DECRA award on?
The award supports project-specific costs that directly enable the research plan. Typical items include salaries for research staff and short-term research assistants, specialist consumables, fieldwork expenses, third-party expert services, project-specific equipment and maintenance, workshops and conferences essential to the project, and dissemination activities such as open-access publication fees and targeted outreach. All items must be justified against the project outcomes and managed by your administering organisation.
What does the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award support?
The scheme supports focused research by early career researchers in Australia, helping establish an independent program of research. It covers direct project costs, training and development activities linked to research performance, collaboration with industry or other research organisations, and resources needed to deliver the proposed discovery project over the award period.
What is the typical award profile and funding expectation?
Awards normally provide multi-year support to cover personnel, project costs and modest infrastructure directly tied to the research. Expect assessors to look for a clear budget aligned to milestones, justified staffing levels for research assistants or technical support, and realistic travel and dissemination costs. Large capital purchases are usually excluded.
When will the DECRA 2027 round key dates occur?
The round opens in the months set by the research council; internal institution milestones typically begin several months earlier. Plan internal notices of intent, draft submissions to your Research Office and institutional approvals well ahead of the scheme deadline to meet both local and national timelines.
What internal and ARC submission deadlines should I watch?
You must meet your institution’s internal submission deadline to allow compliance checks and sign-off, then the final submission to the national portal by the ARC deadline. Institutions usually set their internal cut-off at least a week earlier to allow quality assurance, certification and budget reconciliation.
When is the rejoinder window and announcement period expected?
After external assessment, applicants typically receive reviewer reports and may have a short rejoinder period to address queries. Final announcements follow ARC timelines; anticipate several months between submission and outcome notification. Check GrantConnect and your university research office for exact dates.
Who actually receives the award and why does that matter for spending?
The administering organisation (an eligible university or research institute) holds and manages the grant on behalf of the recipient. This means institutional policies govern payment of salaries, procurement, ethics approvals and contract management. Budget items must align with the host organisation’s financial systems and compliance rules.
What responsibilities does an administering organisation have?
The organisation must accept legal and financial responsibility for the project, ensure proper use of funds, provide infrastructure and HR support, and certify compliance with the scheme’s terms. It also handles reporting, audits and any subcontracting or collaboration agreements.
Which project costs are eligible under the rules?
Eligible costs include access to specialist facilities, field-research essentials (travel, local logistics), third-party expert services like data analysis or technical assistance, project-specific equipment and consumables, research staff salaries and justified on-costs, dissemination and outreach, travel for collaboration, and project web presence or software licences tied to the project.
Can I charge facilities and specialist infrastructure access?
Yes, where such access is essential and charged by the facility to the project. You must show how facility use directly supports research outcomes and avoid duplicating institutional core support already provided by your host.
What field research costs are considered essential?
Essential costs include transport to sites, permits, specialised field equipment, local accommodation and safety requirements necessary to collect data. Budget these with clear rationale and include any risk mitigation or Indigenous engagement expenses where relevant.
Are third-party expert services allowable?
Yes. Consultancy or specialist services—such as advanced data processing, statistical support, or artistic fabrication—can be charged if they are not available within the administering organisation and are critical to delivering the project outcomes.
What equipment, maintenance and consumables qualify as “project-specific”?
Equipment primarily used for the project, single-use lab consumables, and maintenance directly linked to project instruments qualify. Avoid requesting items of broad general use that will remain part of institutional core facilities unless you can justify project-exclusive time or functionality.
Who can I budget personnel for and what needs strong justification?
Budget for research assistants, technical staff, and casual research support aligned to the research plan. Salaries for chief investigators or continuing PIs are generally excluded; any personnel costing must clearly state roles, fractional FTE and how each position contributes to deliverables.
Can I include dissemination and outreach costs?
Yes. Reasonable costs for publishing, open-access fees, targeted knowledge translation, public engagement and stakeholder workshops are allowable when tied to achieving impact and research dissemination objectives.
What travel is acceptable within the budget?
Travel that directly supports the project—fieldwork, collaboration visits, essential conference attendance for presenting results, or partner engagement—can be included. Keep costs modest and clearly linked to research milestones.
Are workshops, focus groups and hospitality allowable?
Reasonable workshop costs and associated hospitality that facilitate research collaboration or stakeholder engagement are permissible. Ensure expenses are proportionate, essential to project aims and follow institutional hospitality guidelines.
Can I fund project-specific web hosting and development?
Yes. Hosting, website development and project databases that support research dissemination or data sharing can be included if they are distinct from institutional services and necessary for project delivery.
What costs are expressly excluded from a DECRA award?
Exclusions include major capital works, building refurbishment and general infrastructure upgrades, bench fees charged as routine institutional overheads, indirect costs not tied to the project, and student tuition liabilities like HECS/HELP fees. Salaries for chief investigators or continuing PIs are typically not allowed.
Are indirect and non-research costs reimbursable?
No. Overheads, general administrative costs and other indirect expenses that aren’t directly attributable to project activities should not be charged. Use institutional funds to cover those items.
Can I include student fees or HECS/HELP in the budget?
No. Student tuition fees and HECS/HELP liabilities are excluded. You may fund stipends or scholarships in line with fellowship rules, but tuition remains the responsibility of the institution or student.
What institution-provided basics must not be requested?
Do not request standard library access, core software licences, basic computing equipment, office or lab space, or routine facility maintenance. These are expected to be provided by the host organisation and cannot be charged as project costs.
How should I justify each budget line for assessors?
Link every cost to a specific research activity, deliverable or milestone described in the research plan. Provide unit costs, quantities and a short rationale. Avoid vague items and demonstrate necessity for achieving outcomes.
How do I avoid requesting “broad general use” equipment?
Show that equipment is dedicated to the project or that the requested share of use is project-specific. If equipment benefits multiple projects, explain governance, scheduling and how the project’s use is distinct and essential.
How do I document non-ARC contributions and avoid duplicated Commonwealth funding?
Clearly declare cash and in-kind contributions from partner organisations, industry or institutional co-investment. Ensure no item is funded by multiple Commonwealth sources and provide signed letters or certification where required.
What eligibility checkpoints affect budget and project design?
Eligibility hinges on PhD award dates, allowable career interruptions and employment history. These determine applicant status and may influence salary requests, project duration and scope. Check the scheme’s eligibility dates and plan career interruption evidence early.
How do eligibility exemption requests work?
If you need an exemption, submit evidence such as birth certificates, medical records or employer documentation per scheme guidelines. Provide a clear timeline and justification; your institution will usually help collate and forward the request to the scheme administrators.
Are there special considerations for medical and dental research?
Projects classed as primarily medical or dental research may fall outside the scheme and require alternative grant pathways. Assess whether your proposal is “primarily and substantially” clinical or therapeutic and consult your research office early to determine the correct scheme.
How do I determine whether my proposal is primarily medical?
Review the scheme’s definitions and consider the research aims, methods and intended outcomes. If the project focuses on clinical trials, patient treatment or therapeutic development, it is likely medical. Seek guidance from institutional ethics and the research office.
What conflict of interest and confidentiality rules apply?
Declare any personal, financial or institutional conflicts when submitting. The policy applies to applicants, reviewers and administrators. Manage apparent conflicts by transparent disclosure, recusal where necessary, and following institutional conflict-of-interest procedures.
How do I handle conflicts during collaboration and assessment?
Maintain full disclosure with partners and your Research Office. If assessors identify conflicts, they must be managed per policy, which may include reassignment of reviewers or additional transparency in reporting.
How should cross-institution budgets be structured?
Allocate clear responsibilities and realistic budgets to each partner institution. Ensure each partner can legally accept funds and has the resources to deliver their component. Document cash and in-kind contributions and procurement arrangements.
What certification and sign-off do partner institutions need?
Each administering organisation must certify compliance, financial management and ethics approvals for work they will perform. Expect institutional sign-off on budgets and investigator commitments before final submission.
How do I conform to Indigenous cultural protocols and budget related costs?
Engage Indigenous communities early, seek guidance on cultural protocols and budget for appropriate engagement, permissions, IP agreements and culturally safe practices. Include funds for Indigenous collaborators, cultural advisors and return of benefits where appropriate.
How do I build compliant Indigenous engagement into the plan?
Describe engagement approaches, timeline, governance and resources. Attach letters of support from Indigenous partners and detail how cultural material will be handled, credited and stored in line with protocols.
What administrative steps are needed to apply through the RMS?
Start with an internal Notice of Intent, prepare an RMS profile, read the scheme guidelines carefully, use institutional templates, and generate the compliant PDF for submission. Coordinate with your Research Office early for eligibility checks and budget validation.
What triggers internal review when submitting to the Research Office?
Submission to the Research Office triggers compliance checks: eligibility, budgets, ethics, certifications and conflict declarations. Allow time for revisions following institutional feedback before the ARC deadline.
When should I consider a Request Not to Assess?
Consider this if a conflict or eligibility issue arises late that cannot be resolved. Request Not to Assess must be lodged within scheme timeframes and supported by your institution with appropriate evidence and rationale.
What resources should I use when building a budget?
Consult GrantConnect, the scheme’s policy documents, institutional budget templates, and research office tools. Use library support for metrics, engagement evidence and impact statements to strengthen the budget justification.
Which policy documents are essential to check?
Key documents include the scheme guidelines, eligibility criteria, budget rules, research integrity and confidentiality policies. Always reference the latest documents on GrantConnect and your institution’s research office pages.
How should I prepare for rejoinder and assessment questions?
Read reviewer comments carefully, prepare short evidence-based clarifications that don’t alter the original proposal, and focus on addressing factual or budgetary queries. Work with your Research Office to ensure responses align with scheme rules.
What common funding rule issues appear during rejoinder?
Common issues include unclear budget justification, equipment perceived as general-use, undeclared in-kind support, eligibility dates, and overlap with other Commonwealth grants. Provide documentation and rectify any mismatches promptly.
