When Your Grant Competitor Is Also Your Partner
One of the hardest calls in federal funding happens when you realize another organization in your community is also applying for the same opportunity.
Here is the situation. A capable nonprofit is preparing a strong federal application. A longtime community partner currently holds a similar grant and also plans to pursue the funding opportunity. If your organization decides to pursue the opportunity, the two organizations become direct competitors with overlapping geographic impact: they will both be proposing to serve the same community.
If your organization steps back, a real community need goes unmet (the whole reason you were pursuing the funding opportunity in the first place!). But if you pursue it and win, you worry your partner might feel like you “stole their grant.”
Your relationships, your mission, the potential impact, and the funding are all on the table at once. And you have to make a decision fast, because the funding opportunity closes in four weeks.
It is worth slowing down, because the instinct to soften the conflict usually makes it worse.
Geography Decides More Than People Expect
Start with the uncomfortable part. In many federal competitions, you and a nearby applicant compete whether or not you overlap on paper.
Say you build your application around neighboring areas rather than an overlapping geographic impact area. It feels like a compromise. But if those counties press right up against the partner's territory, you are still likely competing. There are rarely enough awards in a cycle for geography to stop mattering. Two adjacent applications can both score well, and one or both could still lose, because federal funders often seek geographic diversity.
Federal dollars are public dollars, and agencies work to spread them across the map. If one state gets three awards and two of them sit right next to each other while another state gets none, a legislator in the shut-out state notices, and agencies don’t want that kind of attention. Geographic distribution is one of the forces that decides who gets funded.
So the real question is not "how do we avoid competing." It is "given that we will compete, what is the right thing to do?"
The Move That Looks Collaborative and Backfires
When two friendly organizations find they are vying for the same grant, the reflex is to send a mutual letter of support. You write one for them, they write one for you, everyone feels collegial.
This could be risky. A pair of matching letters can read to reviewers like two applicants claiming the same work in the same place, which looks like double-dipping and can weaken both applications. Or, it looks like the region can’t figure out its priorities and is just asking for double the money. Instead of signaling collaboration, it signals confusion (real or just perceived).
Good intentions do not survive contact with a scoring rubric. The letter meant to protect a relationship can quietly hurt everyone involved.
A Reframe That Protects the Relationship and the Application
None of this means you have to choose between winning and being a good partner. It means…collaboration!
Instead of trading letters that muddy the waters, name the real goal in the room together: get people the services they need. From there, an agreement can sound like this. If we are the ones funded, we will work with you to keep as much of your planned work as possible going. Let’s figure out how to keep the work you’ve started going and the new work we know needs to happen started. Who cares which logo is on the application, as long as the community is served.
You can build that intention into the design through subawards. Collaborating organizations should each see the budget and scope of work so all have a transparent understanding of what they are agreeing to.
Run It Through the Community
When the strategy gets tangled, the clearest lens is the simplest one: what does the community actually need?
If your organization wins an application built around a highest-need area, that means no other resources are likely reaching that area. It might feel like everything is a priority. But when everything is a priority, nothing is.
In our scenario, the two organizations could just choose to each write their own applications, each acknowledging the risk that comes with two submissions with overlapping geography.
Naming the Trade-Off
There is no formula that removes the tension. Competing head-on might produce the strongest proposal, but it could strain a partnership you spent years building. Putting in a collaborative proposal almost guarantees you’ll get less money for the work you’d planned to do since you’ll be squeezing two ideas into one proposal. Both are real costs, and a grounded decision honors both instead of pretending one does not exist.
For organizations building toward larger federal roles, this is the muscle worth developing. And you’d be surprised how often this scenario comes up in the final weeks of a proposal process.
A few ideas.
Check in with partners as you start planning your proposal to see if they are applying. I think some nonprofits believe they’ll be “sharing” the opportunity, which will create competition. After years of doing this, only organizations already positioned for federal grants could make that happen and most in a position to apply for federal grants will have already seen it anyway.
When a partner is applying, determine whether partnering on the award is possible. A history of partnership (not just saying you are partners) will establish trust; so start practicing partnership with organizations that might fall into this category.
Identify what you absolutely have to get out of a funding opportunity (amount of funding, new positions, etc), so when you go into a partner discussion you already know where you might be able to compromise and at what point it won’t make sense to move forward.
Ready to strengthen your federal grant writing practice? www.federalgrantsaccelerator.com