Best Practices Guide: Writing a Strong Partnering Proposal to Get Noticed by Industry

What we learned from analyzing dozens of finalist and declined proposals and how you can apply those insights to strengthen your next submission.

At Halo, we aim to make the partnership process as smooth and thoughtful as possible. Before a partnering request ever goes live, our team works closely with the corporate R&D team to fully understand the challenge they’re trying to solve and what types of solutions they're excited about. That way, when you apply, you're not left guessing. You’re responding to a request that’s already been shaped with input from both sides in mind. Combined with short, focused submission forms, the process is built to make it easier for great ideas to connect with the right partners.

That said, you might still be wondering what it actually takes to make it to the finalist stage. While it can sometimes come down to the science itself, the number of applicants, or internal budget constraints, there are still clear ways to strengthen your proposal and stand out.

We analyzed dozens of finalists and declined partnering proposals across multiple sectors to create this guide for you. While each partnership request has unique criteria, the most successful partnering proposals consistently reflect a set of shared characteristics. These best practices are designed to help future applicants build stronger, more competitive submissions.

 

---

What works:

• Finalist proposals clearly map how their solution meets each of the company's stated must-haves.
• Each criterion uses specific, technical evidence.

Best practices:

• Reinforce your fit with specific data or examples for each item
• Provide clear, evidence-based responses (e.g., “All ingredients are GRAS-approved and stable in pH 3.5 systems for 12 months at room temperature”)

---

What works:

• Strong proposals provide experimental data, analogous examples, or detailed plans that de-risk the idea.
• Even at low TRLs, teams describe what testing will happen and how it connects to commercial relevance.
  

Best practices:

• Include a step-by-step plan tied to outcomes
• Reference any available data (internal tests, prior publications, related projects)
• Make it clear what will be proven during the proposed work and what will remain to be validated

---

What works:

• Finalists outline how the solution could be made, scaled, and regulated, even when still in development.
• They anticipate industry constraints like cost targets, regulatory timelines, and manufacturing compatibility.

Best practices:

• Reference key factors: scale-up path, estimated cost-in-use, compatibility with current workflows, and regulatory status
• For early-stage work, outline how these will be evaluated during the project

---

What works:

• Winning proposals don’t just present novel science. They frame that novelty as a targeted solution to the company’s challenge.
• They use clear, non-academic language to explain the technology’s relevance.

Best practices:

• Ground your hypothesis in the company’s pain point, not just your own research
• Avoid generic claims about technology potential. Anchor the impact in their specific context
• Use analogies or prior use cases to explain unfamiliar tech when needed

---

What works:

• Finalists tightly align their proposal with the company’s scope and priorities, avoiding tangents or partial solutions.
• The tone and language reflect an understanding of the company’s goals and terminology.

Best practices:

• Echo key phrases and terminology from the partnering request throughout your proposal. This reinforces alignment and shows you understand the company’s priorities (e.g., “saltiness enhancement,” “shelf-stable,” “natural ingredients”).
• Don’t assume relevance. If your tech applies indirectly, justify why it matters to the company’s goals
• Keep the focus on their need, not your broader technology platform or solution

---

What works:

• When elements are still in development, successful proposals often include a co-design phase with the company.
• This reinforces flexibility, partnership orientation, and openness to feedback.

Best practices:

• If the solution isn’t fully developed, offer to customize the approach with company input
• Propose a discovery or scoping phase to align on product-specific parameters
• Emphasize adaptability and communication as part of your team’s strengths

---

• Conceptual only:
  Lacked real-world testing or a tangible plan for validation. Phrases like “we propose to explore” without a roadmap were common red flags.
• Too narrow or misaligned:
  Focused on a sub-aspect of the problem that didn’t address the company's main need (e.g., predicting cycle time instead of automating design).
• Insufficient data on viability:
  Failed to explain how the solution would be scaled, regulated, or manufactured. Often speculative.
• Out of scope:
  Used materials, ingredients, or processes explicitly ruled out in the partnering request (e.g. artificial ingredients or solutions intended only for surface application, when the partnering request required full integration into the food matrix).

---

• Have you directly addressed each must-have requirement using specific, verifiable information?
• Is your innovation clearly linked to the company’s stated problem?
• Do you explain how the idea will be tested, validated, and scaled?
• Have you shown commercial relevance, even if the work is early-stage?
• Is the language tailored to the partnering request and free of jargon or academic framing?
• If needed, have you proposed ways to collaborate with the company to tailor the approach?