Erasmus+ Proposal Optimisation
Your draft, assessed against official criteria and rewritten to the standard it needs to reach.
Why Erasmus+ Proposals Fail
Most proposals fail not because of a weak idea, but because of how they are written.
Erasmus+ proposals are not rejected because the project idea is weak. They are rejected because they are not built the way evaluators expect from the start:
- No clear logical framework connecting needs, objectives, activities and results.
- Activities that sound busy but lack measurable outcomes.
- A partnership that exists on paper but has no defined roles or added value.
Erasmus+ evaluators score proposals against strict quality criteria. To score above the funding threshold, your proposal must demonstrate:
- A clearly identified need that justifies the project's existence.
- Activities that directly and logically produce the stated results and impact.
- A partnership where each organisation contributes something specific and necessary.
How it Works
We assess your draft, rewrite what needs fixing, and deliver it ready to submit.
Assess
We review your draft section by section using the official Quality Assessment criteria applied by National Agency evaluators.
- Every section scored against official evaluation criteria
- Written explanation of what is strong and what is losing points
- Clear identification of which sections need rewriting
Rewrite
Every underperforming section is rewritten at evaluator standard — specific to your project, aligned with your Key Action's scoring criteria.
- All weak sections rewritten, not just annotated
- Language, structure and logic aligned with evaluation criteria
- Strong sections left intact — we change what needs changing
Deliver
You receive a clean, complete Word document — your proposal at the standard it needs to reach, ready to copy into the application form.
- Full Quality Assessment report included
- Clean rewritten proposal in Word format
- Submission readiness verdict on the final version
How it Works
We assess your draft, rewrite what needs fixing, and deliver it ready to submit.
Before & After Optimisation
Click any card to see the rewrite
Background & Objectives
"Our school wants to improve the quality of teaching. We will send teachers abroad to attend training courses and learn new methods."
- No evidence or needs analysis
- Objectives vague and unmeasurable
- No EU priority alignment
Background & Objectives
"A 2024 internal assessment identified critical gaps in digital pedagogy among 68% of our teaching staff. This project addresses these gaps through three targeted mobility activities aligned with the EU Digital Education Action Plan, equipping 12 staff members with validated digital competencies."
- Evidence-based with specific data
- Measurable objective with clear target
- Named EU policy alignment
Activities
"Teachers will go abroad for one week and attend a course. They will learn new things and then come back and share with colleagues at school."
- No link to project objectives
- Follow-up plan is vague
- No quality assurance described
Activities
"Activity 1 consists of a 5-day structured course in digital pedagogy for 4 staff members, directly addressing Objective 1. A post-mobility dissemination workshop within 30 days ensures transfer to the wider teaching team, documented through a validated learning outcomes report."
- Direct link to named objective
- Concrete follow-up with timeline
- Documented quality assurance
Follow-up
"After the project we will share results on our website and social media. We hope that other schools will be interested in our results and use them."
- No measurable dissemination targets
- No sustainability beyond the project
- Generic language with no commitment
Follow-up
"Results will be disseminated through a dedicated EPALE article, a regional network event targeting 8 schools, and integration into the school's annual CPD plan — ensuring the competencies developed are embedded institutionally beyond the project lifecycle."
- Specific channels with measurable reach
- Institutional sustainability plan
- Named platform (EPALE) signals expertise
Project Description
"Our project will create educational materials for young people. The partners will work together to develop resources and share them online."
- No logical chain from need to result
- Target group undefined
- Impact is generic and unverifiable
Project Description
"The project produces three open-access modules targeting NEETs aged 18–25, co-developed across two activity-based work packages, with measurable indicators including pre/post assessments for a minimum of 120 participants."
- Clear logical chain to results
- Specific target group with numbers
- Measurable indicators tied to activities
Cooperation Arrangements
"The partners will meet regularly and share tasks. Everyone will contribute to the project and communicate via email and online meetings."
- No defined roles per partner
- Decision-making process unclear
- No added value per organisation
Cooperation Arrangements
"Partner A leads WP1 (coordination), Partner B leads WP2 (content development) drawing on its curriculum expertise, and Partner C leads WP3 (dissemination) leveraging its regional network. Decisions require consensus, with a defined escalation protocol for unresolved issues."
- Clear lead role per partner per WP
- Decision-making process defined
- Specific added value per organisation
Impact and Follow-up
"We expect the project to have a big impact on many people. We will share results through social media and our websites."
- No quantified impact indicators
- Dissemination plan too generic
- No sustainability beyond project end
Impact and Follow-up
"The project targets direct impact on 120 participants and indirect reach of 500+ through three multiplier events. Materials will be published under Creative Commons on the project platform, with partner organisations committing to embed outputs into their curricula beyond the project lifecycle."
- Quantified direct and indirect reach
- Named dissemination channels and licence
- Institutional sustainability commitment
Relevance of the Project
"Digital skills are very important today. Many people do not have good digital skills and this is a big problem for society and organisations."
- No evidence or official data cited
- Priority alignment superficial
- No transnational added value justified
Relevance of the Project
"The 2023 DESI report shows 42% of adults in partner countries lack basic digital competencies. This project directly addresses the EU Digital Transformation priority, with transnational added value justified by the comparable skills gap across all three national contexts."
- Specific data from official EU source
- Named priority with programme reference
- Justified transnational added value
Project Design & Implementation
"We have planned several activities over two years. Partners will meet and work on the outputs. We will monitor progress with meetings."
- No work package structure
- No deliverables or milestones
- Quality monitoring is vague
Project Design & Implementation
"The project is structured across four work packages: WP1 Management, WP2 Research & Needs Analysis, WP3 Development (three intellectual outputs), and WP4 Dissemination. Key milestones include a mid-term review at M12 and a final quality audit at M23."
- Clear WP structure with named outputs
- Defined milestones with timeline
- Quality audit process named
Impact & Dissemination
"We will share our project results through social media, websites and events. We hope many organisations will use our outputs."
- No quantified reach or audience
- Dissemination plan too generic
- No long-term sustainability commitment
Impact & Dissemination
"Outputs will reach 500+ practitioners through three multiplier events, EPALE publication, and integration into two partner institutions' official curricula. A sustainability plan ensures the platform remains active for three years post-project, maintained by the lead partner."
- Quantified reach with named channels
- EPALE named — signals programme expertise
- 3-year post-project sustainability plan
Pricing by Key Action
One fixed price per project. No hidden fees, no project approval rate.
Mobility Projects
Staff mobility, youth exchanges, volunteering
Per proposal — fixed price
What you receive
- Full Quality Assessment report
- Rewrite of all underperforming sections
- Clean final proposal in Word format
- Three rounds of revisions included
Small-Scale Partnerships
2–3 partner organisations, focused scope
Per proposal — fixed price
What you receive
- Full Quality Assessment report
- Rewrite of all underperforming sections
- Clean final proposal in Word format
- Three rounds of revisions included
Cooperation Partnerships
3+ partner organisations, larger scope & budget
Per proposal — fixed price
What you receive
- Full Quality Assessment report
- Rewrite of all underperforming sections
- Clean final proposal in Word format
- Three rounds of revisions included
Not sure which Key Action applies to your project? Get in touch and we will point you in the right direction.
Trusted by Organisations Across Europe
Real results, real projects, real impact.
Across all GrowthProjects services since 2022.
Frequently Asked Questions
Everything you need to know about the Erasmus+ Proposal Optimisation service — before you get started.
What do I need to send you to get started?
You need to share your proposal draft — either as a Word document or a PDF — along with a brief description of your project and Key Action. The more complete the draft, the more thorough the optimisation.
How do you decide which sections to rewrite?
We first conduct a full Quality Assessment of your draft, scoring every section against the official award criteria. Sections that fall below the required threshold or that would significantly benefit from improvement are then rewritten. Strong sections are left intact — we only change what needs changing.
Will the rewritten proposal still sound like our project?
Yes. We rewrite to improve structure, clarity and alignment with evaluation criteria — not to change your project idea. Your objectives, activities and partnership remain yours. We make them read the way evaluators expect.
How many rounds of revisions are included?
Three rounds of revisions are included in the service. After delivering the optimised proposal, you can request up to three rounds of adjustments at no extra cost.
Do you use AI to write the optimised sections?
Our Proposal Optimisation service is delivered by an experienced Erasmus+ proposal specialist — not generated by AI. We may use AI tools to support research or formatting, but every rewritten section is reviewed, written and signed off by a human expert with direct knowledge of evaluation standards.
What if my proposal needs a complete rewrite from scratch?
If your draft requires a full rebuild rather than optimisation, we will let you know after the initial assessment. In that case we may recommend our Proposal Development service instead, which builds your proposal from the ground up.
What if I have more questions before getting started?
Get in touch through the contact form below and we will get back to you within one business day. No commitment required — just a conversation.
Ready to Strengthen Your Proposal?
Share your project details and we will get back to you within one business day.
What happens next?
We typically respond within 1 business day. No commitment required — just a conversation.
Free Initial Consultation
We'll discuss your goals, eligibility and which Key Action fits best.
Response within 24 hours
We respond on business days, usually the same day.
Your data is safe
We never share your information with third parties.