Last night I received the third rejection of a large (US) NSF proposal effort I've been leading for 4 years, filled with mostly contradictory reviews (e.g., this proposal is apparently both too ambitious and not ambitious enough, etc.) and lots of questionable criticisms about applying methods that are not appropriate for the area among other infuriating bits (and yes, with a few actually legit criticisms mixed in). Many of these are the types of comments that if I got in a manuscript review, I'd rebut in a reply document to the editor as opposed to actually making any changes to the manuscript itself. As I contemplate a possible fourth submission (sigh) of this proposal, for some of the more specific non-helpful suggestions (like applying inappropriate methods), I'm wondering if it's worth trying to include a form of a "response to review" within the proposal document to some of the quibbles that it's possible future reviewers might also have? These don't seem common based on my experience, but I'm curious if these are more common than my impression?