Should I be asked to serve as a peer reviewer for other universities' Pre-Proposal Support efforts? I received a request from the sponsored projects office person at a well known university, asking me to peer review a grant proposal that was in preparation at their university.  The idea was for me to help their researchers to write a more successful grant proposal.  I felt that it was something of an abuse for them to even ask me, and they were damaging their university's reputation by making such requests of people.  They wrote back to correct what they termed my inaccurate and/or disagreeable assumptions and conclusions.  They said in effect that I am a bad academic citizen for not being willing to help them with this.  

My questions:  Is this a reasonable thing for universities to ask?  Or is it unreasonable or even damaging to their reputation to be soliciting this kind of help?

[Edited for length.  If you want to see the original email exchange, look at the edit history.]
Science, and academia more broadly, is and should be a community effort.  Of course, we should all work to support the common cause of advancing and disseminating knowledge.  

Science funding is a different story.  Funding agencies establish a competitive process for different researchers or groups of researchers.  It is hard for me to imagine any good alternative to a competitive process for funding, but we can't deny that any specific funding competition is a zero-sum game.  

Thus we as scientists unavoidably relate to each other in two fundamentally different ways:  As collaborators in a global scientific quest and as competitors.  (It's not just funding that forces this on us:  For example, we also unavoidably compete for job opportunities.)  

Universities have a direct financial interest in having their researchers win competitions for grants.  So they put resources into improving their researchers' grant proposals.  One can't fault them for doing so.  

But we should be candid about what the universities are specifically trying to do when they put resources into improving their own grant proposals:  They are trying to win more grants.  If they also contribute to the global effort of scientific research because grant proposals get better, great, but that beneficial effect is better understood as arising directly from the competitive process.  

If [Unnamed university] wins more grants, then undeniably, some other institution wins fewer grants.  That is the university's goal, and specifically the goal of [A particular Office at Unnamed university].  But that is not my goal, and in fact opposed to my goal with respect to funding competitions.

I object to being asked to help [Unnamed university] win more grants, and I strongly object to the insinuation that, because I object, I am not a good citizen of the scientific community.  It appears to me (through very unscientific departmental-lounge polling) that others agree with me.  The reputation of [Unnamed university] has suffered greatly in my eyes because of this issue, and if, as I suspect, others feel the same way, [Unnamed university] is hurting its own reputation more broadly by acting in this way.