Someone forwards you a funding notice with a note: "Can we apply for this?" If you say yes to everything, you spend your weeks on applications you were unlikely to win, and the ones that fit get less of your attention. If you say no by instinct, you may miss the opportunity that suits you best.
This article gives you five questions to answer in writing before you commit a week of staff time, plus a simple way to turn the answers into a recommendation your executive director or board can act on.
Why "apply to everything" loses
Every application costs hours, including the ones you don't win. Those hours come from a small team, so each unnecessary application pushes back the strong ones.
Saying no is a skill, and it protects your yeses. It works best when it's a routine you apply the same way every time. Start from a notice you've already read using the 20-minute reading order, then answer the five questions below.
Question 1: Are we unambiguously eligible?
"Probably eligible" is not an answer. If you have to build an argument for your eligibility, you aren't eligible yet.
Check four things against the notice:
- Entity type: the notice must list the entity types that may apply, plus any further restrictions.
- Geography and population: some programs limit where the work happens or whom it serves.
- Registrations: federal applicants must be registered in SAM.gov before applying and must include a unique entity identifier in the application (2 CFR 25.200).
- Application limits: notices must state any limit on the number of applications an applicant may submit, and say whether it applies to the organization, the individual investigator or both.
If a point is unclear, ask before you write. Federal agencies may offer pre-application technical assistance, but under 2 CFR 200.204 they must make those resources widely available, for example by posting answers on Grants.gov. Email the contact listed in the notice and keep the reply with your file.
Question 2: Does it fund what we actually do?
Compare the program description with your own program design. The test is simple: would we run this project if the grant didn't exist? If not, you'd be building a program to fit the money, and that creates its own problems, covered in when a grant is too good to be true.
Three follow-up checks help:
- Can we name the people this project serves, and have we served them before?
- Can we point to results from similar work, even small ones?
- What happens to the project in the year after the funding ends?
If you can't answer the third, the notice may fit your mission on paper but not your plans.
Question 3: Can we compete?
Start with the numbers the notice gives you. Appendix I to 2 CFR 200 requires the Basic Information section to state the total funding, the anticipated number of awards and the expected size of individual awards. A notice may also say what awards averaged in previous years.
Then read the review criteria and score yourself honestly. Which criteria can you meet with evidence you already have? Where would you lose points? Is there a priority population or place you don't serve? A likely incumbent isn't a reason to stop, but it should change how much time you commit. Be honest about the gap between a fundable idea and a competitive one: a good idea with no evidence behind it is hard to score well on.
Question 4: Can we afford to win?
A grant that loses money or exhausts your team is not a win. Look for:
- Cost share. The notice must say whether it's required, and that failing to commit to required cost sharing makes the application ineligible (Appendix I). Under 2 CFR 200.306, cost share must be verifiable in your records and can't be counted toward another federal award.
- Cash flow. Federal rules say recipients that meet certain conditions must be paid in advance, but reimbursement is used in some cases, and pass-through entities can set their own conditions (2 CFR 200.305). Read the payment terms before you plan your cash.
- Reporting and staff. Check the Post-Award Requirements section for reporting type and frequency, and ask who will do the work.
Question 5: Can we produce it in time?
Count backwards from the deadline. List what has to happen: internal review, partner letters, board approval, registrations and the data you still need to pull. Then check your people against that calendar. If your grant writer is already committed to two deadlines in the same fortnight, the answer is probably no. A grants calendar makes that conflict visible weeks ahead.
Turn five answers into a recommendation
Use a one-page sheet. Score each question as yes, no or conditional, then recommend go, no-go or go with conditions.
Say a rural food bank is weighing a nutrition-access notice. Its sheet looks like this:
| Question | Answer | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Unambiguously eligible? | Yes | Nonprofits listed on page 6 |
| Funds what we do? | Yes | Matches existing pantry program |
| Can we compete? | Conditional | 10 awards; weak on the partnership criterion |
| Can we afford to win? | Yes | No cost share |
| Can we produce it in time? | Conditional | Needs a county health department letter |
The recommendation is "go with conditions": get the letter requested by a set date, and revisit if it isn't confirmed. The two conditions are specific, owned and dated, which is what makes a conditional answer useful.
When the answer is no, present it as a choice about priorities: "We could apply, but it would cost us X, and here is what we would apply for instead." That reads very differently from "we can't be bothered".
Your next step
Write the five questions at the top of your notice summary and answer them in writing for the next three opportunities you consider. Keep the sheets. After a few rounds you'll see which kinds of notices you consistently say yes to.
Once a notice has passed your five questions, SoliContraX can take you from that notice to a draft built from your own materials, then help you finish it. Start your next application.