A short eligibility review helps a team decide whether a funding opportunity deserves more research. It cannot replace a full reading of the guidance, and no standard number of minutes or proposal hours fits every grant. Use the review to make the next decision and unanswered questions explicit.
1. Establish the applicant and project boundary
Record the legal entity that would apply, its registration details and where it operates. Compare legal form, size, income, trading history and geography with the programme's own wording. A project supporting a community is not automatically eligible for a fund restricted to a particular organisation type.
Then describe the activity being funded. Separate existing operations from proposed new work, identify who benefits and check whether the cost occurs in the required place and period. A broad keyword match is weaker evidence than a clear link between proposed activity and the fund's stated purpose.
2. Assess affordability and timing
Identify eligible costs and exclusions before applying a grant rate. Confirm whether VAT, staff time, professional fees, installation or in-kind contributions are treated differently. Separate the final applicant contribution from the amount the organisation may need to pay before reimbursement.
Record the actual application deadline and time zone, any expression-of-interest stage, decision timetable and delivery or claim deadline. Do not assume a standard project duration or that starting work before approval is permitted. If the timing cannot work, resolve that issue before drafting persuasive text.
3. Review the evidence the funder actually requests
Make a checklist from the current programme guidance: accounts, governing documents, permissions, supplier evidence, policies or partner commitments as relevant. Mark each document available, outdated, missing or awaiting clarification. Not every fund requests the same policies, account periods or procurement evidence.
4. Make a recorded bid decision
- Proceed: requirements are supported and the team can deliver the application and project.
- Clarify: a material rule is ambiguous or evidence is missing, with an owner and next action recorded.
- Hold or decline: a confirmed restriction, affordability gap or unsuitable timeline prevents a sensible application.
A FundingLens fit or readiness score is a prioritisation aid. Do not translate it into a probability of funding or let a high average hide a hard eligibility failure. A human should review source evidence and approve the decision to apply.
The readiness calculator can help organise gaps, and the match-funding calculator can support a budget discussion. Confirm scheme-specific details using the official listing or Innovate UK's application guidance.