Reading a Notice of Funding Opportunity the Way a Reviewer Will

The short answer. Every federal notice of funding opportunity follows a standard format prescribed by Appendix I to 2 CFR Part 200, and the section of that format titled “Application Review Information” states the criteria against which applications are scored and, in most notices, the weight given to each. Reviewers score against those criteria. An application should therefore be organized to answer them, in their order, using their terms, with the page budget allocated in proportion to the points available.

The standard format

The 2024 revision of the Uniform Guidance replaced the older lettered format (Sections A through H) with a plainer structure. Appendix I now requires the following sections, in this order: Basic Information; Eligibility; Program Description; Application Contents and Format; Submission Requirements and Deadlines; Application Review Information; Award Notices; and Post-Award Requirements and Administration, followed by an optional Other Information section. Notices issued before the revision took effect, and some agency templates, still use the lettered sections, so expect to see both for a while.

The consequence for applicants is that the document has a predictable structure and the important parts can be found quickly. Eligibility determines whether the organization may apply at all. Application Contents and Format states the page limits and the required forms, and Submission Requirements and Deadlines states when and how to submit. Application Review Information states how the application will be scored. Basic Information states how much money is available and how many awards the agency expects to make, which is the only reliable indicator of the odds.

Application Review Information, read closely

The review criteria typically appear as a list with point values. A representative example from a human services program:

• Need for the project: 15 points
• Quality of the project design: 30 points
• Organizational capacity: 20 points
• Evaluation plan: 20 points
• Budget and budget justification: 15 points

Each criterion is usually followed by a paragraph describing what the reviewer is instructed to look for. That paragraph is the review rubric, published in advance. It will contain phrases such as “the extent to which the applicant demonstrates,” “the degree to which the proposed activities are likely to,” and “whether the applicant has identified.” Each such phrase is a question the reviewer must answer with a score, and each should be answered in the narrative in a place the reviewer can find without searching.

Reviewers in federal panels are usually volunteers or contractors reading ten to twenty applications under time pressure, with a scoring form that mirrors the published criteria. An application whose headings match the criteria, in order, allows the reviewer to locate each answer immediately. An application organized around the program’s own narrative logic, however compelling, requires the reviewer to hunt, and reviewers who hunt score conservatively.

Allocating the page budget

Page limits are stated in Application Contents and Format. Where the narrative is limited to, say, twenty-five pages and the criteria are weighted as above, the allocation follows the points: roughly four pages on need, seven or eight on design, five on capacity, five on evaluation, and the balance on the budget narrative if it counts against the limit. An application that spends nine pages on need and three on evaluation has forfeited points before the reviewer has read a word.

The language of the notice

Reviewers are instructed using the vocabulary of the notice, and applications that use the same vocabulary are easier to score. If the notice refers to “priority populations,” the application should refer to priority populations, not to “target communities” or “the people we serve.” If the notice defines “evidence-based” by reference to a specific clearinghouse, the application should cite that clearinghouse. This is not a matter of style. It is a matter of allowing the reviewer to match the application to the rubric without translation.

What the post-award section tells you before you apply

The Post-Award Requirements and Administration section describes the reporting requirements, the terms and conditions, and any special conditions that will attach to the award. It is frequently skipped by applicants and should not be. An organization that reads it and discovers quarterly financial reporting, semiannual performance reporting, a required data system, and a mandatory annual meeting in Washington can decide whether the award is worth pursuing, and can budget the cost of administering it. An organization that discovers these obligations at the notice of award has already committed.

The review we recommend

Before submission, a person who did not write the application should score it against the review criteria using the point values in the notice, without access to the writer. Where the reviewer cannot find the answer to a criterion, the application has a gap. Where the reviewer finds the answer but scores it below the maximum, the application has a weakness. Both are correctable before the deadline and neither is correctable after.

Regulatory references: 2 CFR 200.204 (notices of funding opportunities); Appendix I to Part 200 (notice of funding opportunity format, as revised in 2024); 2 CFR 200.205 (federal awarding agency review of merit of proposals); 2 CFR 200.206 (federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants).

This article is general information about federal grant administration. It is not legal advice.