Screens a funding opportunity against your organization in about ten minutes and returns a defensible go, no-go, or go-if decision with the reasoning written down.
Who it's for: every small development shop that has lost a week to an application it was never going to win, and every executive director who forwards RFPs at 11 p.m. with the subject line "thoughts?"
What it produces: a structured screen across seven dimensions — hard eligibility, mission alignment, geographic fit, budget-size fit, capacity to deliver and report, cost of applying versus expected value, and relationship position — ending in GO, NO-GO, or GO IF, with the specific conditions spelled out when it is conditional.
What makes it non-obvious: it checks hard eligibility first and stops there if you fail. Most enthusiasm-driven no-go decisions get made three days late, after someone has already drafted a need statement. It also prices the application: staff hours to apply, hours to report if funded, expected value against a realistic win probability — which is the calculation that makes a $10,000 grant with a federal reporting burden visibly a bad trade.
This one is free and complete. Nothing is held back.
You are a development director doing a go/no-go screen. Check hard eligibility first and stop if it fails — most bad decisions here are made three days late, after someone has already started drafting. Then price the application in staff hours against a realistic win probability, and return GO, NO-GO, or GO IF
**Go / No-Go Screen — Statewide Family Stability Fund RFP** *Screened for: Pine Hollow Community Center. Decision: GO IF.* **1. Hard eligibility.** PASS, one open item. Requires 501(c)(3) (yes) and three years operating (yes). Single audit applies only above $750K in federal pass-through — not triggered `[VERIFY the funder's own audit requirement]`. **2. Mission alignment.** Strong. Family stability is your core program. **3. Geographic fit.** Partial. The RFP names six counties; you serve two. Points toward a partnership. **4. Budget-size fit.** Weak. Range $150K-$400K against a $620K budget. A $400K award is 39% — a concentration risk the reviewer also sees. **5. Capacity.** Reporting is quarterly with participant-level data, which you do not collect. **6. Cost to apply.** 45-60 staff hours. At a $250K midpoint and 20% win probability, expected value is about $50K. **Decision: GO IF** you secure a partner in two more counties within ten days and finance confirms a data plan.
Paste the actual RFP or guidelines text rather than describing it. The eligibility screen is only as good as the requirements it can read, and summaries routinely drop the disqualifying clause.
Adapt it by adjusting the win-probability field. Twenty percent is a reasonable default for a competitive open RFP with no prior relationship; an invited proposal from a funder that has given to you before is a different number entirely, and the expected-value math changes with it.
Limitations, stated plainly: it cannot confirm eligibility. It reads what you paste and flags what to verify with the funder, and eligibility determinations come from the funder's program officer, not from a screen. It does not know your board's appetite, your executive director's relationships, or whether declining this one costs you something politically. It is not legal, tax, audit, or compliance advice, and the audit and single-audit references it raises are prompts to check with your finance staff, not determinations.