Grant Proposal Quality-Assurance Checklist

This is still a working draft. Revisit donor requirements and the core logic, and build the budget, MEAL plan, and annexes before treating QA as a final gate.

9 critical item(s) still unchecked

Donor alignment & eligibility

• Our organisation meets every stated eligibility rule (registration, country, sector, minimum turnover, consortium requirements).critical
• The grant ceiling, floor, co-financing share, and funding duration all fit what we are requesting.critical
• The proposal clearly responds to the call's specific objectives, priorities, and lot/component we are applying under.
• Target locations and population are within the geographic scope and any access constraints the donor named.
• We have referenced the donor's country/sector strategy and shown how the project advances it.

Logic & design (logframe / theory of change)

• The problem statement is evidence-based, locally validated, and names who is affected and how.
• A theory of change or results chain links activities → outputs → outcomes → impact, with assumptions stated.critical
• The logframe is internally consistent: indicators measure their result level, with baselines, targets, sources, and means of verification.
• Activities are realistic for the timeframe, budget, and team capacity, and the implementation schedule is included.
• A risk and assumptions matrix identifies key external risks with credible mitigation measures.
• Sustainability, exit, and handover (to communities, government, or partners) are addressed beyond the grant period.

Budget & value-for-money

• The total request is within the donor ceiling and respects all caps (admin/indirect %, salary scales, equipment limits).critical
• All formulas, subtotals, units, and the grand total are correct and free of rounding or currency errors.critical
• A budget narrative justifies each significant line, and costs trace back to specific activities in the workplan.
• All costs are eligible under the donor's rules; ineligible items (fines, debts, recoverable VAT) are excluded.
• Any required co-financing or in-kind contribution is quantified, sourced, and evidenced.
• Value-for-money is demonstrated (economy, efficiency, effectiveness) with benchmark or unit-cost comparisons.

Compliance & safeguarding

• Safeguarding and PSEAH policies are referenced, with concrete measures for this project and its partners.critical
• Partner due diligence, capacity assessments, and signed partnership/MoU statements are complete.
• Data protection, beneficiary consent, and do-no-harm/conflict-sensitivity considerations are addressed.
• Gender, disability inclusion, environment, and other cross-cutting requirements of the call are integrated, not bolted on.
• Anti-fraud, anti-corruption, and counter-terrorism/sanctions screening commitments meet the donor's requirements.

MEAL (monitoring, evaluation, accountability & learning)

• A MEAL plan describes how each indicator will be measured, by whom, how often, and with what tools.
• Baseline, midline/endline, and any evaluation are planned and adequately budgeted.
• An accountability and feedback/complaints mechanism for affected people is described.
• Data will be disaggregated (sex, age, disability) and indicators align with the donor's required reporting framework.
• Learning, adaptive management, and reporting cadence (against donor templates) are specified.

Writing & submission

• The submission meets all format rules: required template, page/word limits, font, language, and file types.critical
• Every mandatory annex (registration, audits, CVs, declarations, logframe, budget) is attached and signed where required.critical
• The submission method and deadline (including time zone) are confirmed, with margin to upload and receive confirmation.critical
• The proposal has been proofread for clarity, consistency, acronyms, and cross-references between narrative, logframe, and budget.
• A senior reviewer independent of the writing team has signed off, and an authorised signatory has approved the bid.