How to read an RFP like a grant reviewer

6 min read

Short answer: Start with the evaluation section, not page one. List every scoring criterion and its points. Turn each criterion into a heading in your outline, in the funder's own words, and give it space in proportion to its points. Then score your draft against the same rubric before you submit. That is how the reviewer will read it.

Most teams read a request for proposals (RFP) in the order it is printed. Background first, then the program description, then eligibility, and somewhere near the back, the part that decides who gets funded. By the time anyone reaches the scoring criteria, the outline exists and the writing has started. The proposal that comes out is organized around what the team wanted to say. The reviewer is holding a sheet organized around something else.

What a reviewer does with your proposal

A reviewer is not reading for pleasure. They have a stack of applications, a deadline, and a score sheet with a box for each criterion. For each box, they look for your answer, judge how well it meets the criterion, and write a line to justify the score. If they cannot find your answer, it earns nothing, however strong it reads on page eleven.

Public funders put this in writing. Every US federal notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) must describe each merit criterion and subcriterion. Where criteria differ in importance, it must also state the percentages or weights that separate them (2 CFR 200, Appendix I). The stated purpose is transparency, so applicants can prepare with the review in mind. Foundations are less uniform. Many publish their priorities or a scoring guide, and the ones that do not still use some version of one internally.

Treat the scoring section as the instruction manual for your proposal, because that is how the reviewer uses it.

Read the RFP in this order

1. The evaluation section

Find it before anything else. In a federal NOFO it sits under application review information. In a foundation call it may be called selection criteria, assessment, or what we look for. Copy every criterion and subcriterion into a table with its points or weight. If a criterion carries no points, note that as well, since it may be a pass or fail requirement.

2. The submission rules

Next, read the page limits, required sections, attachments, and formats. These decide how much room you have to answer each criterion. A criterion worth a third of the score and a 10-page limit together tell you what a full answer can look like.

3. Everything else, with a highlighter

Only now read the background and program description. Mark every phrase that explains a criterion: the results the funder cares about, the groups it names, and the words it uses for partnership or sustainability. Those phrases describe what a high score looks like, often more clearly than the rubric does.

Turn the score sheet into your outline

Once the criteria table exists, most of the outline follows from it.

Each criterion becomes a heading. Use the funder's words rather than your own house terms. If the call says "organizational capacity," the heading says organizational capacity, not "about us." A reviewer scanning for that phrase should land on it in seconds.

Space follows points. A criterion worth a third of the score gets roughly a third of the narrative. Teams often do the reverse, with long background sections that score little and a thin evaluation plan that carries real weight.

Subcriteria set the order inside each section. If the approach is scored on evidence, feasibility, and reach, answer them in that order. Label each one so the reviewer can tick it off.

A worked example

The following is an invented example for illustration, not a real client. A community literacy nonprofit is answering a call with a 10-page narrative limit and this scoring:

The first draft spent four pages on the organization's history and the scale of the literacy problem, and one paragraph on evaluation. Set against the table, the imbalance is plain. Need was worth 15 points and was taking 40 percent of the space. Evaluation was worth 20 points and was barely there.

The rewrite cut the history to half a page inside the capacity section, built the evaluation plan out to two full pages, and renamed every heading to match the call. Nothing about the program changed. The proposal became easy to score.

Score your own draft before you submit

Before submission, give the draft and the score sheet to someone who did not write it. Ask them to score it cold, as a reviewer would, with one line per criterion explaining the score. Writers are poor judges at this stage because they know what they meant. A fresh reader sees only what is on the page.

Read their notes for three signals:

• Answers they could not find, or found in the wrong section
• Criteria they marked as partly met or unclear
• Claims that have no evidence behind them

Fix those first. Polishing the language of a section that already scores well is a common way teams spend their last week.

A single review at the end is better than none, but reviews spread across the life of a proposal catch more. Our article on why good proposals fail at screening explains how staged reviews and a compliance matrix work together.

Checklist before you start writing

• Every criterion and subcriterion listed with its points
• Page and format limits noted for each section
• Each heading written in the funder's wording
• Space planned in line with the weight of each criterion
• Subcriteria answered in the order the rubric lists them
• A reviewer who did not write the draft lined up to score it
• Compliance checked separately from merit

How Edit Right helps

Our Grant Writing and Resource Mobilization service builds every outline from the funder's score sheet. For teams that already have a draft, Review Ramp, our staged proposal review model, scores it against the rubric with reviewers who are never the writers.

Frequently asked questions

What if the RFP has no scoring criteria?

Build your own from what the funder does publish: stated priorities, the questions in the application form, and profiles of past grantees. If the funder accepts questions, ask the program officer how applications are assessed. Then treat your list as the score sheet.

Should our headings copy the funder's exact wording?

Yes, unless the call prescribes its own template, in which case follow the template. Matching the wording is not flattery. It shortens the reviewer's search and shows you answered the question that was asked.

How is screening different from scoring?

Screening checks eligibility and compliance before merit review: deadline, format, required forms, and attachments. Scoring judges the quality of your answers. A proposal that fails screening never reaches the score sheet, so read both sections early and track them separately.

When should we read the scoring criteria?

On the day the call arrives, before you decide to apply. The criteria tell you whether you can compete at all, which is the heart of a sound bid or no bid decision.

Sources

1. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix I, Full Text of Notice of Funding Opportunity. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/appendix-Appendix%20I%20to%20Part%20200 (accessed November 13, 2026).

Talk it through

Have an RFP on your desk and want a second reviewer on the outline?

Book a free call: editright.io/call