Reviews
Part of Small business grants reviews: how to compare advisers
Small business grants selection checklist: choosing the right adviser or tool
Use this checklist to select a grant adviser, tool or delivery supplier through verified identity, matched scope, testing, total cost and contract review.
Choose from the work outward. Fix the applicant, project, live scheme and deadline, then follow the relevant decision branch below. A registration, sales promise or high weighted score cannot replace checks that match the value of the engagement and the project's dependence on the provider.
Define Need and Scope
- Define grant, applicant, project stage
- Separate search, review, advice, claims
- State outputs, dates, acceptance criteria
- Confirm no duplicate capability
If the assignment is still fuzzy
Where you cannot name the applicant, project, live scheme and deadline, stop comparing providers and define the job first. Set the required output, delivery date, applicant contribution and acceptance test. This prevents a tool or adviser being chosen before the work it must support is understood.
- Identify the grant, applicant and project stage, then name the missing capability.
- Separate opportunity search, application review, financial advice, claims and delivery.
- Specify outputs, dates, applicant work and acceptance criteria.
- Check for overlap with internal or partner capability.
Record the source behind each requirement. Promotional material is not independent verification, and a tick without supporting evidence cannot establish suitability or help explain the decision later. Be clear about which service is needed and what the provider will be expected to deliver.
- Rule of thumb: Define the job before comparing providers.
If the contracting party or delivery team is unclear
If the contracting entity or named people are not clear, do not commit until both are checked. Verify filed details through Companies House where applicable, identify who will deliver, and seek references for work close enough to the requirement to assess relevant experience.
- Confirm the legal name of the contracting party and the payment details.
- Name the delivery staff and verify their relevant experience.
- Check who gave each reference and what work they can discuss.
Registration establishes neither delivery competence nor financial resilience, and it does not show that a provider will secure a grant. Treat entity records, provider statements and references as different kinds of evidence. Set the depth of review in proportion to the contract value and the project's dependence on the provider.
- Rule of thumb: Check the entity and the people doing the work.
If a promise or method puts integrity at risk
If a provider guarantees an award, requests false information or will not explain its checking process, do not proceed on that basis. Keep the applicant responsible for approving answers and declarations, and establish how eligibility, costs and factual statements will be checked against the scheme rules.
- Check eligibility and costs.
- Record referral fees, commissions, free access and conflicts of interest.
- Ask how errors and complaints are handled.
UKRI's Innovate UK guidance assigns submission responsibilities to the lead applicant using its application service. Employing an adviser does not transfer that responsibility. The applicant should retain approval over answers and declarations, with a clear process for checking the statements submitted.
- Rule of thumb: Reject award guarantees and requests for false information.
If you cannot observe the service before choosing
If a shortlist remains but you have no direct evidence of how the service works, give each option an identical, realistic brief before deciding. Record whether evidence came from a call, demonstration, paid sample or live delivery, and mark account-only functions or anything not tested as unknown.
- Test whether the provider identifies poor-fit opportunities as well as writing persuasive applications.
- Check reference identity and the work covered, rather than relying on general praise.
- Record the evidence source beside each finding.
Use the same brief to compare claims and evidence. The comparison methods can help organise the record, but an untested feature is not demonstrated capability and a provider's own claim is not an independent reference.
- Rule of thumb: Test every shortlisted option on equal terms.
If the work will involve sensitive data
If personal, financial or commercially sensitive information will be shared, map what will be disclosed and check safeguards before granting access. Cover authentication, access, hosting, subprocessors and incident handling, then agree how information can be retained, exported and deleted.
- Put required controller and processor terms in writing.
- Check authentication and passwords, and test access removal and recovery from backups.
- Confirm how deletion from backups is handled.
- Review the data protection checks.
Before sensitive material is shared, confirm how access will be removed and how information can be exported or deleted. Keep security evidence with the selection record. The ICO's UK GDPR guidance and the NCSC small business guide provide current UK guidance; do not assume controls work until the relevant process is checked.
- Rule of thumb: Agree and check data controls before sharing sensitive material.
If the quoted price depends on the outcome
If a quote combines a fixed charge with a success fee or other variable cost, obtain the complete schedule before comparing prices.
Include expenses and VAT, define the success trigger and calculation base, then model no award, reduced award, delayed award and full award. Check whether the live scheme permits the proposed cost.
- Ask whether VAT, expenses and subcontractor fees are included or additional.
- Record the figures and assumptions used for each outcome.
Compare every provider on the same basis: headline percentages can obscure the calculation base, and rate cards vary. The example below uses an illustrative £4,000 fixed fee plus a 5% success fee on a £120,000 award. These figures are illustrative only; ask each provider to complete the same table using its own numbers.
| Outcome | Award paid | Success fee | Total cost to the applicant |
|---|---|---|---|
| No award | £0 | £0 | £4,000 |
| Reduced award | £40,000 | £2,000 | £6,000 |
| Delayed award | £120,000, paid 12 months late | £6,000 | £10,000 plus the funding gap |
| Full award | £120,000 | £6,000 | £10,000 |
- Rule of thumb: Compare total cost across every relevant outcome.
If the service contract could conflict with grant terms
If the proposal is moving towards signature, read the service contract alongside the recipient's grant agreement. Resolve scope, revisions, subcontracting and post-award work, as well as intellectual property, confidentiality, liability, cancellation and exit.
Check that the scheme permits the cost and map supplier work to an approved activity and cost heading.
- Confirm start and end dates before committing.
- Follow quotation, competition and connected-party rules.
- Obtain written funder approval where the agreement requires it.
- Specify the evidence the supplier must produce for a claim.
- Flow audit and confidentiality, publicity and data duties into the contract where needed.
The Cabinet Office Model Grant Funding Agreement illustrates how widely terms can affect suppliers. Use the recipient's signed agreement, not the model, to make the actual decision. Check the live scheme's grant conditions and the particular project costs before agreeing to supplier commitments.
- Rule of thumb: Match supplier commitments to the signed grant conditions.
If a weighted score seems to pick the winner
If one provider has the highest weighted total, test mandatory conditions separately before treating the ranking as decisive. Set criteria and weights before proposals arrive, attach evidence to every score, and ask another person to challenge both the supporting evidence and the arithmetic.
Weight
- Eligibility and evidence
- 30
- Relevant delivery
- 25
- Price and cost model
- 25
- Security and data
- 20
- Weighted total
- 100
Adviser A
- Eligibility and evidence
- 24
- Relevant delivery
- 20
- Price and cost model
- 15
- Security and data
- 14
- Weighted total
- 73
Adviser B
- Eligibility and evidence
- 21
- Relevant delivery
- 22
- Price and cost model
- 20
- Security and data
- 12
- Weighted total
- 75
Adviser B scores higher on price and delivery but lower on security. The reviewer fixes weights before scoring and records evidence beside each result. A weighted total does not cancel a mandatory failure, and a second person should check the arithmetic before the result is accepted.
- Rule of thumb: Use scores to compare options, not excuse a failed condition.
If approval or mobilisation still depends on open issues
If material questions remain, record the options, evidence, scores, mandatory failures, total cost, conflicts and outstanding risks before seeking approval. Name the person with authority to decide, assign owners and dates for mobilisation, and do not sign until conditions are met or formally accepted by someone authorised to do so.
- Is the scope fixed against the live scheme and deadline?
- Are the contracting entity and named delivery staff verified?
- Has the same brief been tested with more than one provider?
- Is total cost modelled for no, reduced, delayed and full award?
- Are mandatory conditions recorded separately from weighted scores?
- Has an authorised person approved the conditions and exit route?
Store unsuccessful proposals under the business's retention and confidentiality rules. After signing, compare delivery with the evidence used for selection and note whether references or claims proved accurate. Arrange legal, finance and security review before procurement, and keep the approval record so later changes can be assessed against the original decision.
The CMA guidance on reviews and endorsements explains duties concerning genuine reviews and incentives. Retain the decision record, including any conditions that were accepted, so the basis for the choice remains clear.
- Rule of thumb: Do not commit while an unaccepted material condition remains open.
