Skip to content
IdeaScore
Solutions · Government grants

A transparent, auditable process for a public funding call

A public grant call answers to a different standard: eligibility has to be defensible, every decision has to be traceable, and results are expected to be public. IdeaScore keeps the audit log and the exports a public body needs, and can run entirely on infrastructure you control.

Book a demoSee how it works
Who this is for

Three people, one call

Programme officer

Configures the public call, tracks eligibility screening, and is the one who has to answer for how a decision was reached.

Empanelled reviewer

Scores under public accountability, having declared any conflict of interest before being assigned an application.

Grant applicant

Applies through a public form and tracks status transparently, without chasing an office by phone or email.

A team sorting applications into trays beside a whiteboard on review day
Typical programme

A public call from notification to disbursement

The stages a government scheme is expected to run, each one traceable afterwards.

  1. Call notified

    A public application window opens, with eligibility criteria and guidance attached to the form.

  2. Eligibility screening

    Incomplete or ineligible applications are set aside with a recorded reason.

  3. Panel evaluation

    Empanelled reviewers, having declared any conflict, score against a published rubric.

  4. Public results

    A results page and a committee report carry the ranking into public view.

  5. Grant disbursement

    Funding follows the audited ranking the panel approved.

Collect

A public application form with eligibility built in

Publish a form with eligibility criteria and guidance documents attached, a public link, and a registration window with a stated capacity — the same rigour a public notification already implies, without a paper form behind it.

Explore applications
Seed Fund 2026 · Cohort III

Venture

Venture nameShort text
SectorSelect
Stage of developmentSelect (TRL)
DepartmentSelect
Show when applying as is faculty
Pitch deckFile upload · PDF up to 20 MB
Review

Every decision on the record, with a reason attached

Approve, reject, reopen — each carries a stated reason and lands in the audit log. Notes and tags keep the panel's reasoning inside the record itself, ready for whoever is asked to account for it later.

Explore review
Seed Fund 2026 · Cohort III
AllPendingApprovedRejected
SelectTeamTRLStatus
Halcyon Grid#0142
TRL 6Approved
Farmlight#0139
TRL 7Pending
Quorum Bio#0127
TRL 4Approved
Tessel Labs#0118
TRL 5Rejected
Kelpline#0096
TRL 2Pending
3 selectedApproveRejectTag
Decide

A results page and a report built for public accountability

Publish a results page once the panel's decision is final, and export the same ranking as a committee report for an oversight body — the record and the announcement come from the same data.

Explore pitch day and reports
Seed Fund 2026 · Cohort IIINow pitching

Farmlight

04:32
  • 1Halcyon Grid46.5
  • 2Quorum Bio43
  • 3Farmlight41.5

Committee report

Seed Fund 2026 · Cohort III · .xlsx

Generated 2 min ago · scheduled weekly to the committee

What teams use most

What government programme teams use most

  • Audit log

    Every approval, rejection, reopen and edit is timestamped and attributable, for accountability and RTI-style requests.

  • Public results page

    Publish the outcome of a call once the decision is made, without a separate announcement process.

  • Approve, reject and undo with a reason

    Every triage decision carries a stated reason and can be reopened, never silently overwritten.

  • Conflict-of-interest declarations

    An empanelled reviewer declares a conflict before assignment, kept out of that application entirely.

  • Data residency through self-hosting

    Run on your own server or VM so applicant data never leaves infrastructure you control.

  • Committee Excel export

    A ranked, exportable record for an audit committee or an oversight body.

  • Role-based access and session lockout

    Reviewer access is scoped to their role, with re-authentication required for sensitive edits.

  • Single sign-on and API access

    Government identity-provider sign-in and programmatic access are on our roadmap, not yet shipped.

Questions

Frequently asked

Can we keep applicant data entirely on our own infrastructure?
Yes. Self-hosting on a server or VM you control keeps data residency inside your own infrastructure; institutions run it this way today.
Is there a public results page?
Yes — publish the outcome of a call once the decision is final, generated from the same ranking the panel approved.
How are conflicts of interest managed for empanelled reviewers?
A reviewer declares a conflict before assignment, and that application is kept out of their queue entirely, not scored and set aside afterwards.
Is there an audit trail for accountability or RTI-style requests?
Every approval, rejection, reopen and edit is timestamped and attributed in the audit log, exportable alongside the committee report.

See IdeaScore run a call with your own rubric

A 30-minute walkthrough with a founder, using your programme's form and criteria.

Book a demoStart free