What to do when your grant application fails

When a grant application is unsuccessful, naturally it can be both disheartening and confusing; especially after all the time, investment, and planning that goes into it. But all hope should not be lost and an unsuccessful application doesn’t always mark the end of the road. Businesses can gain valuable insights and learnings from the process, helping them refine their approach and strengthen future applications.
In the case of the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund (LSIMF), it has a capped budget of £420 million spread over five years – amounting to just £84million per year. With minimum project costs threshold of £8m, competition was understandably fierce. And these limited funds mean the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology and the Office for Life Sciences are tasked with making tough calls on which projects take priority, and even high-potential applications may miss out.
In this highly competitive funding environment, understanding how decisions are made is essential. Government bodies allocate grants based on a clear ranking system. They assess applications against the UK’s health and industrial priorities, favouring initiatives that address national health challenges, such as pandemic recovery or critical treatments like cancer therapies and vaccines.
Put simply, not all innovations carry equal weight. An application for a novel but less prominent disease may have scientific merit, but when compared to a submission targeting leukaemia treatment breakthroughs, the latter is far more likely to secure funding.
Competing for limited funds
At the end of the day, applying for public funding is a competitive process and a highly selective one. What makes it more challenging is that criteria like ‘wider impact’ can be vague, with little explanation for how it’s assessed. In practice, this should mean that applications with obvious positive knock-on effects, such as job creation, regional investment, or supply chain resilience, should rise to the top.
For example, a project generating over 100 new jobs and stimulating local growth in an economically disadvantaged area might be prioritised over a more specialised manufacturing project with less visible community benefits, especially if located in an already saturated region like the Cambridge-Oxford triangle.
It is all about making a compelling case for your project that highlights both its scientific and societal value.
Look to your local authority
If your grant application is unsuccessful, that doesn’t mean it’s a dead end. A sensible next step is to explore opportunities through your local authority. In 2023/24, UK local governments awarded £13.0 billion in competitive grants, £10.4 billion in non-competitive grants, and £11.5 billion in criteria-based grants. While these may not always target life sciences specifically, they can support related initiatives such as infrastructure development, innovation hubs, and business support programmes.
It’s also worth recognising that funding priorities evolve. A project that didn’t align with the government’s strategy one year could still be relevant in the future. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, funding naturally focused on vaccine development, technology, and delivery platforms. Today, the emphasis is shifting towards neurological medicines, gene therapies, and other emerging areas.
This change in direction is common. Ultimately, it is vital not to give up – circumstances change, priorities shift, and different investment incentives appear.
Common pitfalls
One of the most common reasons grant applications are rejected is a failure to clearly demonstrate the national significance of the project. Too often, applicants don’t fully highlight the broader value their project brings to the UK’s health resilience or economy. For example, in the life sciences sector, every job created supports an additional 3.4 roles in the wider ecosystem. This multiplier effect is exactly the kind of impact that should be clearly outlined.
Another frequent pitfall is poor cost accuracy. If your proposed budget appears to be inflated, or isn’t correctly justified, it can raise red flags during the assessment process. The decision-makers are focused on Value for Money (VfM). Every £1 of taxpayer money invested needs do have a clear and measurable return, otherwise the project may not be considered viable.
For applications to be credible, cost projections must first be realistic – ideally, within 30% accuracy. Being diligent and transparent in both of these areas can significantly strengthen your case.
Persistence pays off
When dealing with the aftermath of a rejected funding grant, the best thing for companies to do is to keep trying. Although you may not get accepted the first time, the life sciences landscape is always evolving. Maybe this year your project is not a priority, but that is not to say in two or three years that won’t change. Just because the LSMIF has rejected your application, it does not mean your local government will.
It is always a good idea to contact your local authority next and apply for a grant from them. However, prevention is better than cure, and to have the best shot of a successful application, you must ensure your costs are accurate in order for the government to see the best ratio for value for money and highlight the positive impact of your project on the local economy.
Ultimately, persistency is key – keep improving your application, keep up to date with trends in the industry, investment zones, and government policy changes, and you will have a much better shot at getting your grant approved.
About the author
Karim Budabuss is director of grant advisory at ForrestBrown. He works with large businesses, exploring all elements of the innovation toolkit, from R&D tax relief to grant funding. He takes a forward-looking approach, identifying opportunities which align with client projects and objectives. Having previously led decarbonisation grant advisory for a Big Four firm in the UK, Budabuss joined ForrestBrown in 2023. He is a chartered engineer and gained more than five years’ experience as an engineering consultant and project manager for major infrastructure clients before specialising in innovation incentives. He has subsequently helped companies access millions of pounds from grant funding bodies such as Innovate UK, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, and Scottish Enterprise in sectors including aerospace, energy, and manufacturing.