Receiving a request to correct or supplement a grant application does not mean that the project has been rejected. It is a standard stage of the formal or substantive assessment, in which the intermediate body or managing authority gives the applicant an opportunity to clarify the content of the application documentation.
It is crucial that the response to the request is prepared on time, within the scope indicated by the institution and consistently with the original version of the application. An inappropriate response to a request – both a failure to respond and going beyond the permitted scope of modifications – is one of the most common reasons for a negative assessment of projects that were substantively eligible for support.
In this article, we present practical guidance on what to do when an applicant receives a request to correct an application, discuss the most common mistakes and explain the principles of drafting letters of explanation addressed to the institution granting the funding.
What is a request to correct or supplement a grant application?
A request to correct or supplement an application is a formal letter – most often sent via an IT system such as CST2021, LSI, SOWA EFS, the PARP Application Generator or the ARiMR system – in which the assessing institution identifies specific gaps, ambiguities or errors in the application documentation submitted. The request may concern both the application form itself and its annexes: the business plan, financial analysis, declarations, registration documents or confirmations of SME status.
The legal basis for requests in programmes financed from EU funds is primarily the Act of 28 April 2022 on the principles of implementing tasks financed from European funds in the 2021-2027 financial perspective, together with the rules of specific calls. In the case of national programmes, separate regulations and the rules of the relevant institution apply – PARP, BGK, NCBR, ARiMR or the NFZ.
Requests may be of different kinds. The most common are:
- a request to remedy formal deficiencies – concerning omitted documents or fields that have not been completed,
- a request to correct obvious errors – covering editorial errors, typos, incorrect totals and out-of-date data,
- a request for substantive clarification – requiring clarification of content concerning the project objectives, indicators, eligible costs or compliance with the project selection criteria.
Each of these categories requires a different approach and a different level of detail in the response.
Deadlines for responding to a request – why are they crucial?
The deadline indicated in the request is, as a rule, final. In EU programmes of the 2021–2027 perspective, it is usually between 7 and 14 days, although in some calls the institution may set a shorter or longer period. The deadline is usually counted from the day the request is delivered in the ICT system, with delivery being deemed to occur when an authorised user logs in or after a specified number of days from when the letter was sent.
Failure to meet the deadline results in the application being left unexamined or rejected, regardless of the substantive quality of the project. In practice, this means losing the chance of funding, even if the application was prepared thoroughly.
For this reason, it is recommended to:
- monitor the inbox in the IT system on an ongoing basis after the application has been submitted,
- appoint a person responsible for receiving project correspondence,
- plan the response at least several working days before the deadline,
- verify that the response has been successfully registered in the system.
In the event of objective obstacles preventing the deadline from being met (e.g. a failure of the IT system on the institution's side), you can ask the institution to take this circumstance into account. However, this always requires the reason for the delay to be documented, and this option depends on the rules of the given call.
How to read the request? Analysing the scope of the required corrections
The first step after receiving the request is to analyse its content carefully. The request should precisely indicate:
- the sections of the application or annexes to which the correction relates,
- the nature of the required change (supplement, correction, clarification),
- the deadline for responding,
- the form in which the response should be submitted.
Particular attention should be paid to the difference between a correction and a supplement. A correction involves modifying existing content, whereas a supplement means adding new information or documents.
Going beyond the scope of the request – for example, introducing substantive changes that the institution did not ask about – may be classified as an impermissible interference with the content of the application and result in its rejection. Under the provisions of the Implementation Act, at the correction stage it is not possible to supplement the application with elements affecting the substantive assessment of the project in a scope not covered by the request.
In practice, this means that if the institution asks only for a missing signature on a declaration to be added, the applicant should not use this opportunity to modify the project budget, schedule or description of indicators, even if they have noticed errors in them.
The most common reasons for requests – what do institutions pay attention to?
Practical experience shows that requests most often concern the following areas:
- inconsistency of data between the application and the annexes (e.g. a different project value in the form and in the business plan),
- gaps in the description of output and result indicators, including no methodology for measuring them,
- incorrectly calculated eligible costs or no justification of their amount,
- out-of-date registration or financial documents (KRS, CEIDG, financial statements),
- missing required declarations or signatures of persons authorised to represent the applicant,
- insufficient justification of the project's compliance with the project selection criteria,
- errors in the financial analysis, including incorrect assumptions concerning revenue, operating costs or the funding gap,
- an ambiguous indication of SME status or of links with other enterprises.
Knowing these areas allows the applicant not only to respond effectively to requests, but also to avoid them as early as the application submission stage. Detailed guidelines on the rules for the eligibility of expenditure and formal requirements are published on the portal funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl, which is the primary source of information for applicants to programmes co-financed from EU funds.
How to prepare a response to a request? Practical tips
Structure of the letter of explanation
The response to the request should take the form of a letter addressed to the institution carrying out the assessment. The standard structure includes:
- a header with the applicant's details and the project number and title,
- a reference to the reference number of the request received and the date of its delivery,
- a point-by-point response to each of the gaps or comments indicated,
- an indication of the specific changes made to the application or annexes (stating the page numbers, sections or fields),
- a list of annexes constituting the supplement,
- the signature of a person authorised to represent the applicant.
Each point of the response should be worded unambiguously, without over-interpretation and without introducing information that goes beyond the scope of the request.
Substantive consistency
Corrections made in one part of the documentation must be consistent with the application as a whole. If, for example, the institution asks for the value of one of the eligible costs to be corrected, you should make sure that this change is also reflected in the physical and financial schedule, the financial analysis, the financing plan and – if necessary – the project's financial indicators.
Lack of consistency is one of the most common reasons for repeated requests or a negative assessment.
Language and tone of the response
The letter of explanation should be written in a factual, formal and substantive tone. Emotional comments, arguments with the assessors and lengthy digressions should be avoided. Every statement should be supported by a reference to a source document, a legal provision or a provision of the call rules. A professionally worded response increases the applicant's credibility and makes the work of the project assessors easier.
The most common mistakes in responses to requests
In advisory practice, recurring mistakes are observed that reduce the effectiveness of responses to requests. The most common of these are:
- giving vague answers without indicating specific changes to the application,
- introducing changes that go beyond the scope of the request,
- omitting some of the institution's questions or comments,
- missing annexes referred to in the letter,
- failing to maintain consistency between the application and the annexes after corrections have been made,
- sending the response in the wrong form (e.g. by e-mail instead of via the IT system),
- missing the deadline set in the request.
Avoiding the above mistakes requires a systematic approach and – in the case of more complex projects – the support of a person with experience in preparing application documentation. In case of doubt, it is worth considering contact with an expert, who will verify the content of the response before it is submitted.
Can you appeal against the assessment after the corrections have not been accepted?
If, despite the response given, the application receives a negative assessment, the applicant has the right to lodge an appeal (protest). The procedure for lodging an appeal in programmes of the 2021-2027 perspective is governed by the Implementation Act. The appeal is submitted to the institution indicated in the instructions contained in the information on the assessment result, within 14 days of the date on which that information was delivered. The appeal should include, among other things:
- an indication of the assessment criteria with which the applicant disagrees,
- a justification of the objections together with substantive arguments,
- the signature of a person authorised to represent the applicant.
The effectiveness of an appeal depends largely on the quality of the arguments and on reference to specific provisions of the rules, the call documentation and the application submitted. In complex cases, it is worth considering professional grant advisory services, covering the preparation or verification of the appeal.
If you are planning to apply for funding or have received a request to correct an application you have submitted, it is worth verifying the scope of the required changes with a person experienced in managing grant projects.Contact an expert
Author: Dariusz Kozakiewicz
EU funding expert