Coming soon for competitive grant programs —contact us to be notified

Your Grant Review Requires Independent Scoring. Your Spreadsheet Doesn't Enforce It.

GrantPanelReview is the policy-compliant peer review platform for competitive grant programs — blind independent scoring, documented COI, structured consensus, and an audit-ready record.

Join the Waitlist →See how it works

What is GrantPanelReview?

The independence your policy requires, enforced

GrantPanelReview enforces the independence your policy requires. Each reviewer scores each application independently and blind — they cannot see other reviewers' scores until they submit. COI declaration is required before each application. The panel chair reviews independent scores and facilitates the consensus step, with the authority to record a final consensus score.

The result is a complete, policy-compliant peer review record: independent scores, COI documentation, consensus scores, all timestamped.

The problem

A shared spreadsheet cannot enforce a policy

State and federal grant policy is specific: reviewers must score independently, before any discussion, without knowledge of other reviewers' scores. Conflicts of interest must be declared and documented. The consensus process must be recorded.

Most programs run this on email and shared spreadsheets. Reviewers can see each other's comments. Conflicts aren't formally tracked. The consensus discussion is undocumented.

That process is not what the policy requires. And when an applicant challenges the award — or an auditor asks to see the review record — 'we followed the process' is not a document.

“The auditors asked to see our peer review documentation. We had emails.”

An unfunded applicant asks how the panel reached its decision. You can tell them the scores. You cannot show them the review was truly independent — and a reviewer who knew an applicant didn't say so until after scores were submitted.

What GrantPanelReview does

The process your policy describes, actually enforced

Your program already knows what independent peer review is supposed to look like. GrantPanelReview is the difference between a process you intend to follow and one the system will not let you skip.

Blind scoring, enforced by the system.
Reviewers cannot see another reviewer's scores or comments until they submit their own. Independence stops being an instruction in the reviewer packet and becomes a property of the process.
COI declared before scoring, not after.
Every reviewer declares conflicts on each application before they can score it. No more discovering after the fact that someone knew an applicant and said nothing.
Your published rubric, with weights.
Project design, organizational capacity, budget and cost-effectiveness, evaluation plan, community need — configured to the rubric you published in the NOFA, weighted exactly as applicants were told it would be.
A structured consensus step, with the chair in control.
After independent scoring closes, the panel chair opens consensus: reviewers see each other's scores, discuss, and the chair records the final consensus score. Both the independent and consensus scores are retained.
A link, not a login.
Panel reviewers are usually external subject matter experts serving on one competition. Each gets a personal link and reviews from any device — no accounts for your program to provision or your agency's IT to approve.
An audit-ready record, generated automatically.
Independent scores, COI declarations, consensus scores, every step timestamped — the peer review documentation an auditor asks for, produced as a by-product of running the competition.

How it works

Independent first, consensus second, documented throughout

1
Set up your grant competition
Add your applications, your rubric criteria and weights, and your reviewers. Each reviewer gets a link — no login required.
2
Reviewers score independently and blind
Each reviewer evaluates each application on your published rubric without seeing any other reviewer's scores. COI must be declared before scoring any application.
3
Panel chair records consensus
After independent scoring, the chair reviews all scores, facilitates discussion, and records final consensus scores. A complete audit-ready record is generated automatically.

Pricing

First grant competition free

Run a complete competition — your real applications, your real panel, your published rubric — before you pay anything. No payment until your second competition.

First competition free

GrantPanelReview is launching soon — join the waitlist and we'll share pricing before your next grant cycle.

  • Unlimited reviewers per panel
  • Unlimited applications per competition
  • Blind independent scoring enforced
  • COI declaration required before scoring
  • Structured consensus with panel chair control
  • Audit-ready peer review record export
Join the Waitlist →

Who this is for

Built for programs with a policy to meet

If your grant program is required to run independent, COI-documented peer review — and today that runs on email and a shared spreadsheet — GrantPanelReview was built for you.

State government program officers
Running competitive grant programs under a statewide grants policy that requires independent reviewer scoring before any consensus discussion.
Local government grants administrators
Awarding pass-through and locally funded grants to nonprofits and other jurisdictions, answerable to council, auditors, and unfunded applicants.
Foundation program staff
Running competitive cycles where fiduciary accountability means a documented, defensible review — not just a defensible outcome.
Programs facing an audit or a challenge
Where an auditor has asked for peer review documentation, or an unfunded applicant has asked how the panel reached its decision, and email threads were the answer.

Why programs choose GrantPanelReview

Not a grants management system. Not a form builder.

It closes the gap in your policy.
A spreadsheet asks reviewers to work independently. This makes it structurally impossible for them not to — which is what the policy actually requires.
It documents COI at the right moment.
Declaration happens before a reviewer can score an application, not in a reminder email afterward. The record shows when it was declared.
It keeps both sets of scores.
Independent scores and final consensus scores are both retained, so you can show what the discussion changed and what it didn't.
It gives the chair real authority.
The panel chair opens consensus, facilitates the discussion, and records the final score — the role your policy already assigns them, with the controls to match.
It answers the auditor.
The audit-ready record is produced by running the competition, not assembled afterward from inboxes when someone asks for it.
It costs nothing to start.
Your first grant competition is free, with unlimited applications and unlimited reviewers.

GrantPanelReview does not intake applications, disburse funds, or track grantee reporting — your grants management system already does that. It handles the peer review step in the middle, which is the step your policy is most specific about and your current tools enforce least.

A program officer whose state policy requires independent peer review — and who is currently running that review on email and a shared spreadsheet — already knows the gap.

Get in touch

GrantPanelReview is launching soon. Email us to join the waitlist — tell us what your program's policy requires and how many reviewers sit on a typical panel, and we'll let you know before your next competition.

Join the Waitlist →Dan@JurorSearch.com

Your first grant competition is free — no payment until your second. Nothing to sign up for before you write to us.