Set up one configurable workflow that carries a grant or sponsorship from first intake question through signed award — with role-based access and a full audit trail at every step.
In short: Sopact Sense lets a Program or Grants Manager build one reusable opportunity template — RFP or non-RFP direct investment — that carries every submission from first intake question through signed award. Structured fields, narrative answers, and uploaded documents are validated, scored, and reconciled automatically, so the same award record that starts as an application is still audit-ready when it lands in your quarterly report.
A Program or Grants Manager creates the opportunity in Sopact Sense — either a competitive RFP (a grant or sponsorship round) or a non-RFP direct community investment. Build it once as a template: it runs across multiple hospitals or entities, funding types, and fiscal years without anyone rebuilding the form from scratch each cycle.
Set up a new grant opportunity called [PROGRAM NAME] for [HOSPITAL/ENTITY]. Funding type: [competitive RFP / direct community investment]. Fiscal year: [YEAR]. Make it reusable as a template across other hospitals and future fiscal years.
The manager configures the intake form with structured questions (budgets, dates, categories) alongside narrative questions (program description, need statement), marks each field required or optional, and adds applicant document uploads. Save-and-return and secure applicant login are built in, so a nonprofit doesn't lose an hour of work to a dropped connection — and the whole form is version-controlled, so the same base template can be adapted per program without losing the audit history of what changed and when.
Build the applicant intake form for [PROGRAM NAME]. Include: organization info, budget narrative, program description (narrative), outcome measures (structured), and document uploads for 990s, Theory of Change, and board approval letter. Mark budget narrative and 990 as required, enable save-and-return, and require applicant login.
You can also start from a program page instead of a blank form:
Build a Theory of Change from this program page: [PROGRAM URL] — and use it to populate the intake form's outcome fields.
When an applicant submits, Sopact Sense checks required fields automatically, timestamps the submission against the deadline, and routes it straight into a reviewer queue — no manual triage, no spreadsheet of who-submitted-what.
Reviewers are assigned with conflict-of-interest tracking, score each submission against a configurable rubric, and leave internal comments and notes. Every submission, every review, and every change is captured in a full audit trail — the record a compliance or finance team will ask for later already exists.
Sopact Intelligence Row reads the whole submission — structured answers, narrative responses, and any uploaded framework or supporting document (a Theory of Change, Logic Model, or budget narrative) — and converts it into a standardized review packet aligned to your organization's own framework. Different teams audit these documents differently; see how other frameworks get scored at sopact.com/academy/framework.
Read [APPLICANT NAME]'s full submission — structured answers, narrative responses, and uploaded Theory of Change — and generate a standardized review packet scored against our [RUBRIC NAME] rubric, flagged Green/Amber/Red.
GRADE: green | Audit-ready | required fields, documents, and rubric scores all complete; amber | One gap | a narrative answer or upload is too thin to score cleanly; red | Incomplete | a required field or document is missing — held from the review queue
If a submission is missing something, incomplete, or too vague to score, Sopact Sense automatically drafts a clarification email to the applicant. The reviewer reviews and edits before it sends — nothing goes out un-reviewed — and the request can repeat weekly until the application is actually complete, not just resubmitted.
Review [APPLICANT NAME]'s submission for [PROGRAM NAME]. If any required field, document, or narrative answer is missing or too vague to score, draft a clarification email requesting exactly what's missing, and flag it for my review before sending.
Award decisions — approve, decline, or hold — are logged with contract and award documentation, and an approved proposal converts directly into an active award record with no re-entry of applicant or program data. That award already carries multi-year vs. one-time type, funding source, hospital or entity, and program, so quarterly, semiannual, or annual reporting starts from a clean, structured record instead of a blank spreadsheet. Programs that skip the RFP entirely — direct investments, sponsorships — run the same intake-to-award flow, minus the competitive scoring steps, while still enforcing required fields and structured outcome tracking. Every award, RFP or not, lands in the same system of record.
Lead. Version-control the template, don't rebuild it. Each program cycle should start from the last version of your intake form, not a blank page — edits are tracked, so you can see exactly what changed between last year's RFP and this year's.
Lead. Keep RFP and non-RFP programs in one system of record. Sponsorships and direct investments feel informal, but they still need required fields and structured outcome tracking — routing them through the same workflow as competitive grants is what makes portfolio-wide reporting possible later.
Lead. Let the audit trail do the compliance work for you. Reviewer assignments, conflict-of-interest flags, scores, comments, and every clarification email are already logged — when Finance or an external auditor asks "who approved this and why," the answer is already in the record.
Lead. Improve your program page accuracy. If Sense grades a field Red because your program page is missing detail, don't just fix the intake form — fix the source page so future applicants and reviewers see the same accurate picture.
Rewrite the [PROGRAM NAME] program page to include the missing eligibility criteria and outcome measures Sense flagged as Red, so future applicants and reviewers see complete, accurate information.
It's the single workflow that carries a grant or sponsorship opportunity from intake design through applicant submission, review, scoring, award decision, and ongoing monitoring — instead of separate tools for the form, the spreadsheet, the review notes, and the award tracker.
In Sopact Sense, a Grants Manager builds the opportunity and intake form once as a reusable template, then Sense automatically validates and routes submissions, reads each one — structured answers, narrative responses, and uploaded documents — into a standardized review packet, and drafts clarification emails for anything missing or vague before a reviewer sends them.
No. Non-RFP programs — sponsorships and direct community investments — run the same intake-to-award flow and still enforce required fields and structured outcome tracking; they simply skip the competitive scoring and reviewer-rubric steps that a formal RFP requires.
Open Sopact Sense, paste your program description, and put it to work.
Try in Sopact
