A lot of grant and tender applicants treat the risk section of an application as an afterthought. They fill in the matrix, tick the box, and move on. It is understandable. After the effort of pulling together a compelling project description, a budget and supporting evidence, risk can feel like an administrative hurdle rather than an opportunity.
We believe that assessors notice, and it matters more than most applicants realise.
What assessors are actually looking for
When a funder or procurement panel reviews an application, they are not just evaluating the project. They are evaluating the organisation behind it. Can these people deliver? Have they done this before? Do they understand what could go wrong, and do they have a plan for it?
A well thought out risk section answers those questions directly. It builds confidence in your organisation’s maturity, your understanding of the operating environment, and your capacity to manage the unexpected. That confidence influences the overall read of the application, often more than applicants expect.
At the same time, an application that skips over risk suggests the organisation has not thought deeply about delivery.
The most common mistakes
In our experience working across grant applications and government tenders, three patterns occur.
The first is ignoring risk entirely. Some applicants simply do not include a meaningful risk assessment, particularly when it is not explicitly required as a separate section. If risk is not addressed somewhere in the application, an assessor has to make their own assumptions about what could go wrong.
The second is listing risks without mitigation. A risk matrix that identifies five risks and offers no credible response to any of them is almost worse than saying nothing. It demonstrates awareness without demonstrating capability.
The third is treating risk as a compliance checkbox. This usually produces vague, generic entries that could apply to any organisation and any project. Assessors read dozens of applications, and generic risk sections are immediately recognisable, and they do nothing to differentiate your application.
A common scenario worth thinking through
Consider an NFP applying for project funding where volunteers are central to delivery. It is a genuine and common situation, and volunteer-dependent delivery is something assessors are well aware of as a risk factor.
An application that says nothing about volunteer capacity leaves the assessor to wonder. What happens if key volunteers move on during the project? What if numbers drop at a critical delivery point? Is there a contingency plan or will the project stall?
Now consider the same application written differently. The organisation acknowledges upfront that volunteer availability is a key dependency. It explains its approach to volunteer recruitment and retention. It outlines what the contingency looks like if numbers drop, whether that is a reserve pool of trained volunteers, a partnership with another organisation, or a budget line that allows for paid support if needed.
The second application demonstrates that the organisation has thought beyond the grant and considered what real world delivery looks like and that is exactly what assessors want to see.
What good risk management looks like in practice
Whether your application requires a formal risk matrix or addresses risk through budget line items and narrative, the principle is the same. Name the risk specifically rather than describing it in vague terms. Assess it honestly in terms of likelihood and potential impact and then demonstrate a credible, specific mitigation plan.
For tenders, the same logic applies with additional weight. Government procurement panels are assessing not just value for money but delivery risk. An organisation that can demonstrate it has identified, assessed and planned for the risks specific to the contract scope will consistently outperform one that has not, even where the underlying capability is comparable.
Risk is part of the argument
The best applications treat risk not as a section to get through but as part of the overall argument for why your organisation should be funded or selected. Done well, it reinforces everything else you have said about your capability, your experience and your commitment to delivering outcomes.
If your organisation is preparing for a grant round or tender and would like support developing a risk strategy that strengthens rather than undermines your application, reach out today.