Port grants managers
Run the pursuits, choose the scope and decide how conditioned letters are treated
- Three scopes priced before the choice
- Partner conditions read from fields
- Debrief lessons applied to the next draft
Features
Port infrastructure development grant features, from scope to co-signed match
Used by the grants office, engineering and finance to decide what to apply for and what the port commits, on one berth project readied for the next round.
demoAll of it sample data: the port, its partners, the people, the estimates and each figure.
- 01Agents at work
Grant agents you can steer in plain words while they build the scopes
- Each agent's step, sources and hand-off in view. While the board fills, the grants manager sees which estimate, memo or notice section each figure came from.
- A steer typed mid-run. Asking whether the port qualifies as a small port puts a new step into the plan, logged in the manager's name, with no restart.
- Negations and vague steers handled. A steer saying not to check something adds nothing, and an unclear one gets a question back, so the plan changes only when meant.
- 02Three scopes
Three project scopes priced side by side: cost, federal ask, match and ratio
- Total, federal ask and match per scope. Each version of the project carries its own ask and match, so the choice is made with the alternatives priced beside it.
- Who pays the match, with each letter's state. Each payer sits on the column with its letter's state, conditional or not yet received, so a soft match shows at the moment of choice.
- A rehearsal against the merit criteria. Each merit criterion is rated per scope, so trade-offs surface before any narrative exists.
- 03Reviewer's read
PIDP merit criteria rehearsed by a challenger that checks the agents' own work
- Points raised the way a MARAD reviewer scores. Each point cites the notice section behind it, so the grants team fixes what a federal reviewer would mark down.
- Errors caught in the agents' own workbook and draft. Each is returned to whichever agent can fix it, and the board shows the corrected figure beside the struck one.
- Judgment calls routed to a named person. Match, estimate basis and scope questions go to the grants manager or the port engineer; an agent settles none of them.
- 04Benefit-cost
Benefit-cost analysis for a port grant, with each truck trip counted once
- Present value by benefit, each line sourced. The economist, and later a DOT evaluator, can rebuild every line of the workbook from the memo it cites.
- Trip counts reconciled across memo tables. Trips that appear in two tables are counted once before any ratio reaches the narrative, and the recount is shown table against table.
- Discount rate held to the guidance. Any other rate shows only as a sensitivity row marked not allowed for the submitted analysis, so nobody shops for a better ratio.
- 05Readiness
Project readiness and the small port test, read from estimates and tonnage
- How and when each cost was compiled. The notice asks for the estimate basis and the design stage; every part states both, with the engineer's estimate one click away.
- Estimate basis confirmed by the port engineer. An escalated conceptual estimate waits until the engineer has opened it and confirmed, so the narrative never states a basis engineering has not seen.
- Small port status from the tonnage audit. Three-year tonnage is set against the notice's line, and a phase that fits the small-project set-aside appears as an option.
- 06Match letters
Match and support letters answered in fixed fields, conditions read
- Amount, signatory, date and conditions in fields. A condition that used to hide in a letter's prose becomes a field that changes the reviewer's point and the match plan.
- Partner notes routed to the grants manager. A partner's note is never compared or read into the case; the grants manager reads it, and co-signing stays locked until then.
- Late requests flagged on the scope. A partner letter not yet returned shows as requested and past due on the column and the match plan, so nobody counts it as money in hand.
- 07Scope choice
Grant scope picked with a reason code, after the conditioned match is settled
- The conditioned letter settled before the choice. The grants manager decides how the application treats a partner's pending board vote, with each option's effect on the co-signers spelled out.
- A reason code plus the reason, written out. The choice is signed as preparer, so a debrief or an auditor can see why this version won.
- Choosing kept apart from committing funds. The preparer's signature commits no port money; that takes the CFO and the executive director.
- 08Application draft
Grant narrative drafted from the chosen scope, every sentence footnoted
- Outline filled from the chosen column. Cost, ask, match and ratio in the narrative come from the scope that was chosen, so the text and the workbook agree.
- No sentence without a document. A jobs claim gives way to what the economic impact study supports, under a rule the grants manager approved after the last debrief.
- Match stated as the letters stand. Each partner share reads requested, subject to its vote, or in hand, so the application tells MARAD only what the port holds.
- 09Match co-sign
Non-federal match plan the CFO opens in full before co-signing
- Planned match against document-backed match. Every source shows how much a signed, unconditioned letter backs, so the CFO sees the undocumented share before signing.
- Backstop tested against the capital plan. A port backstop is offered only when it fits the capital plan reserve and the resolution's clause; otherwise the only choice is to send it back.
- Cost overrun shown as exposure. What an overrun would add to the port's share is printed under the plan and never enters the committed match.