Book a Call
Programs
Research Allowance ZIM GRW WIPANO BAFA EEW KMU-innovativ KfW Innovationskredite EXIST Eurostars 3 EIC Accelerator Horizon Europe EU Innovation Fund Compare all programs
Who we fund
AIHealthcareSustainabilityRoboticsManufacturingSolarBiotechAgricultureEVAll industries
Case Studies
Browse case studies Research Allowance ZIM GRW WIPANO BAFA EEW KMU-innovativ KfW Innovationskredite EXIST Eurostars 3 EIC Accelerator Horizon Europe EU Innovation Fund
Resources
Guides Blog
About Us
Engineering software · Case study

Research allowance rejected twice — won back on appeal.

An engineering-software startup we worked with had its claim turned down twice. We re-scoped the project and filed a formal objection, and the very same work was certified.

€70,000
research allowance granted
€200,000
eligible base
up to 35%
SME funding rate
Free assessment Read the story
At a glance

The mandate in figures

IndustryEngineering software / simulationCloud- & browser-based CAE
Research allowance granted€70,000Fully claimable, paid as cash
Eligible base€200,000
ScenarioRejected twice → certified on appeal
Projects1 certified (after 2 rejections)
SME funding rateUp to 35%
About the company

Browser-based simulation, with real R&D underneath

The company builds a platform that makes compute-intensive engineering simulations available directly in the browser, with no local installation, distributed computing and the ability to display very large models interactively.

There is genuine development work in this: client-side rendering and processing of large data volumes, parallelising simulation runs, and real-time collaboration on the same simulation model.

The first application was filed by the company itself. The project was described as a “web-based solution for automated simulations”, close to what the team actually does, but worded too broadly and too product-like for the review.

The challenge

Why genuine development work still got rejected

The certification body checks three criteria: novelty, technical risk and a systematic approach. Describing a project as “automation” or “platform build-out” reads, from a review perspective, as a product goal rather than a research goal. The technical uncertainty, the question of where exactly the project could fail, gets lost in a broad platform description.

That is what happened here. The first decision rejected. Even after a request for further information, with additional details supplied, the rejection stood. For many applicants this is where it ends: the effort wasted, the certificate out of reach.

That is a fallacy. A rejection only says that the project, as submitted, does not visibly meet the criteria. It says nothing about whether the actual work contains eligible R&D. The decisive question is not “was the application good” but “where exactly was the scientific-technical uncertainty, and was it made visible.”

Novelty Technical risk / uncertainty Systematic approach
Our approach

Three steps from dead file to certificate

We took over the mandate after the second rejection and rebuilt the case from the ground up.

The diagnosis

We dissected the decision and identified where the review had failed to recognise the R&D character. The pattern was clear: the project was too broad, the technical risk not tangible, the delineation from the state of the art missing.

Decision analysis

The re-scoping

From the broad platform project we isolated the part carrying the largest, most demonstrable technical uncertainty: the interactive visualisation and processing of very large models, client-side, in the browser, in real time. That is not a standard problem. Established tools solve it on the server or in native desktop software. Delivering the same capability in the browser was not mature at the project's start and carried real failure risk. We documented exactly this delineation, what was state of the art and what went beyond it, as of the project start.

Project scope

The objection

We rebuilt the reasoning along the three criteria, backed the risk along the solution path with concrete abort criteria, and presented the contract research properly as the independent solution of a technical problem, not as mere supply work.

Formal objection

From rejection to certificate

✕
Rejected ×2
Broad, product-like scope
↻
Re-scoped
Sharp technical sub-problem isolated
✓
Certified
Granted on formal objection

What made up the eligible base

In-house ≈ 40% Contract research ≈ 60%
In-house personnel work Contract research (recognised in full)

Eligible base €200,000. The contract research was recognised in full and even forms the larger part of the base; the split shown is illustrative.

The result

A €70,000 research allowance, fully claimable.

A claim considered lost after two rejections ended with a granted certificate: a €70,000 research allowance on a €200,000 eligible base. The difference was not in the project, but in how it was presented.

Eligible base €200,000 · contract research recognised in full
Re-scoped project certifiedThe sharply defined sub-problem carried novelty and risk visibly.
Contract research recognised in fullIt even makes up the larger part of the eligible base.
Filed within the objection windowOne month from notification; the deadline was kept.
Key takeaways

What other companies can learn

A rejection can be challenged: the appeal is an explicit part of the procedure. Three points decide the outcome.

01 · Scope

Project scope

A broad product goal is harder to certify than a sharply defined technical sub-problem with clear failure risk. A rejected application often contains a certifiable core that simply has to be exposed.

02 · Novelty

Delineation from the state of the art

What matters is not today's state but the state at the time of the project start. What was solved then and what was not decides novelty.

03 · Deadline

The objection deadline

An objection can be filed within one month of notification. Letting that deadline lapse forfeits the simplest route back to a certificate.

“
A rejected certificate is not the end of the road. It is a diagnosis, and a diagnosis can be treated.
BeFunded On appeals against BSFZ rejections
FAQ

Rejected research allowance: your questions

The most common questions on appealing a rejection and on what stays eligible. Short answer first, detail after.

Yes. You can file a formal objection against the certification body's decision within one month of notification, electronically via the portal or in writing. What matters is a freshly built reasoning, not a repetition of the application.

The most common reason is the presentation: a project described too broadly or too product-like, a missing delineation from the state of the art, or a technical risk that was not made tangible. The underlying work can still be eligible.

Often yes. A more precisely scoped project that clearly carries the scientific-technical uncertainty has markedly better odds than the original, broad application.

Yes, if the contractor independently solves a scientific or technical problem. Pure service work or supply without R&D character is not recognised. The delineation in the application is decisive.

Keep reading

More case studies

Free eligibility check

See if your R&D qualifies for the Research Allowance

Tell us about your project. One of our funding advisors reviews your case by hand, then either comes back with feedback or a few follow-up questions. No obligation.

  • Whether your R&D qualifies for the allowance
  • A first read on the amount you could reclaim
  • What to prepare, including for 2022 and 2023

We reply within one working day. Your details go straight to our funding team.