The most common reasons are formal: incomplete or outdated documentation, an inaccurately filled form, or missing proof of own contribution at submission. These are avoidable next time if the building learns from the reasoning.
The second common reason is substantive: the project does not fit the target group or conditions of the call, for example a city building applying to a rural programme. Here it is the choice of call, not the quality of the material, that must change.
A third, less frequent reason is exhaustion of the budget. If more eligible applications arrive than the available funds cover, even a flawless application may be rejected. In that case it is worth waiting for the next round and applying early.
Every rejection comes with reasoning, which is worth reading carefully as it shows exactly what to improve. If the reasoning seems legally unfounded, some programmes allow a request for review within a short deadline.
An important mindset point: a rejection is not the end of the project but a learning point for the next submission. Most successful applications follow one or more earlier attempts.
Merbo reviews the reasoning behind every rejected application and makes concrete proposals on what to do differently next time.
The supervisory committee should also make clear to owners that a rejection is not automatically the manager's fault, as objective external reasons often stand behind it.