Incentive discovery is scattered across agencies and advisors.
CFOs and tax teams rarely get one clean view of the stacked federal, state, and local opportunity before site decisions harden.
For CFOs and tax directors evaluating $100M+ facilities
Stop Leaving Expansion Money Unclaimed.
GrantStack turns rough project specs into a source-backed incentive diligence memo: likely incentive paths, missing facts, ROI scenarios, and the review steps required before anyone relies on the numbers.
- See the incentive stack before site and budget decisions harden.
- Pressure-test CHIPS, IRA, state, local, workforce, utility, and infrastructure fit.
- Hand a cleaner evidence packet to certified tax, grants, or legal reviewers.
Built for one high-value capital project at a time. The pilot is diligence preparation, not final tax, legal, grant, lobbying, or site-selection advice.
CHIPS 48D construction deadline: Dec. 31, 2026
Sample packet available before email
$15k fixed-fee paid pilot
Expert review required before reliance
The business problem
Capital projects qualify for incentives teams discover too late.
Federal credits, state grants, local abatements, workforce funds, utility support, and infrastructure programs are evaluated in separate silos. That fragmentation makes it easy to miss value or carry weak assumptions into the board case.
One missed credit can change project economics.
On large facilities, an overlooked tax credit, abatement, workforce program, or infrastructure path can mean millions left out of the model.
Generate the packet, then route it for expert sign-off.
GrantStack creates a source-backed assessment packet and separates AI generation from qualified human review before reliance.
Traditional advisory vs. GrantStack
Replace weeks of incentive discovery with a certified review workflow.
Traditional consulting still matters for final advisory judgment. GrantStack changes the front end of the process: source-backed generation first, then human expert certification before anything becomes submission-ready.
Large-firm teams can require weeks of discovery before the CFO sees a complete incentive stack.
- Manual source review across jurisdictions
- Partner-heavy meetings before the project clears fit
- High advisory spend before an internal go/no-go
Generate the first review packet quickly, then decide whether expert review is worth funding.
- Federal, state, local, workforce, utility, and infrastructure paths
- Advisor-safe handoff packet with assumptions, citations, and review status
- Clear separation between automated screening and qualified professional reliance
Review workflow
Automation handles discovery. Certified experts handle reliance.
AI prepares the exhaustive packet, then certified professionals review the claim path before the client relies on it.
Find overlapping incentives
Calculates how CHIPS, IRA, state credits, property tax abatements, workforce funding, and site-readiness programs can overlap or conflict.
Flag compliance risk early
Flags ownership, supply-chain, jurisdiction, and controlled-entity questions for expert review before a semiconductor incentive claim advances.
Route for expert sign-off
Enterprise packets are routed to qualified CPA, tax, legal, or economic-development reviewers before they are marked audit-ready.
GrantStack does not guarantee audit outcomes. Client responsibility remains. The workflow creates a cleaner review packet, preserves evidence, and separates AI generation from certified human sign-off.
What changes for finance
Give finance a clearer incentive case before decisions lock.
GrantStack is built for the moment before a high-stakes capital project becomes expensive to reverse: enough structure for executive review, enough caution for expert validation.
Find more incentive paths earlier
Screen CHIPS, IRA, state, local, workforce, infrastructure, utility, and property-tax layers from the same project facts.
Reduce wasted advisory spend
Clarify fit, missing data, and jurisdiction questions before a large consulting sprint starts billing against a vague scope.
Preserve review discipline
Keep citations, assumptions, partner notes, requested changes, and sign-off status tied to the assessment workflow.
Trust signals
Built for serious diligence, not AI-only filing.
Specific source coverage
The screen starts with sources your advisors can inspect.
GrantStack does not ask a chatbot for a broad list of grants. The pilot maps project facts against a maintained source catalog, then exposes citations, open questions, and unsupported assumptions.
CHIPS 48D, IRA-linked credits, forms, and pre-filing steps
Screens timing, qualified property, facility activity, ownership, and registration questions for expert review.
Economic-development grants, tax credits, and site-readiness programs
Checks job creation, payroll, fixed-asset investment, industry fit, and whether the project is still competitive.
Property tax abatements, enterprise zones, utilities, and workforce support
Flags local approvals, school-board notice, infrastructure constraints, training support, and post-award monitoring.
Construction timing, controlled-entity risk, reporting, and clawbacks
Separates likely paths from issues that need qualified tax, legal, grants, or agency validation before reliance.
Representative sources include IRS 48D guidance, eCFR construction-timing rules, state economic-development portals, JobsOhio guidance, and local enterprise-zone materials. Program coverage varies by jurisdiction and must be validated against current agency rules before use.
Beyond the deadline
CHIPS is the clock. Industrial policy is the long-term workflow.
The 2026 deadline creates urgency, but incentive work does not end there. Expansion teams still have to compare state and local abatements, global semiconductor and clean-industry programs, and post-award compliance obligations that can last for years.
EU Chips Act, clean-industry, and regional incentives
Industrial-policy programs are expanding across the U.S., Europe, and state-level jurisdictions.
Property tax, workforce, utility, and infrastructure layers
Local abatements and negotiated support can change the economics of otherwise similar sites.
Compliance tracking and clawback prevention
Job creation, investment, wage, reporting, and timing commitments need monitoring after awards close.
Public incentive agreements commonly include performance monitoring and clawback rights when job or investment commitments are not met. Sources: European Chips Act, EU Net-Zero Industry Act, incentive clawback research.
Sample diligence packet
SCREENING ONLY
Fit score
84
Semiconductor supplier expansion · Columbus, OH · $420M capex · 180 net-new jobs
CHIPS 48D timing and qualified-property review
Construction start before 2027, facility activity, qualified investment, and controlled-entity questions need tax validation.
Ohio economic-development grant screen
Fixed-asset investment, job creation, infrastructure needs, and wage facts justify agency diligence if the site remains competitive.
Property tax, enterprise-zone, utility, and workforce layers
Local approvals, notice requirements, training partners, and infrastructure constraints determine what can actually be negotiated.
Facts required before board or filing reliance
Site control, qualified-basis split, supplier ownership, construction timeline, and agency-discretion assumptions remain unresolved.
Believable sample report
A source-backed memo, not a vague program list.
The report is designed for the first executive conversation: what looks promising, what could break eligibility, what facts are missing, which sources were checked, and what needs expert validation before anyone relies on the numbers.
- Cited program recommendations with source URLs.
- Strengths tied to jobs, investment, facility type, and location.
- Risk flags before teams overstate incentive value.
- Next diligence questions for finance, site selection, or outside advisors.
- A clear "not advisor-reviewed" state until a qualified professional validates it.
Open sample report
No email required. This is a representative report format, not a live project submission.
Cost comparison
The first screen should not require a six-figure advisory commitment.
Consulting firms are valuable when a project is ready for formal review, negotiation, applications, and compliance. GrantStack is for the earlier question: is this expansion worth taking to that level yet?
Best after the project clears basic fit
- Custom-scoped advisory work before you may know the strongest programs.
- Meetings and discovery often start with basic facts your team can prepare earlier.
- Best for final eligibility, applications, negotiations, and compliance.
Best before authorizing deeper diligence
- Run a 30-minute first screen from location, jobs, investment, facility type, wages, and timeline.
- See likely programs, weak spots, missing facts, and advisor-ready questions.
- Reserve consulting spend for projects with enough fit to justify expert review.
GrantStack is not a substitute for legal, tax, grants, or economic-development advice. It is a lower-friction first screen that helps teams decide when outside specialists are worth bringing in.
Modeled ROI example
$420M facility, one incentive miss.
If diligence identifies or de-risks incremental incentive value equal to just 0.5% of project capex, the opportunity is $2.1M before advisory, legal, tax, negotiation, and compliance costs. A $15k pilot breaks even if it changes the outcome by less than 0.004% of capex.
- Project capex
- $420M
- 0.5% incremental value scenario
- $2.1M
- Paid pilot
- $15k
- Break-even threshold
- <0.004% of capex
Illustrative math only. GrantStack does not guarantee incentive amounts, approvals, or savings. Actual value depends on project facts, agency discretion, tax position, timing, negotiations, and compliance.
Major applications are often quoted around $10k-$25k+ when scope moves beyond basic research.
Senior public-sector grant advisory roles commonly price above ordinary grant-writing rates.
Modeled multi-week advisory-team cost using public grant-consulting rate cards.
When you use it
Consultants: after scope is real
GrantStack: before paid diligence
What you pay for
Expert judgment, applications, negotiations, compliance
Fast triage, cited fit signals, missing-fact checklist
Cost risk
Spending advisory time on projects that may not qualify
Screening weak projects before they consume advisor budget
Concrete paid pilot offer
$15,000 fixed-fee private incentive screen.
One facility, one primary jurisdiction, up to two competing jurisdictions, delivered as a source-backed memo and readout. Payment is not collected on this page; fit, scope, confidentiality, and review path are confirmed before the pilot starts.
- Included Intake review, cited incentive screen, missing-fact checklist, ROI scenario, source index, and 60-minute executive readout.
- Optional next step Qualified CPA, tax, legal, grants, or economic-development review can be scoped separately when the project clears fit.
- Not included No tax opinion, legal opinion, lobbying, application submission, agency negotiation, or award guarantee.
*Directional benchmark, not a quote. Public State of Michigan grant-consulting procurement listed Deloitte roles from $125/hr to $400/hr. A separate public Michigan McKinsey operational-consulting contract lists role rates from $143/hr to $1,250/hr and project prices of $249,000 and $925,812. Grant-writing fee guides commonly cite $150-$300/hr or $10k-$25k+ for major applications. The $200k-$500k+ engagement estimate is modeled from public hourly role rates and a multi-week diligence scope, not a published quote. Actual fees vary by scope, timeline, travel, negotiation support, compliance work, and whether pricing is fixed-fee, hourly, milestone-based, or success-aligned. Percentage-based grant compensation can create ethics or compliance problems and needs program-specific review. Sources: Michigan procurement, Michigan McKinsey contract, GrantSights fee guide, GPA ethics code.
Where it fits
Use GrantStack before the expensive advisory sprint.
Spreadsheets
Useful once you know what to track, but weak for turning rough specs into a sourced first memo.
Asking a chatbot
Helpful for plain-language explanations, but easy to over-trust without citations and review steps.
Consulting firms
Best for final validation and negotiation, but heavy when the project is still changing weekly.
GrantStack
Best for early triage: likely paths, eligibility gaps, and the questions to ask before paid review.
Advisory guardrails
Use the screen as diligence preparation, not final advice.
GrantStack helps your team prepare. It should make advisor conversations sharper, not replace qualified review when money, applications, compliance obligations, or public commitments are involved.
Reliance rule
Do not use an automated packet for tax filings, grant applications, public claims, board forecasts, or agency negotiations until project facts, official source material, and current agency guidance have been reviewed by qualified professionals.
Screening memo
Capture project inputs and generate a source-backed memo with fit signals, risk flags, and assumptions.
Internal go/no-go
Use the memo to decide whether the opportunity is large and credible enough for expert review.
Qualified review
A qualified economic-development, legal, tax, or grants advisor reviews program fit and application risk.
Agency confirmation
Final eligibility, award amount, timing, and compliance requirements are confirmed with the issuing agency.
FAQ
Questions a CFO or tax director will ask first.
Is GrantStack a replacement for Deloitte, McKinsey, or tax counsel?
No. GrantStack prepares the incentive diligence packet and review workflow so expensive advisory time starts from a stronger fact base. Final tax, legal, grant, or agency advice still requires qualified professionals.
What does the paid pilot include?
A fixed-fee source-backed screen for one project: cited program paths, missing facts, ROI scenario, risk flags, source index, and a 60-minute executive readout. Expert review, applications, and negotiation are separate scopes.
Can we rely on the pilot memo for filings or board forecasts?
No. The pilot memo is diligence preparation. It should be reviewed by qualified tax, legal, grants, or economic-development professionals before use in filings, forecasts, public claims, or agency negotiations.
Can GrantStack guarantee incentive awards?
No. Incentives depend on project facts, timing, agency discretion, negotiation, and compliance. GrantStack improves discovery, documentation, and review discipline.
What projects are the best fit?
Capital-intensive expansions with meaningful investment, hiring, site selection, or facility buildout decisions, especially semiconductor, data center, advanced manufacturing, and energy projects.
Does this cover CHIPS and IRA?
The workflow is designed to screen CHIPS, IRA, state, local, workforce, infrastructure, and utility incentive paths. Specific eligibility must be validated by qualified experts.
Why not just ask ChatGPT or Claude?
Chat tools can brainstorm. GrantStack structures intake, citations, repeatable rule checks, partner routing, expert review status, and audit history.
Paid pilot request
Request paid pilot terms.
Share the minimum facts needed to route a confidential assessment: project capex, geography, facility type, and corporate contact. We will confirm fit, source coverage, confidentiality needs, and review path before asking for payment.
Want to inspect the output before sharing project facts? Open the sample report.
Best fit: expansion projects with meaningful investment, hiring, and a real site decision.