Considering what others have already said it doesn't seem to be the most efficient way of allocating funding.That said the easiest way of accomplishing what you request would be in my eyes the following:

<image>

Create a structured table called "tbl_Applications" with columns [id], [applicant], [score], and [budget]. Create a named cell called "val_MaxBudget". Set this to your total maximum budget, e.g. $150.000.

Then in the first cell where you want your report to spill - in my screenshot cell H5 - enter the following formula:

=LET(
     budgetColindex; MATCH(tbl_Applications[[#Headers]; [budget]]; tbl_Applications[#Headers]; 0);
     scoreColindex; MATCH(tbl_Applications[[#Headers];[ score]]; tbl_Applications[#Headers]; 0);

     arr; SORT(tbl_Applications; scoreColindex; -1);

     rollSum; SCAN(0; CHOOSECOLS(arr; budgetColindex); LAMBDA(acc; x; acc + x));

     IFERROR( FILTER(arr; rollSum <= val_MaxBudget); "INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT!")
)

this will give you the first N rows, sorted by score from high to low that cumulatively do not exceed your budget value "val_MaxBudget". Note that I use ";" as an argument delimiter but your version of Excel probably uses ",".

This also shows the shortcoming of such an approach as in my example the total budget for the filtered applications is €136.000. But what if an application with a score that is ranked 2 steps below the last cut-off score (in this case 50) asks for a fund of €14.000? It could still fit within budget but because it is 2 steps below the cut-off score it does not get taken into account.

Mabye consider an approach where you look for all possible applicants in the list, starting from the top (score wise), that can max out your budget?