Final FY21 PIDP NOFO for FR 03292021.pdf

Billing Code:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Maritime Administration’s Port Infrastructure

Development Program (PIDP) under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

AGENCY: Maritime Administration (MARAD), DOT

ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity

SUMMARY: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 appropriated $230 million for the Port

Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) to make grants to improve facilities within, or outside of and directly related to operations of or an intermodal connection to, coastal seaports, inland river ports, and Great Lakes ports. This notice announces the availability of funding for grants under this program and establishes selection criteria and application requirements. The

Act directed that at least $205 million of the appropriated funds shall be for grants to coastal seaports or Great Lakes ports. Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2021 directed that not less than $41.4 million shall be for projects at “Small Ports and

Terminals” meeting certain requirements described in this NOFO. Funds for the PIDP are to be awarded as discretionary grants on a competitive basis for projects that will improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port. All

PIDP grant recipients must meet all applicable Federal requirements, including the Buy

American Act. The purpose of this notice is to solicit grant applications for the PIDP.

DATES: Applications must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. E.D.T. on July 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning this notice, please contact the PIDP staff via email at PIDPgrants@dot.gov, or call Peter Simons, Supervisory Transportation Specialist, Office of Port Infrastructure Development, at 202–366–

8921. A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 202–366–3993. In addition, the Department of Transportation (DOT) may post answers to questions and requests for clarifications as well as information about webinars for further information at www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each section of this notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for the FY 2021 PIDP discretionary grants, and all applicants should read this notice in its entirety to prepare eligible and competitive applications. Some of the program criteria have been modified since the FY 2020 PIDP.

Table of Contents

A. Program Description B. Federal Award Information C. Eligibility Information D. Application and Submission Information E. Application Review Information F. Federal Award Administration Information G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) H. Other Information

A. Program Description

1. Overview

The PIDP was established under 46 U.S.C. § 50302, which authorizes DOT to establish a port and intermodal improvement program to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal connections to ports. The Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260, December 27, 2020) (“FY21 Appropriations Act” or the “Act”) appropriated $230 million to the PIDP to make discretionary grants to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within coastal seaports, inland river ports, or Great Lakes ports. To carry out a project under this program, DOT may provide grants for port and intermodal infrastructure-related projects.

Throughout the program, these discretionary grant awards have supported projects that improve facilities within, or outside of and directly related to operations of or an intermodal connection to, coastal seaports, inland river ports, and Great Lakes ports consistent with DOT’s strategic infrastructure goal.1 FY 2021 PIDP grants continue to align with DOT’s infrastructure goal by supporting projects that enable safe, efficient, and reliable movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port. To maximize the value of FY 2021 PIDP funds for all Americans, DOT seeks projects that enable safe, efficient, and reliable movement of goods and support the following program objectives: (1) supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;

(2) addressing climate change and environmental justice impacts; (3) advancing racial equity and reducing barriers to opportunity; and, (4) leveraging Federal funding to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment.

Consistent with DOT’s R.O.U.T.E.S. initiative, DOT seeks rural projects that address deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on rural transportation infrastructure. DOT will consider how a proposed project will address the challenges faced by rural areas. Please visit https://www.transportation.gov/rural to learn more about DOT’s efforts to address disparities in rural infrastructure.

2. Changes from the FY 2020 NOFO

The FY 2021 PIDP notice includes new priorities related to climate change, racial equity, and job creation. These priorities are part of two new program objectives that are incorporated into

1 See U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 (Feb. 2018) at https://www.transportation.gov/dot-strategic-plan.

https://www.transportation.gov/rural the FY 2021 PIDP evaluation process: (i) Climate Change and Environmental Justice Impacts and (ii) Racial Equity and Barriers to Opportunity. See Section D of this NOFO for details.

Section D.2.VII of this notice provides additional detail and instructions to applicants related to the statutory determinations that are required prior to award selection.

This notice also includes provisions related to applications for assistance for certain projects at small ports, per 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d) as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283, January 1, 2021) (“NDAA”). This guidance applies to eligible applicants with eligible projects meeting two conditions: 1) the eligible applicant is a port with average annual tonnage of cargo during the three calendar years immediately preceding the time of application of less than 8,000,000 short tons and 2) the application seeks a certain level of Federal funding (less than or equal to $4.14 million). These projects are referred to in this notice as “small projects at small ports”.

3. Additional Information

Section E of this notice, which outlines FY 2021 PIDP Grant selection criteria, describes the process for selecting projects that further the program’s goals. Section F.3 describes progress and performance reporting requirements for selected projects, including the relationship between these reporting requirements and the program’s selection criteria.

The PIDP is described in the Federal Assistance Listings (formerly known as the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance) under the assistance listing program title “Port Infrastructure

Development Program” and assistance listing number 20.823.

B. Federal Award Information

Amount Available

DOT intends to award up to $230 million on a competitive basis for projects that improve facilities within, or outside of and directly related to operations of or an intermodal connection to, coastal seaports, inland river ports, and Great Lakes ports. The FY21 Appropriations Act directed that at least $205 million of this amount be reserved for grants to coastal seaports or

Great Lakes ports. Additionally, the NDAA directed that not less than $41.4 million shall be for projects meeting certain requirements described in this NOFO for “small projects at small ports”.

The FY21 Appropriations Act allows up to two percent ($4.6 million) of the funds appropriated to be available for necessary costs of grant administration. If MARAD does not receive sufficient qualified applications, it will award less than the amount available.

In addition to the FY 2021 PIDP funds, unobligated prior year PIDP funds may be made available and awarded under this solicitation to eligible projects. DOT presently estimates that approximately $20 million in prior year funds may be awarded under this solicitation. If this solicitation does not result in the award and obligation of all available funds, DOT may publish additional solicitations.

Award Size

The minimum PIDP award size is $1 million. Except as limited by the amount of available funding and the statutory restrictions on funding identified in Section B.3, there is no maximum award size.

Restrictions on Funding

The FY21 Appropriations Act and NDAA impose several restrictions on awards under this notice:

• Not more than 25 percent of the available funds ($57.5 million) can be used to make grants for projects in any one State.

• At least $205 million is reserved for coastal seaport projects or Great Lakes port projects

(as defined in Section C.3.e. below).

• Eighteen percent ($41.4 million) is reserved for small projects at small ports awarded under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d), and no single grant award under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d) may be more than 10 percent ($4.14 million) of this amount. Of this reserved $41.4 million, not more than 10 percent ($4.14 million) may be used to make grants for development phase activities under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d)(3)(A)(ii)(III).

• Not more than 10 percent ($18.4 million) of the funds not reserved for small projects at small ports may be awarded for development phase activities for large projects (as defined in Section C.3.e. below) that do not result in construction.

Availability of Funds

To ensure the funds are expended in a timely manner, DOT, to the extent possible, seeks to obligate FY 2021 PIDP funds by September 30, 2024. Obligation occurs when a selected applicant and DOT enter into a written grant agreement after the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative requirements, including transportation planning and environmental review requirements. Unless authorized by DOT in writing after DOT’s announcement of FY

2021 PIDP awards, any costs incurred prior to DOT’s obligation of funds for a project (“pre-award costs”) are ineligible for reimbursement and are ineligible to count as match for cost share requirements. DOT also seeks to expend funds within five years of obligation. As part of the review and selection process described in Section E.2.b., DOT will consider a project’s likelihood to be ready for obligation of funds by September 30, 2024 and liquidation of these obligations within five years of obligation.

Previous PIDP Awards

Recipients of prior PIDP grants may apply for funding to support additional phases of a project previously awarded funds in the PIDP program. However, to be competitive, the applicant should demonstrate the extent to which the previously funded project phase has met estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the benefits expected for the project. A previous PIDP award, or application, does not affect competitiveness under the FY

2021 PIDP competition.

C. Eligibility Information

To be selected for a FY 2021 PIDP discretionary grant, an applicant must be an eligible applicant and the project must be an eligible project.

Eligible Applicants

An eligible applicant for a FY 2021 PIDP discretionary grant is a port authority, a commission or its subdivision or agent under existing authority, a State or political subdivision of a State or local government, a Tribal government, a public agency or publicly chartered authority established by one or more States, a special purpose district with a transportation function, a multistate or multijurisdictional group of entities, or a lead entity described above jointly with a private entity or group of private entities (including the owners or operators of a facility, or collection of facilities, at a port).

If submitting a joint application, applicants should identify a lead applicant as the primary point of contact and also identify the primary recipient of the award. The applicant that will be responsible for financial administration of the project must be an eligible applicant. Joint applications should include a description of the roles and responsibilities of each applicant.

Applicants must demonstrate that they have the authority to carry out the project and are encouraged to submit an assertion with citation of authority with their application. See Section

D.2.VII. for more information.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

This section of the notice describes cost share requirements for an FY 2021 PIDP Grant award.

Per the FY21 Appropriations Act, the Federal share of the costs for which an expenditure is made under a PIDP grant may not exceed 80 percent; however, the Secretary may increase the

Federal share of costs above 80 percent for: (1) large project grant awards less than $10 million;

or, (2) grants awarded to small projects at small ports under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d).

Non-Federal sources include State funds originating from programs funded by State revenue, local funds originating from State or local revenue funded programs, or private funds. The application should demonstrate, such as through a commitment letter or other documentation, the sources of the non-Federal funds. Unless otherwise authorized by statute, State or local cost-share may not be counted as the non-Federal share for both the FY 2021 PIDP Grant award and another Federal grant program.

DOT will not consider previously incurred costs or previously expended or encumbered funds towards the matching requirement for any project, except for awards made under 46

U.S.C. § 50302(d) (small projects at small ports). For awards made under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d), DOT may consider certain eligible pre-construction costs towards the matching requirement if incurred after the date of application submittal but before award announcement and if the costs are clearly indicated in the budget included in the application and comply with all applicable

Federal requirements. Matching funds are subject to the same Federal requirements described in

Section F.2. as awarded funds.

For the purpose of eligibility, the proceeds of Federal assistance under chapter 6 of Title 23, United States Code or sections 501 through 504 of the Railroad and Revitalization and

Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as amended, shall be considered to be part of the non-Federal share of project costs if the loan is repayable from non-Federal funds, unless otherwise requested by the project sponsor.

In addition to these cost share requirements, cost share will be evaluated according to the

“Leverage of Federal Funding” criterion described in Section E. Preference will be given to those projects that require a lower percentage Federal share of costs. See Section E.1.a. for information on how DOT will evaluate leverage. That section explains that DOT seeks applications for projects that maximize the non-Federal share. See Section D.2.III. for information about documenting cost sharing in the application.

For each project that receives a PIDP grant award, the terms of the award will require the recipient to complete the project using at least the level of non-Federal funding that was specified in the application. If the actual costs of the project are greater than the costs estimated in the application, the recipient will be responsible for increasing the non-Federal contribution. If the actual costs of the project are less than the costs estimated in the application, DOT will generally reduce the Federal contribution.

Other

a. Eligible Projects

Eligible projects for FY 2021 PIDP grants shall be located either within the boundary of a port, or outside the boundary of a port and directly related to port operations or to an intermodal connection to a port. Eligible projects are limited to:

1) port gate improvements;

2) road improvements both within and connecting to the port;

3) rail improvements both within and connecting to the port;

4) berth improvements (including docks, wharves, piers, and dredging incidental to the improvement project);

5) fixed landside improvements in support of cargo operations (such as silos, elevators, conveyors, container terminals, Ro/Ro structures including parking garages necessary for intermodal freight transfer, warehouses including refrigerated facilities, lay-down areas, transit sheds, and other such facilities);

6) utilities necessary for safe operations (including lighting, stormwater, and other such improvements that are incidental to a larger infrastructure project); or

7) a combination of activities described above.

Projects addressing environmental mitigation measures, freight intelligent transportation systems, and digital infrastructure systems are eligible if those components support one of the eligible project types listed above. This program will not fund construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, or purchase of a vessel, nor any project within a small shipyard (as defined in 46

U.S.C. § 54101). Mobile equipment, such as mobile harbor cranes or vehicles and similar equipment whose utility depends, in part, on their ability to be routinely relocated from one location to another, is not eligible for funding.

Development phase activities (including planning, feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental review, permitting, and preliminary engineering and design work) that support these capital projects are also eligible. However, DOT will prioritize funding for projects that propose to move into the construction phase within the grant’s performance period.

Accordingly, applications for only development phase activities will be less competitive than capital grants.

Improvements to Federally owned facilities are ineligible under the FY 2021 PIDP.

Refer to Section D.5, Funding Restrictions, for more information when determining eligibility.

b. Determinations

DOT must make the following determinations under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(c)(6)(A) before selecting a project for award. Evidence that a project meets these determinations should be clearly indicated in the Project Narrative as outlined in Section D.2.VII.

1) The project improves the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through a port or intermodal connection to the port. Refer to Section D.2.VII. for what to include in the application, and to Section E.1.a. for how DOT will make this determination.

2) The project is cost effective. DOT will determine a project is cost effective if it estimates that the project’s benefit-cost ratio is equal to or greater than one. Refer to Section

D.2.VII. for what to include in the application and to Section E.1.a. for how DOT will make this determination. This requirement does not apply to awards for small projects at small ports (i.e., awards made under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d)).

3) The eligible applicant has the authority to carry out the project. Refer to Section D.2.VII.

for what to include in the application, and to Section E.2.b. for how DOT will make this determination.

4) The eligible applicant has sufficient funding available to meet the matching requirements.

DOT’s determination of sufficient and available non-Federal matching funds will be based on the information provided in the project’s Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of

Project Funds section of the application (see Section D.2.III). Refer to Section D.2.VII.

for what to include in the application, and to Section E.2.b. for how DOT will make this determination.

5) The project will be completed without unreasonable delay. The application must demonstrate that the project will meet the timeline outlined in Section B.4. This eligibility requirement is separate from the Project Readiness Selection Criteria described in Section E.1.b. Refer to Section D.2.VII. for what to include in the application, and to

Section E.2.b. for how DOT will make this determination.

6) The project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without Federal funding or financial assistance available to the project sponsor. DOT’s determination will be based on the impacts to the project if Federal funding or financial assistance is unavailable for the project. Refer to Section D.2.VII. for what to include in the application, and to

Section E.2.b. for how DOT will make this determination.

c. Project Components

An application may describe a project that contains more than one component and may describe components that may be carried out by parties other than the applicant. DOT may award funds for a component, instead of the larger project, if that component (1) independently meets minimum award amounts described in Section B and all eligibility requirements described in

Section C; (2) independently aligns well with the merit criteria specified in Section E; and (3) meets National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements with respect to independent utility. Independent utility means that the component will represent a transportation improvement that is usable, even if no other improvement is made in the area, and will be ready for intended use upon completion of that component’s construction. All project components that are presented together in a single application must demonstrate a relationship or connection among them.

Applicants should be aware that, depending upon the relationship between project components and applicable Federal law, Federal funding of some project components may make other project components that have not received Federal funding subject to Federal requirements as described in Section F.2.

DOT strongly encourages applicants to identify in their applications the project components that have independent utility and separately detail costs and requested PIDP funding for those components. If the application identifies one or more independent project components, the application should clearly identify how each independent component addresses the selection criteria and produces benefits on its own, in addition to describing how the full proposal of which the independent component is a part addresses the criteria described in Section E.

d. Application Limit

Each lead applicant may submit no more than one application.

e. Definitions

Coastal seaport: A port on navigable waters of the United States or territories that are subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction for oceanic and coastal waters under

33 CFR 329.12 or that is otherwise capable of receiving oceangoing vessels with a draft of at least 20 feet (other than a Great Lakes port).

Development phase activities: Planning, feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental review, permitting, and preliminary engineering and design work.

Great Lakes port: A port on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters as defined under 33 CFR 83.03(o).

Large projects: A project at a port other than a small port, regardless of the amount of PIDP funding sought in the application; or, a project at a small port for which the amount of PIDP funding sought in the application is greater than $4.14 million.

Rural area: An area located outside a 2010 Census-designated urbanized area.

Small port: A coastal seaport, Great Lakes, or inland river port to and from which the average annual tonnage of cargo for the immediately preceding 3 calendar years from the time an application is submitted is less than 8,000,000 short tons, as determined using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data or data provided by an independent audit the findings of which are acceptable to the Secretary.

Small project at a small port: A project at a small port seeking less than or equal to $4.14 million in funding under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d).

D. Application and Submission Information

Address to Request Application Package

Applications must be submitted to Grants.gov. Instructions for submitting applications can be found at https://www.maritime.dot.gov/office-port-infrastructure-development/port-and-terminal-infrastructure-development/how-apply-port along with specific instructions for the forms and attachments required for submission.

Content and Form of Application Submission

The application must include the Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) and the Project Narrative. More detailed information about the Project Narrative follows.

Applicants are encouraged to also complete the SF-424C (Budget Information – Construction

Programs) and attach to their application the FY 2021 PIDP Project Information form. These forms may be found on grants.gov and are also available at www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants.

DOT recommends that the Project Narrative be prepared with standard formatting preferences (a single-spaced document, using a standard 12-point font such as Times New

Roman, with 1-inch margins, and the narrative text in one column only). The Project Narrative may not exceed 30 pages in length, excluding cover pages and table of contents. The only substantive portions that may exceed the 30-page limit are documents supporting assertions or conclusions made in the 30-page Project Narrative and documentation related to the required determinations. Except for the benefit cost analysis, DOT does not consider supporting documentation or websites an essential part of the application. Supporting documentation should be dated, and DOT recommends using appropriately descriptive files names (e.g., “Project

Narrative,” “Maps,” “Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Support”) for all attachments.

If supporting documents are submitted, applicants should clearly identify within the Project

Narrative the relevant portion of the Project Narrative that each supporting document supports.

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/office-port-infrastructure-development/port-and-terminal-infrastructure-development/how-apply-port https://www.maritime.dot.gov/office-port-infrastructure-development/port-and-terminal-infrastructure-development/how-apply-port http://www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants

DOT recommends that the Project Narrative follow the basic outline below to address the program requirements and assist evaluators in locating relevant information.

I. Project Description .................................................................... See D.2.I.

II. Project Location ........................................................................ See D.2.II.

III. Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Project Funds .................... See D.2.III.

IV. Merit Criteria.............................................................................. See D.2.IV.

A. Achieving Safety, Efficiency, or Reliability Improvements

B. Supporting Economic Vitality at the National and Regional Level

C. Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Justice Impacts

D. Advancing Racial Equity and Reducing Barriers to Opportunity

E. Leveraging Federal Funding to Attract non-Federal Sources of Infrastructure

Investment

V. Project Readiness....................................................................... See D.2.V.

A. Technical Capacity

B. Environmental Approvals

C. Risk Mitigation

VI. Domestic Preference ................................................................ See D.2.VI.

VII. Determinations .……………………………………………… See D.2.VII.

The Project Narrative should include the information necessary for DOT to determine that the project satisfies project requirements described in Sections B and C and to assess the criteria specified in Section E.1. In addition to a detailed statement of work, detailed project schedule, and detailed project budget, the Project Narrative should include a table of contents, maps and graphics, as appropriate, to make the information easier to review. To the extent practicable, applicants should provide supporting data and documentation in a form that is directly verifiable by DOT. DOT may ask any applicant to supplement data in its application, but expects applications to be complete upon submission. DOT may seek clarifying or additional information from applicants according to circumstances described in Section E.2. DOT recommends applications include the following content:

I. Project Description

The first section of the application should provide a concise description of the project, the challenges that it is intended to address, and how it will address those challenges. The project description should provide both a high-level overview of the overall project and a clear itemization of its major components. This section may discuss the project’s history, including a description of any previously completed components. The applicant may use this section to place the project into a broader context of other transportation infrastructure investments being pursued by the project sponsor. This section should focus on eligibility and technical aspects of the project, but should not directly address the selection criteria described in paragraph IV., below.

II. Project Location

This section of the application should describe the project location, including a detailed geographical description of the proposed project, a map of the project’s location and connections to existing transportation infrastructure, and geospatial data describing the project location. This section should also clearly identify whether the project is:

a) located in a rural area (as defined in Section C.3.e);

b) a Great Lakes port project (as defined in Section C.3.e);

c) a Coastal seaport project (as defined in Section C.3.e);

d) a small project at a small port (as defined in Section C.3.e) seeking funding under 46

U.S.C. § 50302(d); and

e) located in a Federally designated community development zone such as a qualified

Opportunity Zone,2 Empowerment Zone,3 Promise Zone,4 or Choice Neighborhood.5

III. Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Project Funds

This section of the application should describe the FY 2021 PIDP project’s budget (i.e., the project scope that includes PIDP funding) and leverage of non-Federal funds. Except for a project seeking funding under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d), the budget should not include any previously incurred expenses. At a minimum, this section should include:

a) PIDP project costs6;

b) For all funds to be used for eligible project costs, the source and amount of those funds;

c) Documentation of funding commitments for non-Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs (documentation may be referenced and submitted as an appendix);

d) For Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs, the amount, nature, and source of any required non-Federal match for those funds. Applicants should also refer to the

Leverage of Federal Funding merit criterion in Section E.1.a.v.;

e) A budget showing how each source of funds will be spent. The budget should show how each funding source will share in each major construction activity, and present that data in dollars and percentages. Funding sources should be grouped into three categories: non-

Federal; PIDP; and other Federal. If the project contains individual components, the budget should separate the costs of each project component. If the project will be completed in phases, 2 See https://opportunityzones.hud.gov/.

3 See https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/empowerment_zones.

4 See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/field_policy_mgt/fieldpolicymgtpz.

5 See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn.

6 For a project seeking funding under 46 U.S.C. § 50302(d), the project costs may include eligible costs incurred by the applicant between the date of application submittal and the date of award announcement as long as these costs comply with the PIDP administrative and national policy requirements described in Section F.2 and are for pre-construction activities. Costs incurred prior to the execution of a grant agreement will not be reimbursed or used to satisfy cost share requirements unless authorized in writing by DOT. See Section F.1.

the budget should separate the costs of each phase. The budget detail should sufficiently demonstrate that the project satisfies the statutory cost-sharing requirements described in Section

C.2.

In addition to the information enumerated above, this section should provide complete information on how all project funds may be used. For example, if a particular source of funds is available only after a condition is satisfied, the application should identify that condition and describe the applicant’s control over whether it is satisfied. Similarly, if a particular source of funds is available for expenditure only during a fixed time period, the application should describe that restriction. Complete information about project funds will ensure that DOT’s expectations for award execution align with any funding restrictions unrelated to DOT, even if an award differs from the applicant’s request. If a funding source is uncertain, the applicant should state that it is uncertain and describe the source of the uncertainty. Failure to document funding sources, as described in paragraph c) above or failure to address uncertainty may prevent

DOT from making the determination at Section C.3.b.4 necessary to select the project for an award.

IV. Merit Criteria

This section should be structured to clearly address each of the following merit criteria in accordance with the Application Review guidance in Section E.

A. Effect on the Movement of Goods

The application should contain information to assess the project’s impact on safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through a port or intermodal connection to a port. The application may, as part of this discussion, identify features the applicant will incorporate into the project and highlight specific benefits of the project (such as indicators of improved efficiency and reliability like reduced vessel and truck turn times; enhancements to or increases in system capacity; improved connectivity; decreases in the number, rate, and consequences of transportation-related accidents, serious injuries, and fatalities).

For applications seeking funding for a small project at a small port, the narrative should also contain information that addresses the degree to which the project would promote the enhancement and efficiencies of the port.

B. Supporting Economic Vitality at the National and Regional Level

1. Large Projects. For large projects (as defined in Section C.3.e.) this criterion will measure the quantified benefits against the costs of the project. Among otherwise comparable applications, DOT will prioritize projects that maximize net benefits.

a. This portion of the application should describe the anticipated benefits of the project. The applicant should summarize the conclusions of the benefit-cost analysis, including estimates of the project’s benefit-cost ratio and net benefits. The applicant should also describe economic impacts and other data-supported benefits that are not included in the benefit-cost analysis, such as how the project creates good-paying jobs with the choice to join a union and how the project supports American industry.

b. This paragraph describes the recommended approach for the completion and submission of a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as an appendix to the Project Narrative. The

BCA itself should be provided as an appendix to the Project Narrative, but the results of the analysis should also be summarized in the Project Narrative directly.

The appendix should provide present value estimates of a project’s benefits and costs relative to a no-build baseline. To calculate present values, applicants should apply a real discount rate

(i.e., the discount rate net of the inflation rate) of 7 percent per year to the project’s streams of benefits and costs. The purpose of the BCA is to enable DOT to evaluate the project’s cost-effectiveness by estimating a benefit-cost ratio and calculating the magnitude of net benefits for the project. The primary economic benefits from projects eligible for PIDP grants are likely to relate to the value of travel time savings, vehicle and port operating cost savings, and safety considerations for both existing users of the improved facility and new users who may be attracted to it because of the project. Savings in infrastructure maintenance costs may also be quantified. Applicants may describe other categories of benefits in the BCA that are more difficult to quantify and value in economic terms, such as improving the reliability of travel times, while also providing numerical estimates of the magnitude and timing of each of these additional impacts wherever possible. Any benefits claimed for the project, both quantified and unquantified, should be clearly tied to the expected outcomes of the project.

The BCA should include the full costs of developing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed project, as well as the expected timing or schedule for costs in each of these categories. The BCA may also consider the present discounted value of any remaining service life of the asset at the end of the analysis period. The costs and benefits that are compared in the BCA should also cover the same project scope, including the costs of other related projects on which the benefits of the PIDP project depend.

The BCA should carefully document the assumptions and methodology used to produce the analysis, including a description of the baseline, the sources of data used to project the outcomes of the project, and the values of key input parameters. Applicants should provide all relevant files used for their BCA, including any spreadsheet files (in their original format such as Excel) and technical memos describing the analysis (whether created in-house or by a contractor). The spreadsheets and technical memos should present the calculations in sufficient detail and transparency to allow the analysis to be reproduced by DOT evaluators.

Detailed guidance for estimating some types of quantitative benefits and costs, together with recommended economic values for converting them to dollar terms and discounting to their present values, are available in DOT’s guidance for conducting BCAs for projects seeking funding under the PIDP. A link to DOT’s guidance is available on the PIDP website:

www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants.

c. Applicants should also describe economic impacts and other data-supported benefits that are not included in the benefit-cost analysis, such as how the project creates good-paying jobs that provide the chance to join a union, how the project will support American industry, and how the project will benefit the local and regional economy such as through the use of project labor agreements, local hiring preferences, and project-related initiatives that address disparities in economic opportunities.

2. Small Projects at Small Ports. For small projects at small ports (as defined in

Section C.3.e.), this criterion will assess the project’s impact on the economic advantage and contribution to freight transportation at the port. The criterion will also consider the competitive disadvantage of the port. Small projects at small ports are not required to submit a benefit-cost analysis.

a. Information related to a project’s impact on economic advantage should include improvements the project will generate as reflected in commitments or other documentation. It could also include analysis and documentation related to how the project will enhance traditional elements of economic advantage such as capitalizing on or creating economies of scale, overcoming barriers to entry, or creating more efficient access for labor, resources, and customers. The narrative’s discussion of the project’s contribution to freight transportation should address how the project will improve the physical process of transporting commodities, merchandise, goods, cargo, and related externalities. Information that helps reviewers understand how the project will benefit both direct stakeholders (such as shippers, carriers, or consignees) and other members of society who may not benefit directly from cargo movements (such as by reducing some of the negative impacts of freight transportation such as air, noise, and water pollution, vegetation and wildlife destruction, etc.) should also be included.

http://www.maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants

The consideration of sustainable development strategies in project development and execution should also be addressed, if applicable.

b. Applicants should also include information that will help reviewers understand the competitive disadvantage of the port and, as appropriate, how the project will improve the port’s competitive position. For example, the application could provide information on elements of competitive disadvantage (such as technology limitations or a port’s geography) and explain how PIDP funding will help reduce or ameliorate those elements (such as by correcting the element resulting in the competitive disadvantage). The application could also identify how a

PIDP-funded project’s values-based approach (such as an emphasis on respect for people and the environment or commitment to individual economic opportunities) will address the competitive disadvantage of the port. Applicants should include data and/or well-reasoned analyses when providing inputs on the economic vitality of the proposed project. Economic vitality supports the development of transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of goods to ensure a prosperous economy. When preparing the Project Narrative, applicants should consider that the concept of economic vitality includes recognizing a full range of multimodal and intermodal freight needs, public-private partnerships, sustainability, and institutional linkages within the community.

c. The applicant should also describe economic impacts and other data-supported benefits, such as how the project creates good-paying jobs that provide the chance to join a union, how the project will support American industry, and how the project will benefit the local and regional economy such as through the use of project labor agreements, local hiring preferences, and project-related initiatives that address disparities in economic opportunities.

C. Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Justice Impacts

This section of the application should demonstrate whether the project has incorporated climate change and environmental justice in terms of planning and policy and/or design components. To address the planning and policies element of this criterion, the application should describe what specific climate change or environmental justice activities have been completed for the project. The application should indicate whether a project is incorporated in a climate action plan, whether an equitable development plan has been prepared, and whether tools such as EPA’s EJSCREEN have been applied in project planning.7 To address the design component element of this criterion, the application should describe specific and direct ways that the project will mitigate or reduce climate change impacts. This may include a description of how the project encourages modal shift, results in changes in asset utilization to reduce congestion, or incorporates multimodal infrastructure to reduce climate impacts. This section may also describe ways that the project reduces emissions or uses technology to increase energy efficiency, incorporates resiliency measures for disaster preparedness and mitigation, or recycles and enhances existing idle or dilapidated infrastructure. See Section E.1.a.iii. for additional information related to evaluation of this criterion.

D. Advancing Racial Equity and Reducing Barriers to Opportunity

This section of the application should include sufficient information to evaluate how the applicant and the project will advance the Racial Equity and Barriers to Opportunity program objective. The applicant should indicate which (if any) planning and policies related to racial equity and barriers to opportunity they are implementing or have implemented along with the specific project investment details necessary for DOT to evaluate if the investments are being made to either proactively advance racial equity and reduce barriers to opportunity or redress prior inequities and barriers to opportunity. All project investment costs for the project that are related to advancing racial equity and reducing barriers to opportunity should be summarized here, even if those project costs are ineligible for the PIDP grant. Any policies, plans, and

7 The EJSCREEN tool can be found on the EPA site: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.

https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ outreach documentation related to advancing racial equity or reducing barriers to opportunity should be provided as an appendix to the Project Narrative. See Section E.1.a.iv. for additional information.

E. Leveraging Federal Funding to Attract Non-Federal Sources of Infrastructure Investment

While the Leveraging Criterion will be assessed according to the methodology described in

Section E.1.a.v., this section of the application may be used to include additional information that may strengthen DOT’s understanding of the project sponsor’s effort to improve non-Federal leverage.

V. Project Readiness

During application evaluation, DOT will consider project readiness to assess the likelihood of a successful project. In that analysis, DOT will evaluate two categories of project readiness: Technical Capacity and Environmental Risk. Technical Capacity will assess the applicant’s experience working with Federal agencies, previous experience with PIDP, BUILD, or INFRA awards, and the technical experience and resources dedicated to the project. This section of the narrative should include information on the project schedule and a discussion of project risk. Risks do not disqualify projects from award, but competitive applications clearly and directly describe achievable risk mitigation strategies. A project with mitigated risks or with a risk mitigation plan is more competitive than a comparable project with unaddressed risks.

Environmental Risk analyzes the project’s environmental approvals and likelihood of the necessary approvals affecting project obligation. To minimize redundant information in the application, DOT encourages applicants to cross-reference from this section of their application to relevant substantive information in other sections of the application.

a) Technical Capacity

The applicant should provide information demonstrating technical capacity to implement the project based on experience and understanding of Federal requirements. This section may include a description of the applicant’s history of delivering similar projects or experience completing a Federally supported project. The application should also demonstrate a project’s feasibility or constructability and schedule, and how the project (such as design and construction) will comply with applicable Federal requirements.

The applicant should also indicate whether the project is part of an ongoing planning effort, such as at the local, regional, or state level. Information on whether the project is included in a local or state freight plan, part of a facility or organization strategic plan, or included in other planning efforts should be included. Applicants should provide links or other documentation supporting the project’s inclusion in these planning efforts.

(1) Project Schedule. The applicant should include a detailed project schedule that identifies all major project milestones. Examples of such milestones include State and local planning approvals; start and completion of NEPA, and other Federal environmental reviews and approvals including permitting; design completion; right of way acquisition; approval of plans, specifications, and estimates; procurement; State and local approvals; project partnership and implementation agreements, including agreements with non-governmental entities involved in or impacted by the project; and construction. The project schedule should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the project can begin construction quickly upon obligation of PIDP funds, and that the grant funds will be spent expeditiously once construction starts.

(2) Assessment of Project Readiness Risks and Mitigation Strategies. The applicant should identify project risks, such as approval or permit delays, procurement delays, technical challenges in design or construction, environmental uncertainties, increases in real estate acquisition costs, or lack of legislative approval, that affect the likelihood of successful project start and completion. The applicant should assess the greatest risks to the project and include a discussion that identifies how the project parties will mitigate those risks.

b) Environmental Risk

(1) Information about the NEPA status of the project. The applicant should indicate the anticipated NEPA level of review for the project and describe any environmental analysis in progress or completed. This includes Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact, or Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision. The applicant should review Maritime Administration Manual of Orders MAO 600-1 prior to submission. The application should detail the type of NEPA review underway, where the project is in the process, and indicate the anticipated date of completion of all milestones and of the final

NEPA determination. If the last agency action with respect to NEPA documents occurred more than three years before the application date, the applicant should describe why the project has been delayed and include a proposed approach for verifying and, if necessary, updating this material in accordance with applicable NEPA requirements. If applicable, applicants should include a description of discussions with the appropriate Maritime Administration NEPA

Coordinator in the Maritime Administration Office of Environment regarding the project’s compliance with NEPA and other applicable Federal environmental reviews and approvals.

(2) Environmental Permits and Reviews. The application should demonstrate receipt

(or…