BUILD Discretionary Grant Program (formerly RAISE/TIGER)

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

BUILD Discretionary Grant Program (formerly RAISE/TIGER)

BUILD is USDOT’s competitive discretionary grant program for surface transportation projects that matter beyond a single parcel, intersection, or corridor segment. It is not formula money and it is not a general infrastructure wishlist. It is for public sponsors that can make a credible case that a specific project will improve mobility, safety, access, freight flow, resilience, or economic connection at a local or regional scale.

For the FY 2026 round, USDOT labeled the program BUILD and identified it as the program formerly known as RAISE and TIGER. The official application page says applications were due February 24, 2026 at 5:00 PM Eastern, late submissions were not accepted, and letters of support were accepted through March 13, 2026 through Valid Eval.

If you are reading this after the deadline, the FY 2026 cycle is closed. The page is still useful because the application structure, applicant expectations, and submission workflow are the best guide for whether a future BUILD notice is worth your team’s time.

At a glance

What the program is really for

BUILD is designed for projects that are more than routine maintenance and more than a local improvement with narrow benefit. A strong application usually shows that the project changes how people or goods move across a meaningful area. That can mean fixing a bottleneck in a freight corridor, connecting a disadvantaged neighborhood to jobs, improving access to a port or transit hub, replacing an outdated bridge, or making a road safer and more reliable for a larger network.

The exact project types that win vary by year, but the common thread is easy to spot: the sponsor can explain a concrete transportation problem, describe a plausible solution, and show why the investment is worth federal attention instead of another local program. BUILD is discretionary, so technical quality matters, but so does the story. Reviewers need to see not only that the project is buildable, but that it is meaningful.

This is why the program can be attractive and frustrating at the same time. It is attractive because the grant can support projects that are hard to fund through normal formula channels. It is frustrating because the application asks for a lot of evidence, and weak packaging often loses to stronger, more organized submissions even when the underlying project is decent.

What it can fund

The FY 2026 materials describe BUILD as a program for surface transportation projects. In practical terms, that usually means projects such as:

• multimodal corridor upgrades,
• freight access improvements,
• port, rail, or transit access connections,
• bridge or roadway modernization,
• safety-focused redesigns,
• and related connectivity or access projects that show regional value.

The page does not promise a set award size, because that depends on the annual notice and the scope of the project. That means the most important question is not “How much can I get?” but “Can I justify a project that is large, mature, and important enough for a discretionary federal competition?”

If your project is still at a conceptual stage, BUILD is usually not the first stop. If your project needs a lot of study before it can even be scoped, the program may be too competitive for the current cycle. If you already have engineering work, a realistic budget, and a clear public sponsor, it becomes much more plausible.

Is it worth your time?

For many applicants, the answer is “yes, but only if the project is already close to ready.” BUILD is not a good place to experiment with a vague idea. It rewards readiness, coordination, and evidence. That means the program is worth pursuing when all of the following are true:

1. You have a defined transportation problem and a specific project, not just a policy goal.
2. Your project sponsor has authority to lead the application.
3. You can assemble partner support without chasing signatures at the last minute.
4. You have enough technical detail to build a budget, schedule, and benefit-cost case.
5. You can show why the project matters beyond your immediate jurisdiction.

It is probably not worth the effort if you are still deciding between several project concepts, if your team does not yet know who owns each portion of the work, or if you cannot explain how the project will be delivered on time and on budget. In this program, a half-finished application is often worse than no application at all, because the competition rewards polish and credibility.

Who should apply

The FY 2026 page says eligible applicants included state and local governments, counties, federally recognized Tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, and other eligible public-sector transportation project sponsors defined in the NOFO.

That is an important signal. BUILD is aimed primarily at public sponsors, not private firms seeking a standalone infrastructure grant. Private entities may still play a role as consultants, contractors, design partners, or operators, but they are usually not the lead applicant.

The best-fit applicants usually share a few traits:

• they control or can credibly sponsor the project,
• they understand the local transportation problem in detail,
• they have partner agencies lined up,
• and they can explain the public benefit in plain language.

If your agency has never applied for a competitive federal transportation grant before, BUILD can still be worth pursuing, but only if you have enough internal capacity or external help to manage the application process. The program asks for more than a short narrative. It requires coordination across planning, finance, engineering, legal review, and executive approval.

Eligibility and project fit

The eligibility question is not only “Are we allowed to apply?” It is also “Does this project look like something BUILD is meant to solve?”

A good BUILD project is usually one of these:

• a network problem that affects multiple jurisdictions,
• a freight or access problem with economic consequences,
• a safety or congestion issue that has measurable public impact,
• or a multimodal connection that improves how a larger system works.

A weak BUILD project is usually one of these:

• a local improvement with no broader transportation story,
• a concept that lacks ready-to-use cost or schedule information,
• a project that depends on unresolved land, utility, or permitting issues,
• or a proposal that is mostly a wish list with no delivery plan.

The application is not asking you to claim that your project solves everything. It is asking you to show that the project is real, grounded, and likely to produce visible transportation value. The more concrete your evidence, the better.

How to apply

For FY 2026, USDOT’s official guidance said not to apply through Grants.gov even though the opportunity appears there. The actual application was submitted through Valid Eval. The application page also says the primary contact should be a staff member from the applicant organization who signed the SF-424 as the Authorized Representative, or the person listed as the contact on the SF-424.

The basic workflow looked like this:

1. Confirm your organization is eligible and has a legitimate lead applicant.
2. Get or verify your UEI through SAM.gov.
3. Register in Valid Eval before deadline pressure starts.
4. Assemble the application package in the exact format requested.
5. Upload the forms and attachments in Valid Eval.
6. the captured-cycle instructions asked applicants to submit before the deadline and save proof of submission.

That sounds simple, but most of the real work happens before step 4. The application is won or lost in the internal prep. A team that treats the portal as the hard part usually runs into trouble. The portal is just the final gate.

Timeline and deadline

The FY 2026 BUILD page said applications were due February 24, 2026 at 5:00 PM Eastern and that late applications would not be accepted. It also said letters of support would be accepted through March 13, 2026 on Valid Eval.

There are two practical lessons here. First, deadline day is too late to discover a missing attachment, broken login, or bad file format. Second, even after the main application closes, some supporting items can have their own later deadline. That means your team should not assume everything is due at the same moment.

If you are preparing for a future cycle, use the expired FY 2026 deadline as a planning warning, not a model to ignore. Build in enough time for internal review, final signatures, and platform testing.

What the application package included

The official application page listed a fairly specific checklist. That checklist matters because it tells you how much work the application really takes.

The page also noted that only capital project applications submit the benefit-cost analysis narrative and calculations. That distinction matters because it changes the amount of technical work required. A planning application is still work, but a capital application is usually heavier on engineering, cost analysis, and delivery readiness.

In other words: do not wait until the end to discover whether your application is planning or capital, because the document burden is different.

Required materials and what reviewers are looking for

The forms are important, but the substance matters more. Reviewers are usually trying to answer a few simple questions:

• What problem does this project solve?
• Why is this the right solution?
• Can the sponsor actually deliver it?
• Is the budget believable?
• Does the public benefit justify federal investment?

To answer those questions well, your application should be organized around evidence. That means using current or recent baseline conditions, not vague claims. It means tying the project description to the budget and the schedule. It means showing who is responsible for what after award. And it means using the benefit-cost narrative as a real analytical tool, not a spreadsheet exercise.

The most useful evidence package usually includes:

• current condition or deficiency documentation,
• a credible cost estimate method,
• a schedule with realistic milestones,
• permitting and right-of-way status,
• a clear governance or delivery structure,
• and partner letters that describe actual roles, not generic support.

If the project needs a lot of coordination across agencies, make that visible. If one agency will own design, another will maintain the asset, and a third will provide a commitment letter, spell it out. BUILD is the wrong place to hide complexity. The reviewers want to understand it.

How to prepare a stronger application

The strongest BUILD applications usually do a few things well.

First, they define the problem in transportation terms, not just in civic rhetoric. “This corridor is important” is weaker than “this corridor has a recurring bottleneck that slows freight movement, transit reliability, and emergency access.” Precision helps because it gives reviewers a reason to believe your proposed solution matches the need.

Second, they make the project feel ready. Readiness does not mean every permit is complete, but it does mean the sponsor knows the status of design, land, utilities, environmental review, and procurement. A project that looks stuck can be hard to recommend, even if the concept is attractive.

Third, they keep the financial narrative consistent. The budget, narrative, commitments, and schedule should all say the same thing. If the narrative implies a phased project but the budget reads like a single construction contract, reviewers notice. If the commitment letters do not match the funding story, reviewers notice that too.

Fourth, they show regional value. BUILD is not just for the direct users of a project. Successful applications often explain how the project affects a broader transportation network, a labor market, a freight corridor, a tribal community, or a regional access pattern.

Fifth, they write for people outside the sponsor’s own office. The best application does not assume the reviewer already knows the corridor, the agency, or the local history. It makes the case from first principles and uses evidence to back it up.

Common mistakes

The most common mistakes are easy to describe and hard to fix under deadline pressure.

1. Applying with a project that is still too conceptual.
2. Treating the application like a generic grant narrative instead of a transportation case.
3. Waiting too long to confirm who signs what.
4. Forgetting that Valid Eval is the real submission system for FY 2026.
5. Submitting a budget that does not match the project description.
6. Leaving out location files or uploading them in the wrong format.
7. Writing a benefit-cost section that is thin or disconnected from the project.
8. Relying on generic letters of support with no project-specific commitments.
9. Ignoring the difference between planning and capital application requirements.
10. Assuming the application can be cleaned up after it is uploaded.

Most of these mistakes are avoidable with a dry run. The application should be complete in your internal system before anyone touches the final portal. If you are still editing content when you are uploading, you are already late.

Practical tips before you spend time on it

If you are deciding whether to pursue BUILD, use this quick screen.

• If the project is not clearly transportation-related, stop.
• If the sponsor cannot lead the application, stop.
• If the team cannot produce a believable budget and schedule, pause.
• If you do not have a credible benefit story, do more work before applying.
• If the application would depend on last-minute document chasing, expect trouble.

If the project passes those tests, then BUILD may be a good fit. At that point, the next step is to assign owners and work backward from the deadline. A realistic application team usually has a project lead, a budget lead, a technical writer or narrative lead, a benefit-cost lead, a compliance reviewer, and an executive approver. That is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is how you keep a competitive package from turning into a pile of disconnected documents.

For the FY 2026 cycle, the application page also made one very practical point: you could register in Valid Eval ahead of time, and registration should take about 10 minutes. That means there was no excuse to wait until the final week to create accounts and test access.

What to do next

If you are still actively working on a BUILD-style project, start with the official NOFO and the “How to Apply” page. Then confirm whether your organization is the correct applicant, whether your project is capital or planning, and whether you have enough technical material to support the required narrative sections.

If you are not ready for a future cycle, keep the project data organized anyway. Save the cost estimate, concept plan, baseline condition data, partner letters, and any benefit-cost work you already have. BUILD rewards iteration. Teams that keep good records tend to move faster the next time the notice opens.

FAQ

Is BUILD the same as RAISE or TIGER?

For FY 2026, USDOT presented BUILD as the program previously known as RAISE and TIGER. The current page uses BUILD, so that is the name to follow on official materials.

Can I apply through Grants.gov?

No. The FY 2026 application page explicitly says not to apply through Grants.gov. The grant may appear there for reference, but the actual submission was through Valid Eval.

Do I need a benefit-cost analysis?

For capital project applications, yes. The official application page says those applications submit both a benefit-cost analysis narrative and calculations. Planning applications have a different package.

What happens if I miss the deadline?

The page says late applications are not accepted. If the timestamp is after 5:00 PM Eastern on the deadline date, the application is ineligible for review.

Can private companies be the lead applicant?

The page highlights public-sector sponsors such as states, local governments, counties, Tribal governments, transit agencies, and port authorities. Private firms are usually not the lead applicant for this program.

Is it enough to have a good project idea?

No. BUILD expects a complete, competitive package with narratives, forms, attachments, and a submission workflow that works before deadline day. A good idea alone is not enough.

Official links

• FY 2026 BUILD NOFO: https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants/NOFO
• How to Apply for BUILD Grants: https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants/apply
• FY 2026 BUILD webinar series: https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants/webinars
• USDOT grants portal: https://www.transportation.gov/grants
• Valid Eval planning portal: https://usg.valideval.com/teams/usdot_build_2026_planning/signup
• Valid Eval capital portal: https://usg.valideval.com/teams/usdot_build_2026_capital/signup

The bottom line: BUILD is worth pursuing when you already have a real transportation project, a public sponsor with authority, and the internal capacity to produce a careful, evidence-backed application. If you do not have those pieces yet, spend the time getting the project ready first. That will do more for your odds than rushing a weak submission into the portal.