PIDP Port Infrastructure Development Program: A Strategic Guide for Port Authorities

The Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) represents the single largest federal investment in U.S. seaport infrastructure in recent decades. Administered by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, PIDP distributes $2.25 billion over five fiscal years (FY2022-2026) to help American ports modernize their facilities, improve safety, enhance resilience, and maintain competitiveness in global supply chains.

For port authorities and terminal operators, PIDP is often the centerpiece of a comprehensive infrastructure funding strategy. Unlike fragmented state and local port programs, PIDP provides substantial federal resources—up to 80% federal share—for capital improvements. Yet many ports have not yet taken full advantage of PIDP's scope and flexibility. This guide explains how PIDP works, who qualifies, what projects win, and how to position your port to capture its share of $450 million available in FY2026.

Program Fundamentals: What Is PIDP?

PIDP was created by Section 50302 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law in November 2021. The statute authorized $2.25 billion over five fiscal years for port infrastructure development, to be administered by MARAD.

The policy rationale is important: American seaports face a dual challenge. First, many port facilities are aging—built in the 1970s-1990s and in need of major modernization. Second, global shipping is evolving: vessels are becoming larger, supply chain resilience is critical, and ports must adapt to maintain competitiveness.

PIDP was designed to address these challenges by providing competitive grants to port authorities and state/local governments for capital infrastructure improvements that enhance safety, efficiency, resilience, and connectivity.

Funding: $450M in FY2026, $2.25B Total

The IIJA appropriated:

Fiscal Year	Appropriation
FY2022	$450M
FY2023	$450M
FY2024	$450M
FY2025	$450M
FY2026	$450M
TOTAL	$2.25B

For FY2026 specifically, $450 million is available. This is a single competitive cycle. Expected award rate: 15-25 grants (average award size $20-40 million, though ranges vary widely).

PIDP is entirely discretionary and competitive. There is no formula allocation, no entitlement, and no guarantee. You must apply, and your project must score well against national priorities.

Eligible Applicants

PIDP is available to a broad range of applicants:

Port authorities and port districts (primary target)
State governments (through state transportation departments or port agencies)
Local governments (counties, municipalities with port responsibility)
Tribal governments (Alaska Native, Native American tribal entities with port infrastructure)
Private terminal operators (in limited cases, partnering with public port authority)

Critical requirement: Your applicant entity must own, control, or have direct operational authority over the port infrastructure being improved. Private companies can apply only if they have a long-term lease or development agreement with a public port authority and that authority is a co-applicant or has formally endorsed the project.

Most PIDP applications come from port authorities (the primary eligible entity type). State transportation departments, especially in coastal states, also apply regularly.

Eligible Port Facilities and Project Types

PIDP funds improvements to deepwater seaports and their direct intermodal connections. Eligible facilities include:

Primary Port Infrastructure

Wharf and pier structures
Cargo handling equipment (cranes, conveyors, automated systems)
Container stacking and storage areas
Bulk cargo facilities (grain, coal, minerals)
Dredging and channel maintenance (to maintain vessel access)
Breakwaters, jetties, and wave barriers
Mooring facilities and vessel tie-up equipment

Intermodal Connections (Rail, Truck, Barge)

Rail access to port (new or improved tracks serving containers/cargo)
Truck lanes and vehicle staging areas within port
Barge docks and water-side cargo transfer facilities
Intermodal container transfer cranes and equipment
Road improvements directly serving port access (limited; must be port-owned or port-controlled)

Sustainability and Resilience

Renewable energy at port facilities (solar, wind)
Electric vehicle charging for yard equipment and trucks
Cargo handling equipment electrification
Climate resilience improvements (flood barriers, elevated infrastructure)
Port safety improvements (emergency response facilities, vessel traffic management)

Not Eligible for PIDP

Inland waterway facilities (barge terminals, inland ports)—use different MARAD programs
Passenger cruise facilities (passenger-only, not cargo-related)
Fish and seafood processing facilities (unless integrated with cargo port)
General economic development (hotels, office buildings, retail)
Facilities not directly supporting cargo or vessel operations

Key distinction: PIDP is for cargo seaports, not inland waterways or cruise terminals. If your facility is primarily a cruise port, PIDP is not your program.

Eligibility: Port Size, Ownership, and Location

PIDP imposes no size limits. Both large ports (major container hubs like LA, Long Beach, Houston) and small ports (regional break-bulk facilities) are eligible.

However, MARAD scoring criteria emphasize:

National significance: Does the project serve national supply chains or import/export flows?
Port efficiency: Does it improve throughput, reduce congestion, or lower cargo handling costs?
Economic impact: Does the project support job creation or regional economic development?
Resilience: Does it address climate risks, supply chain vulnerabilities, or disaster recovery?

Small, remote ports with minimal cargo volume will have lower competitiveness than gateway ports serving major trade corridors (East Coast container hubs, West Coast gateways, Gulf refinery feeders, Great Lakes iron ore). This is not a written rule, but it is reflected in historical awards.

Federal Share: Base 80%, Can Exceed for Small/Rural Ports

PIDP uses a straightforward federal share structure with flexibility:

Base federal share:

80% federal / 20% local match (standard)
For small and rural ports: Up to 90%+ federal (MARAD can waive or increase match requirement)

Local match sources:

State or local government revenues
Private sector investment
Port authority retained earnings
Bonding capacity
Private terminal operator contributions

A typical FY2026 PIDP project might be structured:

Project Component	Example Funding	%
PIDP grant	$24M	80%
Port authority/state match	$6M	20%
Total	$30M	100%

For large ports with significant retained earnings (major container hubs), 20% match is readily available. For smaller ports with limited revenues, MARAD may negotiate a higher federal share (85-90%).

Competitive Scoring Criteria: What MARAD Looks For

PIDP applications are scored against five primary criteria, each weighted equally (20% each):

1. Safety and Security (20%)

Does the project improve port safety? (emergency response, vessel traffic management, structural integrity)
Does it address security vulnerabilities? (access control, surveillance, cybersecurity for port operations)
Does it mitigate environmental hazards? (dangerous goods handling, pollution prevention)

How to strengthen: Conduct a safety/security assessment. Document current vulnerabilities. Show how the project addresses them with quantified improvements (e.g., "reduces emergency response time from 12 to 5 minutes").

2. Economic Benefit and Efficiency (20%)

Does the project reduce cargo handling costs?
Will it enable larger vessels or faster throughput?
What is the economic multiplier? (jobs created, business expansion enabled, supply chain cost savings)
Will it reduce truck congestion or improve rail access?

How to strengthen: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Model the project's impact on vessel turnaround time, labor productivity, and supply chain efficiency. Quantify job creation (construction + permanent operations). Get letters from shipping lines or cargo operators confirming they will use improved facilities.

3. Environmental and Climate Resilience (20%)

Does the project address climate adaptation? (flood-resistant design, elevated infrastructure, weather-resistant cargo handling)
Does it reduce environmental impact? (electrification, emission reductions, stormwater management)
Is it designed to withstand 100-year storms or projected sea-level rise?
Will it support sustainable shipping (renewable fuels, zero-emission equipment)?

How to strengthen: Incorporate climate resilience design (FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers standards). Include electrification of cargo equipment. Design for projected sea-level rise and flood scenarios. Get endorsements from environmental agencies or sustainability organizations.

4. Equity and Workforce Development (20%)

Will the project create good-paying jobs?
Is the port serving disadvantaged communities?
Are there workforce development partnerships? (unions, apprenticeships, training programs)
What are the contracting commitments to minority-owned, women-owned, disadvantaged business enterprises (MBE/WBE/DBE)?

How to strengthen: Develop a workforce plan with documented partnerships from unions and training organizations. Commit to MBE/WBE/DBE contracting (15-25% targets typical). Show how the project will serve lower-income port workers and surrounding communities. Partner with community colleges for equipment operator training.

5. Project Readiness (20%)

How far along is engineering? (preliminary design, final design, or ready to bid)
Is the environmental review (NEPA) complete?
Is local match committed and secured?
Can the project realistically start within 12 months of award?

How to strengthen: Complete preliminary engineering before application. Obtain NEPA clearance (or be well advanced in EA process). Secure board resolutions confirming local match commitment from your port authority or state. Provide a detailed project schedule showing realistic timelines.

Application Process and Timeline

FY2026 Competitive Round Timeline

Event	Target Date
MARAD releases FY2026 PIDP NOFO (Notice of Funding Opportunity)	December 15, 2025 (typical)
Application window opens	December 15, 2025
Application deadline	February 28, 2026 ← CRITICAL
MARAD review and scoring	March-April 2026
Award notifications	May-June 2026
Grant agreements executed	June-August 2026

Key dates:

The February 28, 2026 deadline is firm. Late applications will not be accepted.
Applications are electronic via grants.gov (SAM registration required)
Required documentation includes detailed cost-benefit analysis, environmental documentation, and financial commitment letters

Required Application Components

Project Narrative (10-15 pages)
- Executive summary (1 page)
- Facility description and current condition
- Project scope and justification
- How project addresses each scoring criterion (safety, economic, environmental, equity, readiness)
- Timeline and schedule
Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Total project cost (detailed line-item estimate)
- Federal share request
- Local match commitment
- Benefit quantification: cost savings, time savings, cargo throughput improvement, jobs
- Return on investment (PIDP dollars per job created, etc.)
Environmental Documentation
- NEPA clearance status
- If completed: EA, EIS, or CATEX
- If in progress: timeline to completion and risk assessment
- Environmental impact of the project (emissions reduction, etc.)
Engineering Documents
- Preliminary design drawings (30%+ design minimum)
- 3D renderings (if available)
- Cost estimate validation (engineer-certified)
- Site plans showing vessel and cargo operations
Financial and Governance Documents
- 3 years of audited financial statements (port authority)
- Board resolution committing local match
- Debt capacity analysis (if bonding is part of match)
- Five-year capital and operating budget
Letters of Support
- From shipping companies or terminal operators (critical)
- From state transportation/economic development agencies
- From unions and workforce development partners
- From environmental organizations (if project has sustainability features)
- From local elected officials
Workforce and Equity Plan
- MBE/WBE/DBE contracting targets
- Union partnerships and apprenticeship programs
- Community engagement (if port serves disadvantaged areas)

Historical Award Patterns: What Wins?

PIDP has completed three competitive rounds (FY2022, FY2023, FY2024). Analysis of awards shows:

Large Container Ports (Winners)

Projects: $30-60+ million (full terminal modernization, mega-crane replacement)
Examples: East Coast major hubs (NY/NJ, Savannah, Charleston) receiving multiple awards for container facility upgrades
Success factors: Strong economic justification (enables larger vessels, faster turnaround), major carrier support (Maersk, MSC, Evergreen), existing significant container volume

Mid-Size Ports (Moderately Competitive)

Projects: $15-40 million (breakbulk facility improvement, rail connectivity, container handling upgrade)
Success factors: Clear supply chain gap (e.g., missing rail access, bottleneck reducing throughput), regional economic significance, committed local match
Examples: Ports serving inland corridors (Memphis, Nashville barge connections) or regional gateways

Small and Rural Ports (Lower Award Rate)

Projects: $5-20 million (specific facility upgrades, equipment replacement)
Success factors: Exceptional resilience value (isolated port at climate risk), unique cargo (specialty breakbulk, minerals, agriculture), strong equity component
Example: Small Alaskan port receiving grant for vessel traffic management system (safety and resilience)

Takeaway: Large container hubs are easier to fund (economies of scale, existing volumes). Small ports can win if they address specific vulnerabilities (safety, climate resilience) or serve unique supply chains.

Layering PIDP with Other Funding Sources

Few ports fund projects entirely with PIDP. Strategic layering is common:

Example: Container Terminal Modernization ($60M Total)

Funding Source	Amount	Notes
PIDP grant	$40M	67% (exceeds typical 80% for large hub match capacity)
State port bond	$12M	State DOT or port authority bonding
Terminal operator equity	$8M	Private terminal operator contributes toward project benefiting their operations
Total	$60M	Fully funded

Example: Regional Break-Bulk Facility ($15M Total)

Funding Source	Amount	Notes
PIDP grant	$12M	80% federal share
Local port match	$3M	Port authority retained earnings
Total	$15M	Fully funded

PIDP is typically the primary federal source (50-80% of total project cost). State grants, bonding, and private contributions close the gap.

Strategic Positioning: How to Win a PIDP Award

Strategy 1: Demonstrate Existing Cargo Volume and Growth Trajectory

The strongest PIDP applications show current cargo throughput with documented growth potential. Get baseline data from your port's operational statistics and provide shipping line projections.

Action: Collect 5 years of container volume, break-bulk tonnage, and revenue data. Show trend. Get letters from major shippers confirming they have cargo ready to move through the port if capacity/efficiency improves.

Strategy 2: Identify a Specific Bottleneck or Inefficiency

Vague "we need modernization" proposals score poorly. Specific problems score well. Examples:

"Current cargo cranes are 25+ years old, averaging 4 moves/hour; new STS cranes achieve 8 moves/hour, reducing vessel turnaround by 12 hours"
"Our facility lacks rail access; 80% of incoming containers go by truck, causing highway congestion; new rail spur will shift 50% to rail"
"Current mooring capacity is insufficient for Post-Panamax vessels; new berth will enable 15% larger vessels and 20% lower per-unit cost"

Strategy 3: Bring Climate Resilience and Sustainability

MARAD weights environmental criteria heavily. Ports that incorporate renewable energy, electrification, and climate adaptation design will score higher.

Action: Design for 100-year storm or projected sea-level rise (whichever is more stringent). Include solar, EV charging, electrified cargo equipment. Get a resilience assessment from a consulting firm (AECOM, Jacobs, HDR, etc.).

Strategy 4: Secure Strong Local Match Commitments Early

Applications without committed match will lag. Get your city council, port board, or state transportation agency to pass a resolution before you submit the application.

Action: Board resolution must state: (a) the local match amount, (b) the funding source, (c) the port executive director's/governor's commitment to execute the project.

Strategy 5: Provide Letters of Support from Shipping Operators

A letter from Maersk, MSC, Evergreen, or another major carrier saying "we support this project and will route additional cargo through this port post-project" is extraordinarily valuable.

Action: Schedule meetings with terminal operators and shipping lines. Show them the project. Ask for a letter of support. Even if they cannot promise specific cargo volumes, their statement of support strengthens your proposal.

Common Mistakes and Pitfalls

Mistake 1: Applying for Inland Waterway Improvements

PIDP is for deepwater seaports. Inland barges, river ports, and lock improvements are not eligible. Applicants sometimes confuse PIDP with other MARAD programs (Inland Waterways Users Board grant program).

Verify: Your facility must be a coastal seaport (Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Great Lakes) with vessel operations and cargo handling.

Mistake 2: Overestimating Economic Benefits

MARAD is sophisticated. Inflated job creation claims or unrealistic cargo growth projections will be flagged and reduce your score.

Action: Use conservative growth assumptions. Base job projections on industry standards (typically 1 job per $500K of project cost for construction, 1-5 permanent jobs per $1M project cost). Get economist review.

Mistake 3: Weak Readiness Documentation

Projects that have only a concept sketch and no engineering will score poorly on readiness (20% of score).

Action: By application deadline, you should have preliminary design (30%+ complete) and NEPA clearance (EA complete or in final stages). This requires starting work 12+ months before application.

Mistake 4: Insufficient Environmental Planning

NEPA review is not optional. Projects submitted with no environmental documentation will be deferred or rejected.

Action: Begin environmental assessment 12-18 months before your application deadline. Engage an environmental firm early.

Mistake 5: No Letters from Operators or Shippers

Applications without industry support are significantly weaker.

Action: Identify major shippers and terminal operators early. Meet with them. Get written support.

Timeline for Your FY2026 Application

If you plan to apply in February 2026, you should start now:

Timeframe	Action
Now (Feb 2026)	Contact MARAD, confirm eligibility, review FY2025 award summaries for patterns
Feb-March 2026	Assemble preliminary engineering team (if not already done), begin detailed design, initiate NEPA
March-April 2026	Complete preliminary engineering (30-40%), complete NEPA EA, secure board match resolution
April-May 2026	Draft application, cost-benefit analysis, get letters of support from operators/shippers
May-June 2026	Finalize application, internal review, submit by deadline
June-Aug 2026	MARAD review period, awards announced
Aug-Sept 2026	Negotiate grant agreement, obligate funds
Sept 2026+	Begin final design and construction

The February 28, 2026 deadline is soon. If your port hasn't started planning for FY2026 PIDP, move quickly.

Conclusion and Action Checklist

PIDP is the premier federal program for seaport infrastructure. With $450 million in FY2026 allocations and a maximum 80% federal share, PIDP can provide $30-50+ million for major port projects.

Action checklist for your port:

Confirm your port is eligible (coastal, cargo-handling seaport)
Identify a primary project (30-50 year shelf-life, addresses bottleneck)
Initiate preliminary engineering and NEPA environmental review now
Quantify current cargo volume and project future growth
Identify shipping line/terminal operator support
Obtain board resolution committing local match
Develop cost-benefit analysis with conservative economic assumptions
Draft detailed application highlighting safety, economic efficiency, resilience, and equity
Submit before February 28, 2026 deadline

The window is open. Will your port capture it?

This analysis was prepared with AI-assisted research by DWU Consulting. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. All data should be independently verified before use in any official capacity.