When You Apply for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Funds

Using FEMA GO

Technical Criteria

Qualitative Criteria

Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation

Milestones and Cost Effectiveness

Management Costs

A note for subapplicants: Many states and territories have subapplication deadlines that precede FEMA's application deadline. Contact your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) or applicant's office to learn about your applicant's deadlines.

Apply Using FEMA GO

Eligible applicants and subapplicants must apply for funding using the grants management system: FEMA GO. BRIC will not accept paper applications. FEMA GO replaced eGrants for the BRIC and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant programs.

Learn more about the FEMA GO system by reading user guides and videos, or directly access the FEMA GO portal.

Submitting as an Applicant or Subapplicant

Applicants may work with their FEMA regional office. Subapplicants may work with their respective applicant (state, tribe or territory) to submit subapplications by the applicant’s own submission deadline.

Applicants must prioritize, rank and attach subapplications before submitting them as a final, single BRIC application to FEMA by Feb. 29, 2024, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

New system-related issues will be addressed until Feb. 27, 2024, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time. Applicants facing technical problems outside of their control must notify FEMA by this deadline.

Please note that FEMA deadlines listed refer to application deadlines for the applicants. Subapplicants should check with their applicant agency to confirm their deadlines.

Technical and Qualitative Criteria for Projects Evaluated under the National Competition

A project’s cumulative score from both the qualitative and technical evaluations will determine its priority order among projects considered in the national competition.

Technical Evaluation Criteria

Technical evaluation criteria reviews will be performed by FEMA staff. In order to ensure transparency and efficiency in competition project selection, technical evaluation criteria awards binary points (full points or zero points) for each criterion or tiered points (points allotted for the element of the criterion met).   

While the National Technical Review determines if a project is cost-effective and technically feasible, the technical evaluation criteria offer incentives for additional elements valued by FEMA, such as projects that mitigate risk to infrastructure or incorporate nature-based solutions.

All mitigation project subapplications will receive a technical evaluation criteria score, and if needed based on the number of subapplications submitted to the BRIC program, FEMA will use the technical evaluation criteria scoring as a program priority screening tool to determine which subapplications continue to the qualitative evaluation review.

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria

The qualitative review allows subapplicants the flexibility to fully explain the strengths of the proposed project and our stakeholders to participate in the review process. FEMA developed the qualitative evaluation criteria based on comments received through summer of 2019 stakeholder engagement efforts.

For example, comments indicated support for holistic project evaluation beyond economic metrics alone, such as highlighting the value of partnerships and the importance of considering future conditions and climate change. View more information on BRIC and stakeholder engagement efforts.

Qualitative Criterion Prompts

Prompts are outlined for each qualitative criterion to serve as a helpful starting point for applicants and subapplicants. These prompts are designed to clarify terms and provide guiding questions for applicants and subapplicants to consider as they write the subapplication. This information will be provided to panelists who will review the subapplications submitted in the national competition to foster a common frame of reference.

Please note that answering every question, while informative, will not necessarily guarantee an “Exceeds” score. Prompts included are by no means mutually exclusive or exhaustive; any additional information to support the merit of the subapplication is welcome.

Scoring of Qualitative Evaluations

FEMA will convene a National Review Panel to score subapplications based on qualitative evaluation criteria. The BRIC national competition National Review Panel will include FEMA regional office and headquarters staff, as well as representatives from state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and other federal agencies. The National Review Panel will help increase transparency in decision-making while building capability and partnerships.

Qualitative evaluation criteria have graded scales of point scoring. Panelists in the National Review Panel will leverage their mitigation experience and expertise during the review to assess the degree to which subapplications meet the six BRIC qualitative evaluation criteria using the following scale: not at all, minimally, partially, mostly, entirely, or exceeds (see Table 1 in the BRIC Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Program Support Material, found on the PSM Resources webpage, for more information on these scoring options).

The National Review Panel will apply the scoring options to all six qualitative criteria. However, point values associated with each scoring option vary among criteria, depending on the total possible points for each criterion. The graded scoring and point scales for each qualitative evaluation criterion are included in the BRIC Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Program Support Material (found on the PSM Resources Webpage). The subapplication’s final qualitative score will be calculated by averaging the qualitative scores from each panelist who reviewed the subapplication.

Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Requirements

Compliance with all applicable Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation laws, Executive Orders and regulations to assess potential impacts of a proposed project on affected physical, cultural (historic and archaeological), biological, and social resources is a condition of BRIC funding. Consequently, all BRIC project subapplications must undergo an Environmental Historic Preservation review as part of FEMA’s eligibility review process prior to award.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires FEMA and other federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of, in some cases, multiple alternatives to a proposed project as part of the application review process. FEMA must also ensure a proposed project meets the requirements of various other federal laws and Executive Orders, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands.

Applicants should consider environmental planning and historic preservation impacts early in the project scoping and development stages to help minimize impacts and avoid delays and additional costs at later stages. Early environmental planning, including consideration of possible conservation and mitigation measures that can be incorporated into the project to avoid or minimize adverse impacts, may also expedite the EHP review process.

Some project types do not require an EHP review under NEPA because they are listed as a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) because they would not result in a significant environmental impact.

Applicants and subapplicants should complete the EHP Checklist when scoping a project to assist in consideration of EHP requirements—including understanding where impacts could be avoided or minimized—during the development of a complete project application (FEMA refers to consideration of EHP impacts at the earliest point possible in the decision-making process as “EHP frontloading”). Find guidance on EHP frontloading during application development.

EHP Considerations for Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Projects

Hazardous fuels reduction is one of the commonly implemented wildfire mitigation project types and is designed to moderate fire behavior and reduce the risk of damage to life and property in the target area for mitigation. The project design must include consideration of EHP resources in accordance with all environmental and historic preservation laws, Executive Orders, and regulations, including endangered or threatened species or critical habitat and whether the proposed project might impact historic or cultural resources in the proposed project area. 

Changes in vegetation (through removal and/or planting) may impact habitat, species, surface water, groundwater, floodplains, or visual aesthetics. The methods used to manage vegetation may increase erosion and sedimentation, impact species, or affect human communities. Under NEPA, certain categories of actions can be categorically excluded (i.e., a “CATEX” could be applied) if FEMA has previously determined that they are unlikely to have significant impacts on EHP resources.

EHP Considerations for Flood Risk Reduction Projects

Flood risk reduction projects are designed to lessen the frequency or depth of flooding. These projects involve activities such as installing or modifying culverts and other stormwater management facilities; constructing or modifying retention and detention basins; applying nature-based solutions; and constructing or modifying floodwalls, dams, and weirs. Flood risk reduction projects may impact floodplain resources and change flood elevations, extending upstream and/or downstream from the project.

The methods used to construct a flood risk reduction project may result in erosion and sedimentation, impact species, or affect human communities. Ground disturbance could affect archaeological resources, soils, or utilities. Major flood control construction projects may require more in-depth NEPA analysis via an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Nature-Based Solutions

Nature-based solutions are evaluated with a technical criterion to score subapplications submitted to the national competition. To receive the point allotment for this criterion, the subapplication must indicate and describe how the project incorporates one or more nature-based solutions, which are sustainable environmental management practices that restore, mimic, and/or enhance nature and natural systems or processes and support natural hazard risk mitigation as well as economic, environmental, and social resilience efforts.

Nature-based solutions use approaches that include, but are not limited to, restoration of grasslands, rivers, floodplains, wetlands, dunes, and reefs; living shorelines; soil stabilization; aquifer storage and recovery; and bioretention systems.

Documenting Milestones and Cost Effectiveness

Go/No-Go Milestones

The subapplicant, in coordination with the applicant, must identify a minimum of one Go/No-Go milestone within the work schedule for mitigation projects submitted to the national competition that FEMA will review and approve. Mitigation projects submitted under the state or territory allocation or tribal set-aside do not require Go/No-Go milestones.

A Go/No-Go milestone is a critical milestone in the project that if not completed on time may result in a cancellation of the subaward. Progress towards meeting the Go/No-Go milestones must be reported in the quarterly progress reports submitted to the recipient and FEMA. At these Go/No-Go milestones, FEMA will evaluate project performance, schedule adherence and contribution to FEMA’s program goals and objectives.

Showing Cost-Effectiveness

Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) is a method that determines the future risk reduction benefits of a hazard mitigation project and compares those benefits to its costs. The result is a benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Applicants and subapplicants must use FEMA-approved methodologies and tools—such as the BCA Toolkit—to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of their projects.

FEMA recognizes the significant challenges experienced by our stakeholders related to demonstrating cost-effectiveness of mitigation projects.  To help address this, FEMA will review hazard mitigation project subapplications during the pre-award process that are competitive and otherwise eligible for selection where an Economically Disadvantaged Rural Community, federally recognized tribal government, or subapplication for a hazard mitigation project within or primarily benefiting a Community Disaster Resilience Zone  is unable to calculate a BCR to demonstrate cost-effectiveness.  FEMA may assist such communities with developing a BCA.  Projects with a total cost of less than $1,000,000 that qualify for BCA Assistance under this provision are not required to submit a cost-effectiveness narrative.

To streamline the grant application process, FEMA has released pre-calculated analyses for several eligible projects including:

• Acquisitions and Elevations in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
• Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofits
• Non-Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofits
• Individual Tornado Safe Rooms
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post Wildfire

Management Costs

Management costs are any indirect costs, any direct administrative costs, and other administrative expenses that are reasonably incurred in administering an award or subaward.

Eligible applicant or subapplicant management cost activities may include:

• Solicitation, review, and processing of subapplications and subawards
• Subapplication development and technical assistance to subapplicants regarding feasibility and effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Geocoding mitigation projects identified for further review by FEMA
• Delivery of technical assistance (e.g., plan reviews, planning workshops, training) to support the implementation of mitigation activities
• Managing awards (e.g., quarterly reporting including managing Go/No-Go milestones, closeout)
• Technical monitoring (e.g., site visits, technical meetings)
• Purchase of equipment, per diem and travel expenses, and professional development that is directly related to the implementation of Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs
• Staff salary costs directly related to performing the activities listed above

Requesting Approval of Management Costs

In addition to proposed project costs, applicants and subapplicants can request management costs in their Application and subapplication totaling up to 15% of the total amount of the grant award. However, an applicant may include no more than 10% of its budget for management costs to administer and manage award and subaward activities; a subapplicant may include subapplicant management costs of up to 5% of the total cost of its Capability- and Capacity-Building (C&CB) activity or mitigation project subapplication to manage the proposed subaward activities.

Applicant requests for management costs must be submitted in a separate management costs subapplication in FEMA GO. Subapplicant management cost activities must be added to the Scope of Work section and identified as a line item in the Cost Estimate section of subapplications in FEMA GO. FEMA will provide 100% federal funding for management costs.