USDA Feasibility Study Grants and Funding Calendar: 2026–2027 Deadlines, Requirements & Consulting Services

How to read this calendar

• A: an explicit independent-study requirement for a defined program or transaction.
• B: study or planning costs may be eligible—not a promise of reimbursement.
• C: analysis can be useful but is not universally mandated.
• D: financing requires technical, economic or financial evidence, sometimes in several documents.
• E: a closed, held or unannounced funding cycle.

Labels are program-specific and can overlap. “Open” requires a supported application window. “Ongoing intake” does not guarantee funding. “Projected” is never a confirmed deadline. A deadline's exact time and time zone must come from its controlling notice.

USDA program-by-program funding calendar

Last monitoring run: 2026-10-22T16:44:27.556Z. Result: completed-with-source-failures. 25 source retrieval failures; 20 records need review. Next check: 2026-10-23T16:44:27.556Z.

On a phone, each row is presented as a complete program card. On wider screens, scroll the table horizontally to see every field.

What does a USDA feasibility study need to address?

A funding calendar answers when a filing can be made. A feasibility study addresses whether a defined project can operate and support its financial obligations under stated assumptions. Those are different questions. Scope depends on the current program, solicitation, project complexity, lender and intended users—not simply a report title.

1. Executive summary and independent conclusions: state the project, intended decision, findings, conditions and material uncertainties. A qualified conclusion is not an agency approval.
2. Project, site and development plan: describe the facility, proposed operations, site control, development phases and delivery dependencies.
3. Market area and demand: identify the economic market, customer base, competition, supply, demand drivers, pricing and support for absorption or sales forecasts.
4. Industry and operating context: examine inputs, logistics, workforce, contracts, industry capacity and constraints affecting the proposed business.
5. Technical feasibility: relate proposed production capacity and operating requirements to qualified engineering and technical evidence. Clearly identify work outside the consultant's scope.
6. Costs and financing: reconcile construction/development budgets, equipment, contingencies, sources and uses, matching funds and the timing of disbursements.
7. Management and operations: assess relevant experience, staffing, operating plans, governance and execution risks using supplied evidence.
8. Financial feasibility: document revenue, expenses, projections, working capital, cash flow, break-even, debt service and repayment capacity.
9. Sensitivity and downside cases: test demand, price, throughput, cost, delays and interest-rate assumptions rather than relying on a single favorable case.
10. Sources, independence and limitations: identify evidence, dates, assumptions, consultant qualifications, conflicts, report-recency requirements and scope boundaries.

A generic business plan does not automatically satisfy a required independent feasibility study. Nor can an independent financial study replace a required engineering, environmental, legal, architectural or accounting deliverable.

B&I: distinguish the lender's underwriting from independent analysis

7 CFR 5001.306(a)(3) contains specific B&I application requirements. For guaranteed loans greater than $1 million to a new business, paragraph (a)(3)(i) requires a feasibility study prepared by an independent qualified consultant acceptable to the Agency. The Agency determines scope based on the project and borrower. It can also require a study where other evidence is insufficient; paragraph (a)(3)(ii) addresses smaller loans and other specified circumstances. Technical reports under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) may be required for the identified energy and processing systems.

The lender retains responsibility for its credit evaluation, loan structure, collateral and repayment analysis. An outside consultant provides contracted independent evidence—not a substitute loan approval. Read the full rule, current notices and lender instructions together. See the B&I feasibility study guide and USDA B&I feasibility-study services.

FIELDS: the solicitation—not a generic checklist—controls

The FY 2026 FIELDS solicitation required a recently completed, project-specific feasibility study dated no more than three years before submission and signed by a qualified consultant. Its definitions establish independence; USDA must concur that the study is acceptable and adequate. The filing window closed August 17, 2026.

Those are historical FY 2026 conditions, not a promise of identical rules or a new window in FY 2027. For planning, assemble evidence about feedstock, production, markets, offtake, capital cost, operating cost, management and financing. Before the next application, reconcile that work against the actual new solicitation. Read the FIELDS study guide.

Required studies, eligible costs and reimbursement are different

A grant is an award for eligible activities under an agreement. A loan guarantee supports a qualifying lender's credit exposure; it is not free capital for the borrower. An eligible study expense is an activity that a particular award may pay for. A mandatory study is evidence the application must supply. One does not automatically imply another.

RBDG, VAPG planning, SEARCH and eligible technical-assistance programs can support certain planning activities. That does not mean every developer can apply directly, or that a study purchased before award will be reimbursed. Check the grantee class, procurement requirements, matching rules, approved budget, expense period and pre-award cost restrictions before committing money.

For example, an eligible nonprofit might commission rural business feasibility work within an approved RBDG project, while a private borrower separately obtains a required B&I study for its lender. A producer seeking VAPG planning assistance follows a different path from a working-capital applicant. See the broader USDA grants and financing guide for program explanations rather than a second deadline calendar.

Independent USDA Feasibility Studies for Lenders, Manufacturers and Rural Development Projects

Wert-Berater provides independent feasibility analysis and financial modeling for financing, investment and development decisions. Assignments can cover market and industry research, demand validation, operating forecasts, project financial projections, sensitivity analysis and documented feasibility determinations.

Relevant project types include fertilizer and agricultural-input manufacturing; food, agricultural, meat and poultry processing; renewable energy and biobased manufacturing; rural business expansion; industrial construction; value-added agricultural products; eligible community and infrastructure projects; business acquisitions and new business development; and projects pursuing B&I financing. Listing a sector does not establish eligibility for a particular program.

A grant writer assembles an application. An engineering firm develops technical plans and supporting reports. A business plan writer describes a business and its operating strategy. An independent feasibility consultant evaluates viability under an agreed analytical scope. The lender and USDA make their respective financing and eligibility decisions. Wert-Berater does not award USDA grants or guarantee approval, financing, compliance or reimbursement.

Explore VAPG study planning, REAP analysis, Community Facilities study scope and USDA outsourced underwriting support. Historical engagements include a clean-ammonia FIELDS feasibility assignment and a pyrolysis and biochar manufacturing expansion study. These are engagement examples, not evidence that another applicant will receive funding.

When and how to commission a study

1. Identify the program, current notice, applicant, project address and intended financing decision.
2. Ask the lender or responsible program office which independent documents are needed and whether study costs can be funded.
3. Share a non-confidential project summary, proposed size, estimated budget, available records, intended users and real filing deadline through the existing inquiry form.
4. Agree a written scope, sources, assumptions, specialist interfaces, deliverables, fixed fee and schedule. Begin substantive work after the engagement and source-file requirements are settled.
5. Allow time for data gaps, lender questions and revisions before filing. Normal study delivery is 10–15 business days from a complete file, subject to the agreed scope; rush availability is not a promise to meet an unrealistic deadline.

Are You a USDA Lender or Rural Development Organization?

Discuss independent feasibility-study support for borrowers, rural businesses and capital projects. Existing lenders can also use the feasibility-study ordering page.

Source verification, update policy and limitations

Funding dates and feasibility-study requirements are checked against official USDA, Grants.gov and Federal Register sources. Confirmed deadlines are distinguished from projected cycles. Requirements may change, and applicants should review the controlling notice and consult the responsible program office before relying on a deadline or eligibility determination.

The calendar audits October 2026 through September 2027 and retains earlier closed cycles as history. “Next cycle not announced” means no supported next date was identified in the inspected sources; it is not a claim that USDA will never offer the program. A general “Open” badge does not overrule a dated closure or detailed hold notice.

Daily monitoring, once activated in production, compares structured opportunity fields and available official-source content. New dates, changed requirements, contradictions, access failures and unparseable sources require review. Previously verified facts and their dates are retained when a source fails. Time-based opening/closure uses only already verified dates. If a closing time has not been established, the calendar prompts notice verification on the deadline date rather than inventing midnight.

Reviewers approve changes separately from detection; earlier versions and source-change records remain recoverable. Successful checks do not invent a new article publication date. Federal access restrictions can prevent automated retrieval even when a person can read the page. This website is independent and is not reviewed, approved or endorsed by USDA.

Prior deadlines and update history

Initial source review completed 2026-10-17T12:25:50.626Z. Source-check times are not publication dates. The private maintenance log retains detected changes, approvals and recoverable versions; the historical dates below are not new application windows.