MCA for general contractors 2026 — the merchant's funding guide.

The 60-second answer

If you run a GC business doing $60K–$200K/month in deposits, have been operating for 24+ months, and have a 580+ FICO with no open mechanic's liens, you can almost certainly get funded in 2026 — typically at a 1.28–1.36 factor on a 9–12 month daily-ACH term. The fundable amount usually lands at 0.8–1.3x your monthly deposits, adjusted for how lumpy your draws look.

The two things that move your rate down: clean contract paper showing recurring client relationships, and a clear separation between operating account and project-specific escrow flows. The two things that move your rate up: aged unpaid invoices over 90 days and unresolved supplier disputes hitting your statements.

Why GCs are a unique MCA category

A general contractor's bank statement does not look like a restaurant's. Restaurants deposit every day in a narrow band. GCs deposit irregularly — $40K Monday, nothing for two weeks, then $180K when a draw clears. To a naive underwriter, that looks like revenue volatility. To an experienced construction underwriter, it looks like normal progress-payment cadence on multi-job overlap.

The funders who know how to underwrite GCs do three things differently than restaurant underwriters:

• Longer trailing window. Instead of 3 months, they pull 6–12 months of statements and compute averages over the full cycle. This smooths out lumpiness.
• Receivables consideration. They ask for an A/R aging report or at least the WIP schedule. Confirmed receivables under 60 days improve the file.
• Sub-contractor verification. They look at your supplier and sub ACH patterns. Consistent payments to known names (Sherwin-Williams, Home Depot Pro, ABC Supply, your usual subs) tell a real story.

Realistic factor rates by tier

Three tiers of GC MCA pricing, based on real 2026 quotes:

• A-paper GC (5+ years operating, 650+ FICO, $100K+ monthly deposits, no prior MCA, clean bank statements, no open liens): 1.22–1.28 factor on 12-month daily ACH. Funders: Forward Financing, CFG Merchant Solutions, Credibly's premium tier, Mantis Funding.
• B-paper GC (24–60 months, 580–650 FICO, $50K–$120K monthly, maybe one prior paid-off advance): 1.30–1.38 factor on 9–12 month term. Funders: Credibly standard, Reliant Funding, Rapid Finance, Greenbox Capital.
• C-paper GC (under 24 months OR 500–580 FICO OR currently stacked OR <$40K monthly): 1.40–1.49 factor on a 6–9 month term, often a smaller advance ($20K–$50K). Avoid funders here that won't itemize their default fees.

The bank-statement story that gets you funded

Underwriters look at 6 months of business bank statements for GCs (longer than the standard 3 for restaurants because of draw lumpiness). Here's what they want — and what kills deals:

What they want

• A predictable lumpy pattern. If you average two to four large deposits per month with a coherent supplier-payment cycle in between, your statement tells a real story. Underwriters can model that.
• Supplier ACH on familiar names. Recurring debits to ABC Supply, Ferguson, Home Depot Pro, Sherwin-Williams, your usual subs, your usual equipment rental house. The names tell underwriters this is a working business.
• Insurance and bonding premium debits. Monthly debits to your GL carrier, workers comp carrier, and surety company signal a properly licensed and covered operation.
• Payroll on a real schedule. Weekly or biweekly payroll runs with consistent amounts tell a much better story than sporadic cash withdrawals.

What kills the deal

• NSF and overdraft fees. 3+ NSFs in a 3-month window is a near-instant decline. For GCs, NSFs often happen between draws — but funders read them as "this owner can't manage cash-flow timing," which is exactly what daily ACH requires.
• Mechanic's liens or judgment search hits. Underwriters run a UCC and lien search. Open liens against you (not the ones you filed) will pause or kill the deal at most quality funders.
• Sub-contractor disputes visible as chargebacks or returned ACH. A string of returned payments to subs is a giant red flag — it suggests project disputes that could become liens.
• Tax liens or unpaid withholding signatures. Irregular or missed IRS 941 withholding ACH is a hard decline at most A-paper funders.

Which funders actually like GCs

Not all MCA funders treat construction equally. Based on 2026 placement data:

• CFG Merchant Solutions — strong construction appetite, especially on commercial GCs with $150K+ monthly deposits. Premium pricing for premium files.
• Forward Financing — solid on A-paper construction, fast funding, good reconciliation policy if a project gets delayed.
• Credibly — broad construction appetite across A and B paper. Publishes a prepayment discount schedule, which matters more in construction because cash often arrives suddenly on draw clearance.
• Mantis Funding — likes established residential remodelers and small commercial GCs. Reasonable on B paper.
• Rapid Finance — willing on B and lower B paper. Faster than most but tighter collections policy.

Funders to be cautious with for GCs: anyone aggressively quoting under 1.20 on a first construction MCA (it's almost always a bait-and-switch on a renewal or a fee-heavy contract), anyone who won't pull a UCC search before quoting, and any broker who quotes you "the construction rate" without naming the funder.

How much you can actually get

The fundable-amount formula most quality funders use for GCs:

• First position: 0.8–1.3x monthly deposits, capped at $500K for most single-entity GCs, $1M+ for multi-entity operations with audited financials.
• Second position (if allowed): 0.3–0.5x monthly deposits, and many quality funders simply decline GC stacks because of progress-payment timing risk.
• Renewal: Most funders renew at 50%+ paid-down. The renewal advance is typically the original + 20–40% if the file has aged well and at least one full job cycle has cleared.

A $100K/month GC should target a $90K–$120K first-position advance, not $200K. An oversized advance creates a daily-ACH burden that breaks coverage in the gaps between draws and turns a healthy job pipeline into a stacking spiral.

What to do before you apply

Five steps that materially improve your rate and approval odds for GCs:

• Reconcile your last 6 months of statements. Find every NSF and have an honest one-line explanation tied to a project-draw delay. Underwriters reward self-awareness.
• Pull a WIP schedule. Even a simple spreadsheet listing each open project, contract value, percent complete, and remaining receivable will dramatically improve your underwrite.
• Pull a UCC and lien search yourself. Use your state's online portal or LexisNexis. Surprise liens during underwriting are the #1 reason GC deals fall through.
• Resolve any sub-contractor disputes before applying. Even a small unresolved sub dispute reads as future-lien risk.
• Get a clear answer on what you'll do with the money. "Material deposit on a confirmed job," "payroll bridge between this draw and the next," "equipment for a new contract" all underwrite differently — and better — than "working capital."

The bond / line / MCA decision

GCs have three main short-term funding tools, and they're not interchangeable:

• Surety bond: Not actually funding — it's bid eligibility. You need this to qualify for bigger jobs. Cost is typically 1–3% of contract value per year. Required separately from any cash funding.
• Construction line of credit (LOC): Best for working capital on long projects. Rates typically prime + 2–5%, but you need 2+ years tax returns, audited financials, and often collateral. Slow to set up (30–60 days).
• MCA: Best for short bridge needs — payroll between draws, material deposits on a confirmed job, fast equipment purchase. Funding in 1–3 days. Cost is 1.25–1.40 factor (roughly 40–55% APR-equivalent), but no collateral and no waiting.

For long-duration working capital on a multi-month project, an MCA is the wrong tool — the daily ACH eats your cash faster than the project draws replace it. For a 30–60 day bridge with a confirmed receivable on the other side, an MCA is often the right call even though it's expensive.

The honest tradeoff

An MCA is expensive money. For a GC, a 1.30 factor on a 12-month term works out to roughly 50–55% APR-equivalent. That's the cost of speed and flexibility — no collateral, no tax-return underwriting, no 30–60 day LOC setup, funding usually in 1–3 business days.

For a confirmed-ROI use (material deposit on a signed contract, payroll bridge with a known draw date 30 days out, equipment purchase that unlocks a specific job), the math often works. For "smoothing out chronic project-cash-flow problems," it doesn't — that's how GC firms end up stacked with three open MCAs and one bad project away from closing.