SLED Opportunity · NEW YORK · COUNTY OF ONTARIO

    Black Brook - Black Creek Drainage Study

    Issued by County of Ontario
    countyRFPCounty of OntarioSol. 246746
    Closed
    STATUS
    Closed
    due Apr 16, 2026
    PUBLISHED
    Mar 20, 2026
    Posting date
    JURISDICTION
    County of
    county
    NAICS CODE
    541620
    AI-classified industry

    AI Summary

    Ontario County seeks proposals for a comprehensive stream corridor study and hydrologic modeling of the Black Brook-Black Creek watershed. The study supports updated floodplain mapping and water management planning, with a project timeline from May 2026 to December 2027. Proposals due April 16, 2026.

    Opportunity details

    Solicitation No.
    246746
    Type / RFx
    RFP
    Status
    open
    Level
    county
    Published Date
    March 20, 2026
    Due Date
    April 16, 2026
    NAICS Code
    541620AI guide
    Jurisdiction
    County of Ontario
    Agency
    County of Ontario

    Description

    The County of Ontario (the "County"), is requesting Proposals for RFP# R26056 Black Brook - Black Creek Drainage Study. Proposals are to be submitted via the County's eProcurement Portal via https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/ontariocountyny PRIOR TO 4:00 pm on Monday, April 20, 2026. Late responses will not be accepted.

    Project work includes conduct a comprehensive stream corridor study and hydrologic modeling for the Black Brook–Black Creek Hydrologic Unit 12 (HUC 12) watershed in Ontario County, New York, encompassing portions of the Towns of Farmington, Manchester, and Canandaigua.

    Background

    Black Brook (approximately 4.8 stream miles) and Black Creek (approximately 5.9 stream miles) flow east through the Town of Farmington and discharge to the Canandaigua Outlet in the Town of Manchester. Roughly half of the watershed is in active agricultural use, including soils classified as prime farmland or of statewide significance. The watershed also contains critical freight rail lines and major vehicular and trucking corridors that support local, regional, and national transportation networks.

    Existing hydrologic information for the watershed is limited and outdated. FEMA floodplain mapping is more than 40 years old and does not reflect significant land use changes over recent decades. Since 2010, the Town of Farmington has experienced a 17 percent population increase and the issuance of approximately 1,210 new building permits, underscoring the need for updated flood and hydrologic analysis.

    The study must be conducted in accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) stream corridor assessment guidelines (see Appendix C Stream Corridor Assessment Guide) and will include field data collection and characterization of stream channels, banks, floodplains, riparian areas, tributary confluences and upland areas for Black Brook and Black Creek. Hydrologic modeling will evaluate watershed response under a range of wet-weather scenarios to identify areas of concern and appropriate mitigation strategies. Select locations may warrant more detailed hydraulic analysis, such as HEC-RAS modeling to support bridge replacement or other engineering design needs. HEC-RAS modeling will be completed within the project budget as feasible or may be addressed in a subsequent project if costs exceed available funding.

    This watershed-scale study is intended to support a holistic, intermunicipal approach to managing water flow and drainage, with careful consideration of upstream and downstream impacts. A stakeholder advisory committee composed of representatives from municipalities, county agencies, and the agricultural community will provide guidance, data, and local knowledge to the project Consultant. The project will be managed by Linda Phillips of the Ontario County Planning Department, and Ontario County will contract directly with the selected consultant or consultant team. The anticipated project timeline is May 2026 through December 2027

    Project Details

    • Reference ID: R26056
    • Department: Planning Department
    • Department Head: Thomas Harvey (Director)

    Important Dates

    • Questions Due: 2026-04-02T21:00:00.000Z

    Addenda

    • Addendum #1 (released 2026-03-24T17:45:27.798Z) —

      Question deadline and proposal due date changed. 

      Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.

    Evaluation Criteria

    • Organization and clarity of proposal (10 pts)
    • Proposal meets work scope specifications and tasks with well defined deliverables (15 pts)
    • Demonstrated experience with similar projects (15 pts)
    • Qualifications and experience of individuals assigned to the project (15 pts)
    • Creativity and approach to completing each task and the project as a whole (10 pts)
    • Communications and collaboration appropriate for the project (10 pts)
    • Schedule clearly shows completion of tasks (milestones) and project completion date (10 pts)
    • Cost Proposal is reasonable, clear and consistent with the RFP, showing allocations to individual tasks within the work scope (15 pts)
    • MWBE and SDVOB Goals Met (10 pts)

    Submission Requirements

    • Authorized Representative Contact Information (required)

      Please enter the Authorized Representative's name, title, phone and email

    • Proposal (required)

      Please upload your full proposal here.

    • Proposal (no pricing information) (required)

      Please upload your technical technical proposal here.

      NOTE: DO NOT INCLUDE PRICING INFORMATION. YOU WILL UPLOAD THAT SEPARATELY

    • Pricing Proposal (required)

      Upload your pricing proposal here. It should not have been included with the previous upload area as the County has required that pricing information be submitted separately from the rest of the proposal.

    • Federal Tax ID (required)

      Please enter your Federal Tax ID here.

    • Proposer's Statement on Sexual Harassment (required)

      IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE FINANCE LAW §139‐l

      In accordance with State Finance Law §139‐l, which generally prohibits the County from entering into contracts pursuant to the bid process with persons who fail to submit a certification affirming compliance with New York Labor Law §201‐g, the proposer submits the following certification under the penalty of perjury:

      By submission of this proposal, each proposer and each person signing on behalf of any proposer certifies, and in the case of a joint proposal each party thereto certifies as to its own organization, under penalty of perjury, that the proposer has and has implemented a written policy addressing sexual harassment prevention in the workplace and provides annual sexual harassment prevention training to all of its employees. Such policy shall, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 201‐g of the Labor Law. 

    • Non-Collusive Bidding Certification (required)

      By submission of this bid (R26056), each bidder and each person signing on behalf of any bidder certifies, and in the case of a joint bid, each party thereto certifies as to its own organization, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of knowledge and belief:

      1)    The prices in this bid have been arrived at independently without collusion, consultation, communication, or agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such prices with any other bidder or with any competitor;

      2)    Unless otherwise required by law, the prices which have been quoted in this bid have not been knowingly disclosed by the bidder prior to opening, directly or indirectly, to any other bidder or to any competitor; and

      3)    No attempt has been made or will be made by the bidder to induce any other person, partnership, or corporation to submit or not to submit a bid for the purpose of restricting competition.

    • Individual, Corporate, Partnership or LLC Acknowledgment (required)

      Please download the below documents, complete and have notarized. An online notarization option will be provided for you when responding.

    • Additional Information (if needed)

      For any additional information requested or required by any of your previously provided answers or as stated within this RFP please upload the additional documentation here.

    • Submittal Confirmation (required)

      By confirming and submitting this Proposal, the party submitting electronically acknowledges that they have read, understand and agree to all of the terms of the RFP documents as presented without reservation or alteration including: the Notice to Bidders, Instructions to Bidders, General Information, Schedule B Insurance Requirements, RFP Specifications and Proposal Form R26056 and any Addenda upon which the proposal is based.

      Submitting party further certifies that all information provided within this proposal is accurate to the best of their knowledge and that they have provided any necessary proof of their authority to submit a proposal on behalf of the Company Name stated on the proposal thereby committing the Company to the information contained within.

    • Pricing Proposal (required)

      Does pricing need to be submitted separately from the technical proposal as its own sealed document? Or can it be submitted as part of the same file upload?

      NOTE: If you need to use sealed pricing for any reason but do not select it here, pricing information may be shown to evaluators or accessible even if you do not unseal pricing at the time of review.

    • Project Purpose (required)

      Format: Project work includes __________ 

      Example: storm drain cleaning services

    • Evaluations (required)

      Will you be conducting evaluations electronically within OpenGov?

    • Does this RFP require insurance? (required)
    • Will this solicitation/contract require automobile liability? (required)

      Select yes if the contract is a construction contract, a contract requiring reimbursement of the Contractor’s mileage, or a contract requiring use of a vehicle other than for transportation of the contractor from home/main office to the work site or from the work site to home/main office

    • Vendor's Classification? (required)

      Please select the relevant vendor classification for insurance requirements

    • Will price adjustments be allowed? (required)

    Questions & Answers

    Q (Task Numbers): Good afternoon, The section of the RFP addressing the cost estimate states that the costs are to be broken down by Task, numbers 1-6. Is the section of the RFP titled "Environmental Justice Framework" intended as Task 5? I now see a reference to Task 5 above that section referencing it, so it looks like it is. Thank you.

    A: Task #5 should be the Environmental Justice Framework


    Q (No subject):

    A: What is the anticipated budget for this work? From other documents, we have deduced a $125K range. Is this an appropriate assumption? Yes, $125,000 project budget is an appropriate approximation.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Will residents be included in stakeholder interviews? The Project Manager will provide names and contact information for stakeholder engagement. Representatives from the farming community who experience flooding will be included. The study area is sparsely populated. Some stakeholder representatives may be residents of the watershed.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Is it expected that stakeholder interviews/meetings would be done as one comprehensive meeting with all parties or is it expected that separate meetings would be held for each agency? Would the meeting(s) be held in person or virtually? The goal of the stakeholder engagement is to supplement information in existing plans, programs and analyses by gathering local knowledge of flooding, drainage, and infrastructure issues and potentially contributing factors. The format(s) and number of stakeholder engagements should be specified in the consultant’s proposal. Stakeholder engagement should include at least one in-person group gathering or block of individual interviews which the Project Manager can help set up and attend. Additional outreach in the form of in-person/virtual/hybrid gatherings and/or individual phone, virtual, or in-person interviews will likely also be needed.


    Q (No subject):

    A: What are the community engagement expectations beyond government and other listed stakeholders? The RFP only explicitly notes review of draft report and development of an EJ framework (which “shall include practical guidance, evaluation criteria, and decision-support tools to assist local governments”). The Advisory Committee has municipal representation from the affected communities, the Agricultural Advisory Committee, County and Conservation District stormwater professionals, and the NYS Thruway Authority. Advisory Committee members will be involved throughout the project providing input and feedback In addition, Task 6B outlines requirement for a 30 day public comment period and 1 public workshop on the revised draft report with opportunity for attendees (and those submitting public comments) to assist in ranking and refining recommended projects, priorities, and implementation strategies. Task 6C requires consultant willingness to present the Report and recommendations at up to 2 additional gatherings. Presentation of the report to the Planning and Environmental Quality Committee or the Water Resources Council would engage county elected municipal leaders or water resources stakeholders from all areas of the County.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Grant requirements regarding site investigation are noted in the scope of work. Are there any grant requirements that apply to the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling or other project components? The overall goals of Phases 1 and 2 of the project is to identify fundable projects to address key flooding, drainage, and/or infrastructure issues. The grant requires modeling using Hydro CAD or alternative model complemented by GIS analysis and that modeling be completed by a licensed professional engineer. This modeling is intended to quantify key issues and potential solutions. Phase 2 will require HEC RAS or comparable modeling. It may also be desirable to consider the following resources when identifying study methodologies and recommendations to meet the overall project objective of cost effectively identifying fundable projects. • Resilient NY Standards for Flood Studies or for comparable studies. Additional information on Resilient NY and an outline of a compliant scope of work can be found here. https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/resilientnycomparablefs.pdf • 2020 NYSDEC Flood Risk Management Guidelines chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/crrafloodriskmgmtgdnc.pdf • NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 8, Highway Drainage https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/chapter-8 in particular requirements to add 10 % stream flow to the 50 and 100 year calculations when designing drainage and transportation system infrastructure. As outlined in the Scope Section: Environmental Justice Framework, the study process and report must include this element.


    Q (MWBE Requirements): Are the MWBE percentages in the RFP fixed, or suggested? Such as, would an M or WBE providing 30% also meet your goal, or are you requiring the 15-15 split?

    A: The WBE, MBE, and SDVOB targets are goals not requirements. Proposals will be evaluated regarding the extent and quality of participation proposed. Points will be assigned at the discretion of the evaluation committee. Up to 10 points will be awarded based on the proposer’s demonstrated commitment to meaningful inclusion. Factors considered in assigning points may include level of participation, assigned role(s), evidence of established relationship, past utilization, and clear plan for integrating firm and its work into the project team and study analyses and recommendations.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Will we have access to any existing data, reports, or studies beyond what’s available on ONCOR? If so, what data should we expect? Some specific items we are wondering about include: a. Any existing AEM stream corridor assessments done by Ontario County Soil and Water Conservation District b. Any hydrology and hydraulic studies for portions of the watershed c. Ritts/Gilman Study: (Ritts is the Ontario County Planner)/Gilman (Professor FLCC) Land Use/Land Cover study referenced in Ontario Water Resources Council 2025 meeting “Kyle and Bruce are close to finishing the Black Brook-Black Creek land use/land cover project.” https://www.ontariocountyny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48091/WRC-Agenda-and-Materials-March-14-2025?bidId=. Study was awarded 3-2024 “Cultural Land Use and Natural Land Use Cover Analyses for the Black Brook-Black Creek Watershed FLCC OC Planning” $ 3,000.00 a. No b. No c. The land use land cover project for the Black Brook-Black Creek watershed is complete. Data can be viewed in the ecological communities layer in OnCor and made available to the selected consultant as a GIS shapefile and features table.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Will we have access to Ontario County’s information for any planned/proposed development in the watershed? Will additional stormwater modeling be required to assess the planned development? I.e. are existing and proposed conditions models anticipated? The local municipalities through the Steering Committee or Stakeholder contacts will provide information on zoning/development potential and any planned projects. Individual planned project modeling is not anticipated. Based on the extent of likely planned development, if any , the modeling should factor in appropriate flows from additional impervious areas.


    Q (No subject):

    A: The RFP states that the Ontario County Project Manager shall assist the Consultant in obtaining private property owners’ permission to access stream corridors for the purposes of this study. Will the county provide the majority of the coordination effort, i.e. contact the landowners and obtain permission and any specifics access instructions? Or will the county provide the consultant with contact information for the private landowners and the consultant will need to complete the remaining coordination? The Project Manager will send an initial letter introducing the project, its purpose and likely benefits, consultant information, and directions for allowing access. The Project Manager will also request that study area municipalities use their existing communication channels (website, newsletters etc.) to publicize the project and encourage cooperation from property owners who may be asked to allow access. To Black Brook, Black Creek, and other hydrologically significant drainage ways or infrastructure The consultant will be responsible for identifying properties to access, timeframe and activities, and communicating directly with property owners about any detailed logistical considerations.


    Q (No subject):

    A: Please provide additional detail on how the 10 points for meeting WMBE and SDVOB participation goals will be awarded. For example, if an WBE company is on the team for a minimum of $27,000 and no MBE or SDVOB companies are included, how many points would be awarded? Proposals will be evaluated regarding the extent and quality of participation proposed. Points will be assigned at the discretion of the evaluation committee. Up to 10 points will be awarded based on the proposer’s demonstrated commitment to meaningful inclusion. Factors considered in assigning points may include level of participation, assigned role(s), evidence of established relationship, past utilization, and clear plan for integrating firm and its work into the project team and study analyses and recommendations.


    Q (No subject):

    A: The guidance for Stream Corridor Assessments referenced in the RFP calls for questionnaires to be completed by the landowners/farmers in the watershed. Is that anticipated as part of the scope of this project? If so, what level of assistance might we expect from the County on that portion of the scope of work? The RFP references the 2017 Stream Corridor Assessment Process Guide which on page 5 references landowner completion of AEM tier 1 and 2 questionnaires. We have not received any clarification on this question from the grant funder. Consultation with others knowledgeable about the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) process indicate these questionnaires are most relevant to property level analyses not watershed scale analyses. We do not anticipated that this study will include detailed questionnaires from all landowners. As previously mentioned, the proposed stakeholder engagement process should involve landowners experiencing flooding and others with potentially relevant local information.


    Key dates

    1. March 20, 2026Published
    2. April 16, 2026Responses Due

    AI classification tags

    Frequently asked questions

    SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.

    SamSearch Platform

    Stop searching. Start winning.

    AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.