S02. Amendment 6 Litchfield CBOC 36C26326R0013_signed.pdf
PDF 142 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26326R0013
About this file
This is Amendment 6 to a Request for Lease Proposal (RLP) for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) in Litchfield, Minnesota. The amendment addresses a frequently asked question regarding Section 1.04(8) of the RLP, which identifies examples of incompatible land uses that may present concerns for a VA medical facility. The Government clarifies that incompatible uses—such as liquor establishments or agricultural land—are not automatically disqualifying factors and no fixed distance thresholds (e.g., 500 feet) apply. Instead, each offered site will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature, proximity, visibility, access, separation (such as roads or buffers), and overall compatibility with a healthcare environment. The Government maintains its incompatible use considerations but will assess these provisions holistically during technical evaluation. Offerors are encouraged to submit their most advantageous sites and clearly describe any nearby uses along with mitigating factors that support compatibility with Government requirements.
The amendment was issued on April 30, 2026, by Lease Contracting Officer Robert Hausman. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of Amendment 6 by signing and returning the acknowledgement form via email to Robert.Hausman2@va.gov and Corina.Gold@va.gov with their proposal.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RLP 36C26326R0013
Amendment 6
Amendment No. 6
Request for Lease Proposal (RLP) No. 36C26326R0013 Litchfield, MN CBOC
TO ALL OFFERORS: Thursday, April 30th, 2026
Questions and Answers as of 4/30/2026:
1. Question: Can you please clarify the incompatible use paragraph in the RLP for Litchfield, MN?
Specifically, paragraph 1.04(8) lists examples of incompatible uses, but it does not provide guidance on distances to/from these uses. For example, is a site that is 500-feet from a liquor store too close or is that acceptable? Is a site adjacent to agricultural land going to be eliminated from the competition or perhaps receive lower evaluation ratings in its evaluation than another site?
Answer: Section 1.04(8) of the RLP identifies examples of uses that may be considered incompatible with the Government’s intended use of the space. These examples are not intended to establish strict exclusionary distance thresholds (e.g., a fixed number of feet), but rather to identify types of surrounding uses that could present concerns related to patient safety, security, accessibility, or overall suitability for a VA medical facility.
Each offered site will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature, proximity, and potential impact of surrounding uses. For example:
A nearby use (such as a liquor establishment or agricultural land) would not automatically result in elimination from consideration.
The Government will consider factors such as distance, visibility, access, separation (e.g., roads or buffers), and overall compatibility with a healthcare environment.
Sites will be evaluated holistically under the technical evaluation criteria, and any concerns will be weighed accordingly.
At this time, the Government does not intend to waive the incompatible use considerations outlined in the RLP; however, these provisions are not absolute disqualifiers and will be assessed in context during evaluation.
Offerors are encouraged to submit their most advantageous sites and clearly describe any nearby uses, along with any mitigating factors that support compatibility with the Government’s requirements.
End of Amendments
Robert Hausman Lease Contracting Officer
ROBERT
HAUSMAN
Digitally signed by ROBERT
HAUSMAN
Date: 2026.04.30 12:48:29 -05'00'
RLP 36C26326R0013
Amendment 6
ACKNOWLDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
ADDENDUM NO. 6
Request for Lease Proposal (RLP) No. 36C26326R0013 Litchfield, MN CBOC
Signature of Offeror_____________________________ Date ______________ (Return Signed Acknowledgement of Receipt with proposal via email to:
Robert.Hausman2@va.gov and Corina.Gold@va.gov)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .