Quincy Veterans Home

The Illinois Capital Development Board (CDB), in conjunction with the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA), is following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance requirements for the campus rehabilitation of the Illinois Veterans Home, Quincy, referred to as the proposed action by publishing the Environmental Assessment document and allowing for public commentary. It is the responsibility of the CDB AND IDVA to ensure that the NEPA documents are responsive to the needs of the community while complying with all NEPA provisions.

This EA is available for public review online at the following location:

A hard copy of the EA is available at the following location:

The Library

Illinois Veterans' Home Quincy

1707 North 12th St.

Quincy, IL 62301

 

The document is also available by request from:

The Public Affairs Officer,

Illinois Veterans' Home Quincy,

1707 North 12th St.,

Quincy, IL 62301

Or

IDVA.QuincyVetHome.EA.Comments@illinois.gov

(217) 222 8641 ext:380

 

Comments may be submitted until the close of the 30-day public comment period ending March 7, 2021 using one of the following methods:

  • Or sending them by mail to:

The Public Affairs Officer,

Illinois Veterans' Home Quincy,

1707 North 12th St.,

Quincy, IL 62301|

Please add your reply emails or contact address if you would like a response at the end of the review period.

All responses will be compiled and shared with the public at the conclusion of the comment review and response period, which is estimated to take between 60-90 days.


August 11, 2020

At their regularly scheduled meeting on August 11, 2020 the Capital Development Board approved the Design-Build Selection Committee's recommendation to award the contract to Veterans United  Constructors (a Joint Venture between Alberici Constructors and River City Construction, LLC).

Phase II 

The following firms have been shortlisted by the Selection Committee and will be invited submit Phase II Proposals:

HBGI Building (a Joint Venture) (Voluntarily Withdrew from RFP process)

PARIC Corporation

Veterans United Constructors (a Joint Venture)

PHASE I Submittals

Submittals were received from the following firms on December 11, 2019:

HBGI Building (a Joint Venture)

PARIC Corporation

Veterans United Constructors (a Joint Venture)

CORE Construction Services of Illinois

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADVERTISE

The Capital Development Board (“CDB”) intends to issue (on or after November 11, 2019) a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the following Design-Build project:

CDB Project No. 040-010-115
Department of Veteran’s Affairs
Construct New Nursing Home and Domiciliary
Quincy, Adams County, Illinois
Project Budget (Bridging, Commissioning, and Design-Build) - $230,000,000.00

CDB will host two Public Outreaches, the first on Friday, October 4, 2019 and again on Wednesday, October 9, 2019.

The October 4th event will be held at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Morris University Center, Conference Center, located at 60 Hairpin Drive, Edwardsville, Illinois 62026, from 10:00am—12:00pm. Complementary parking will be available in the visitor’s section of parking lot B from 8:30am until 1pm.

The Wednesday, October 9, 2019 event will be held at SeatGeek STADIUM, in the Stadium Club on the second floor, located at 7000 S. Harlem Avenue, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455. Complementary parking will be available.

Interested firms are encouraged to attend one of these meetings for information about the project and the Design-Build RFP process that will be used to select a Design-Build Entity to construct the project.



CDB Project No. 040-010-115 Construct New Nursing Home and Domiciliary
Published 11/12/2019
Request for Proposals

Design-Build Proposal Transmittal Form (DB-PTF)​REVISED SEE AMENDMENT 1 BELOW
​Design-Build Pricing Schedule (DBPS)
REVISED SEE AMENDMENT 6 BELOW
​Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Standard Certifications

​Financial Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest

​DB Entity Qualifications Form and Instructions (DBQ)
​Reference Questionnaire
MBE/WBE/VBE Phase II Utilization Plan
REVISED SEE AMENDMENT 1 BELOW
​PC-2 Workforce Projection
​Bid Bond
Selection ​Criteria Weighting
​Supplement to SD-DB
Project Labor Agreement​ (PLA)
​Project Manual Volume 1 of 3
​Project Manual Volume 2 of 3
​Project Manual Volume 3 of 3
​Drawing Volume 1 of 4 - Site & Utilities
​Drawing Volume 2 of 4 - New Domiciliary
​Drawing Volume 3 of 4 - New Long Term Care
​Drawing Volume 4 of 4 - Nielson Building Renovation

​Amendment 1
Published 11/21/2019​
​Revised Design-Build Proposal Transmittal Form (DB-PTF)
​REVISED SEE AMENDMENT 6 BELOW
​Past Performance Phase I Utilization Plan 
Revised ​Phase II Utilization Plan

​Amendment 2
Published 12/03/2019​
​00 43 42 - Federally Reimbursed Project
​00 41 08 - Standard Business Terms and Conditions
​00 41 09 - Certifications and Disclosures
Certification of Compliance with Provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (VA Form 10-0388-2)
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions (VA Form 10-0388-7)
Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements for Grantees Other Than Individuals (​VA Form 10-0388-8)
​Certification Regarding Lobbying (VA Form 10-0388-9)
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (​VA Form 10-0388-12)

Amendment 3
Published 01/15/2020​
​FAI 17-051 Checklist 10-0388-14
​00 01 10 - Table of Contents
​00 31 00 - No Deviations, Betterments and Sole Source List
00 31 00 - ​Space Needs Inventory - Domiciliary
00 31 00 - ​Space Needs Inventory - Long Term Care 
00 31 00 - ​Room Relationship Matrix - Domiciliary
00 31 00 - ​Room Relationship Matrix - Long Term Care
​00 31 00 - Concept FF&E Narrative
​00 31 00 - Fire Suppression, Plumbing and Mechanical Narrative
​00 31 00 - Electrical Narrative
​00 31 00 - Environmental Narrative
​00 31 00 - Project General Requirements
​26 12 13 - Liquid-Filled Medium Voltage Transformers
​26 13 00 - Medium Voltage Switchgear
​26 13 01 - Medium Voltage Pad Mounted Gear
​27 00 00 - Communication General Requirements
​27 41 16 - Integrated Audiovisual Systems and Equipment
​27 52 23 - Nurse Call & Wander Management 
​Project Manual Volume 4 of 4
​Drawing Volume 1 of 4 - Site & Utilities Series Revised Sheets Only
​Drawing Volume 2 of 4 - New Domilciliary Series Revised Sheets Only
​Drawing Volume 3 of 4 - New Long Term Care Series Revised Sheets Only
Drawing Volume 4 of 4 - Nielson Building Renovation Series Revised Sheets Only


​Amendment 4
Published 02/10/2020​

​Amendment 5
Published 02/19/2020​

​Amendment 6
Published on 03/05/2020​
​Revised Design-Build Proposal Transmittal Form (DB-PTF)
​Revised Design-Build Pricing Schedule

Amendment 7
Published on 04/02/2020​
​Project Manual Volume 3 of 4 Hazardous Building Materials Survey 191118 Rev1 Part 1 of 2
Project Manual Volume 3 of 4 Hazardous Building Materials Survey 200317 Rev1 Part 2 of 2
​Volume 1 of 4 - Site & Utilities Series Revised Sheets Only


​Amendment 8
Published on 05/08/2020​

​Amendment 9
​Published on 05/29/2020

​Amendment 10
Published on 06/02/2020​
​CDB COVID-19 Job Site Safety Procedures Fact Sheet 5-20-20
​CDB COVID-19 Job Site Safety Symptom Monitoring Form 5-20-20

​RFI's with Responses:

Updated November 14, 2019

Q.
Our firm is very interested in providing subconsultant services for the Quincy Nursing Home project. Is there any room in the veteran requirements to open up for inclusion firms who are certified as SDVOSB through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but whose veteran owner does not reside in the state of Illinois?
A.We only accept certification through the Illinois Department of Central Management Services. We will not be accepting any other certifications on this project. See the MBW/WBE/VBE Phase II Utilization Plan.
Q.When filling out the DB-PTF form for the phase I submission, are we only to fill out the top of the form "Phase 1 Requirements"? And then, only need to submit the information required in Section 00 42 10.2.B.2 only for that one entity, correct? Or do we need to fill out the whole BD-PTF form including the Phase 2 Requirements section?
A.Fill out the Phase 1 Requirements and Acknowledgement of Amendments for the Phase I submittal.
Q.RFP Section 00 21 16 .1 H. We request that prequalification with CDB as a Construction Manager be acceptable so long as submitting firm can meet the bonding and insurance requirements of the project. By nature of the Phase 1 requirements of the RFP, submitting firms must provide enough evidence of ability and qualifications to execute the project.
A.Prequalification as a CM is not acceptable. See Section 00 21 16.H.
Updated November 21, 2019
​Q.

Regarding CDB Project # 040-010-115 Construct New Nursing Home and Domiciliary, will there be plans to hire a PM for this project as well? Thank you.

​A.
No.
​Q.

We respectfully submit for your consideration a request to approve products as an accepted substitute on RFP/DB: Veterans Home Nursing Home/Domiciliary Design Build (18-728421); please find substitution request form attached.

With over 30 years of experience, Scranton Products is the industry leader in plastic (HDPE) bathroom partitions and lockers. Constructed from premium, American-made solid plastic, our products resist dents, scratches, corrosion, graffiti and mildew. More information regarding the benefits of our products as well as technical data sheets and MSDS forms for the appropriate product(s), confirming performance as specified, can be reviewed via the links below:

2019 Color Texture Brochure
Engraving Brochure
Hiny Hiders Brochure
SP Artisan Woodgrain Collection
Warranty
LEED Points
Love the Look of Stainless Steel
Hiny Hiders Partitions Specifications
Health Product Declaration - Hiny Hiders
HDPE vs Other Materials Comparison
SP Artisan Woodgrain Collection
LEED Points
Tufftec Lockers Brochure
Engraving Brochure
Health Product Declaration - Tufftec
Tufftec Specifications
Tufftec HDPE vs Metal Brochure
Warranty
Please let me know what questions I can answer for you, if any

​A.

Except for the No Deviations list, products named in the bridging documents are to establish a basis for design. CDB will not entertain product substitution requests during the procurement period.

​Q.

I have a few follow up questions from the pre-bid meeting yesterday as it pertains to the Phase 1 submittal. 

1. In the meeting Mr. Lance discussed the DB-PTF Document and stated that the architect, engineer, plumbing, etc on the lower half of the page should be filled out completely with this submission.  The document shows that this information will be required in Phase 2.  There was a previous RFI asked and answered that Phase 1 will only require the upper portion of the document to be completed regarding information specific to the Offeror.  Can you please confirm?

2.   Page 22 of the RFP states that the submittal shall not exceed 50 pages.  It is our understanding that Section 1 – General Documents would not be included in that page count.  Can you please confirm that our understanding is correct?

3. What is needed as it pertains to the “Insurance” letter that is required in Section 4?

Page 7 of the RFP references “Past performance of MBE/WBE/VBE Phase 1 Utilization Plan” as an item in Section 2, however pages 10 and 11 do not mention this requirement.  Is there a form that needs to be included in Section 2 that is specific to this item? 

​A.

1. See Amendment No. 1.

2. See Amendment No. 1.

3. Provide proof of insurance.

4. See Amendment No. 1.

​Q.

Please see requests for clarifications below for the Phase 1 RFP submission for the Illinois Veterans Home Quincy – New Nursing Home & Domiciliary, CDB Project #040-010-115:

1) Phase 1 MBE/WBE/VBE Utilization Plan form is not included in the RFP documents. Will one be issued via addendum?

2) Phase 2 MBE/WBE/VBE Utilization Plan form includes conflicting Goals from the RFP document (P.13 – Section 004200.3 – Technical & Cost Proposal, Paragraph B.3 and B.

4). Please confirm the correct design and construction goals for the project.

​A.

1. See Amendment No. 1.

2. See Amendment No. 1.

Updated November 27, 2019
​Q.

Is there a requirement to perform 20% of the work themselves?

​A.
No.
​Q.

Sorry to bother you but was hoping to see if there is any opportunity to utilize fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) in lieu of welded wire and/or rebar on your Veterans Home Nursing Home/Domiciliary project in Quincy.  For your information, please find attached a conversion guide that shows conversion from traditioanal reinforcement to our macro FiberForce 750.  Plus, recognize that per the Steel Deck Institute design manual, you can utilize 4# per yd3 of FiberForce 750 on your composite metal deck applications. 

 

As you know, not only does fiber reinforced concrete save time/money and perform better than traditional reinforcement (because fiber is guaranteed to be where the crack happens, which cannot say for rebar/wire) but it also is a significant initial cost $avings.  Lastly, with the labor shortage, we are also seeing high demand for FRC.

 

I thank you in advance to your attention to this email and welcome your thoughts. 

​A.

Except for the No Deviations list, products named in the bridging documents are to establish a basis for design. CDB will not entertain product substitution requests during the procurement period.

​Q.

Quick question b/ I might be missing something – is there any concrete on this project?  I cannot find a concrete specification …

​A.

Yes.  Generally, the technical specifications were only included where the intent was to exceed code/requirements or special consideration. Please refer to the bridging narratives for specific requirements.

​Q.

Please consider this email request for clarification for the following items:

1.       Section 004210.1.3 on Page 7 of RFQ indicates marking envelope with "Proposal for New In-Patient Treatment Center, Joliet, Will County, IL, CDB Project 120-000-062"  Can you confirm “Construct New Nursing Home & Domiciliary” and CDB project #040-010-115 is what we should include on the envelope?

2.       On the DB-PTF Form under Phase 2 requirements, there is a row in the table for ‘Engineer’.  Can you clarify if this is for Site/Civil only or for MEP as well?  Also then for Standard Business Terms & Conditions and Standard Certifications for ‘Engineer’, can you clarify which disciplines are required to complete? Structural and Civil only or are MEPs required also?

3.    For the Reference Questionnaire, would C-CAL's completed by federal governmental agencies be acceptable in lieu of CDB Reference Questionnaire?

​A.

1.  This was addressed in Amendment No. 1.

2.  The term ENGINEER is intended to encompass all engineering disciplines. If more than one firm is utilized then additional entries should be included for each firm on the team.

3.  No.


Updated December 3, 2019
​Q.

In reviewing the Weighted Scoring Criteria form, could you be more explicit on where the technical approach narrative or “fast track” component will be evaluated and to what extent?

​A.
The technical approach narrative provides an opportunity for the offeror to describe how they will approach the design and construction of the facility, but it is not scored on its own with any specific criterion. Instead it could influence a committee members perspective as it relates to any number of the scoring criteria for Phase I Evaluation. These could include but are not limited to any of the Experience related criteria or even the Timeliness of Past Performance depending on how the offeror chooses to address it within the narrative.​
Updated December 5, 2019
​Q.

For past performance reference questionnaire for Federal clients – we have been informed that they can not complete questionnaires per policy, and have informed us that CCAL’s are utilized for this purpose.  As CCAL’s are not permissible per CDB per previous RFI, would it be acceptable for the architect of record to complete questionnaire?

​A.
As long as they identify themselves as the architect of record it is acceptable.
​Q.

In regards to section 2. ii, we recently had an issue with one of our evaluators performance questionnaires being kicked back. Since all questionnaires are to be sent directly to the CDB we are not able to confirm receipt by the CDB. Are we able to send a list of evaluator firms to the CDB to confirm receipt of the questionnaires?

 

Please advise.
​A.
The Phase I submittals will include a list of evaluator firms so it is not necessary to provide such a list in advance. We understand that some reference emails are being rejected by our email servers and our IT agency is working to resolve this issue. Although the reference questionnaire attached to the RFP is a Word Document saving it as a PDF may help with this issue. It is also important to understand that if there are missing references it is a “technical” deficiency that can be cured after the submittal deadline. In accordance with the language in the RFP the Offeror will be afforded an additional five (5) days to cure this specific deficiency. CDB will notify the Offeror if there are any references that were not received by the submittal deadline.
​Q.

Please see request for clarification below for the Phase 1 RFP submission for the Illinois Veterans Home Quincy – New Nursing Home & Domiciliary, CDB Project #040-010-115:

 

1) Amendment #2 includes several new VA forms that are to be included as attachments to the RFP. However, there is no instruction as to when these forms are to be submitted – Phase 1, Phase 2, or upon Award? If they are to be included as part of Phase 1, what Section are the documents to be included within?

 

We realize it is past the RFI deadline, but wanted to make sure we understand CDB’s intent for when these forms are to be submitted. We appreciate any clarification you can provide.
​A.
These VA forms are provided for reference and are not a required part of either the Phase I or Phase II submittals. The successful firm will be required to complete these at the time the contract is being executed.

Updated February 10, 2020​
​Q.
If a member or members of a joint venture are registered as an MBE or WBE, how are their goals applied to the utilization plan? They cannot account for the entirety of the Design-Build Entity’s participation, so will they be required to disclose their share in the joint venture in order to calculate their participation?
A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.
For clarification, please confirm that the MEP Subcontractors that we add to our Team for the Phase 2 response need only be Prequalified with CDB prior to the submission of Phase 2 as I thought was stated in the meeting last week (and not Phase 1 submission as stated in the original RFP document.)
​A.
Team members that are required to be prequalified must be so prior to the submittal deadline for the submittal that they are included on. Firms that were on the Phase I submittals must have been prequalified prior to the deadline for the Phase I submittals and firms included on the Phase II submittals (including those that were previously included on the Phase I submittal) must be prequalified on the date of the Phase II submittal deadline.
​Q.
The CDB Narrative (revised 1/13/20) indicates that the renovated Nielson building will be fully sprinklered, however the bridging documents do not appear to indicate this scope in either the drawings or the specifications. Is the Nielson building sprinklered now, and the system will be revised only in the remodeled areas? Is the Nielson building not sprinklered now, and retrofitting the entire building with fire sprinklers is within our scope? Please clarify.
​A.
Neilson Building is currently not sprinklered. The Division 21 narrative, in the "SITE AND BUILDING FIRE PROTECTION WORK" section, released as part of Amendment #3, lists all areas included in the fire protection scope of work. Included in this list is "the renovated Neilson building." The intent of this project is to provide full sprinkler coverage throughout the building.
​Q.
The water main scope is somewhat ambiguous. Can you please provide information regarding where the water main will go, who will own it, is it a full flow meter if private, how will we need to run services to each of our new buildings, do we need to account for any water service to buildings to remain, will there be any tap destroys required for buildings to be demo’d. Will our new buildings require an outside meter vault or can we run and split inside the buildings (fire and domestic).
​A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.
Please clarify scope expectations for base proposal for camera inspection of existing on-site storm and/or sanitary sewer systems.
​A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.

1. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning and The Goal is to Divert at least 75% of the total construction and demolition material, There is no recycled place in Quincy IL or Adams County that will take existing asphalt, concrete pavement, concrete and brick. Can you provide clarification on where to disposal?

2. For pricing proposal are we including the landfill fee ton rate to dispose of existing asphalt, concrete pavement, concrete and brick? Disposal at the landfill will be extremely costly.

3. Will CDB be providing the existing building drawing for the demolition?
​A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.
The bridging documents show a conflict regarding the Domiciliary basement corridor floor finish.   D-IN100B shows PT flooring and the Space Needs Inventory calls for CPT.  Please clarify which is required.
​A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.
The current plans have a 3'-8" Resident room door. The VA Small House Guidelines reference the VA Barrier Free Design Standard. Doors and Doorways for patient (Resident) rooms shall be a minimum of 4'-0". Per note 20 this clarifies the requirement to include resident rooms in long term care facilities.  PShould we be providing the minimum 4'-0" door at standard resident rooms and 4'-0" with a 2'-0" leaf at the Bariatric rooms?
​A.
It is not required or intended that a minimum width of 4’-0” needs to be established across the board for doors at all standard resident rooms.

It was not the intent of the Bridging Documents to apply the VA Barrier Free Standard to all aspects of this State VA nursing residence. The USDVA has shared that a State VA homes have a certain amount of flexibility in interpreting standards to their needs and shall have to meet the minimum standards established by the State’s Jurisdictional Authorities.

While the Illinois Accessibility Code IAC 2018 provides the minimum standard for the project, certain select beneficial features from the PG-18-13 VA Barrier Free Design Standards (rev. 11/1/18) have been adopted and incorporated as improvements into the Bridging Documents. These include increased turning radii and Swing-Down grab bars in resident rooms and all the requirements for bariatric rooms. These are explained in the Architectural Narrative and indicated in the drawings.
​Q.

On sheet L-A003 there is a small section at the bottom of the page listing a few betterments.  Given the volume of documents, if there are prescribed betterments listed in other areas in the documents, can a comprehensive list of owner-suggested betterments be provided?  Also, regarding B.1, is this for all doors in the entire building, or a limited door function/access?

​A.
This will be addressed in Amendment 4.
​Q.
Building Signage, Exterior Signage and Donor signage are excluded from FFE. Are they to be included in our costs?
​A.
Yes, the costs shall be included within the offeror's proposal.
​Q.
Commission Agent – Volume 1 states Owner has Cx agent engaged. Are we to assume this is through construction and no costs are to be included for third party commissioning in our price?
​A.
CDB has engaged a 3rd party Commissioning Agent that will be involved in the project through and beyond completion.
​Q.
Domiciliary – Page 18 of Architectural Narrative states “An alternate option will be to enclose this outdoor terrace to become 3 season terrace.” Should this be a betterment that we price?
​A.
Item "B-9" "Architecture" of the Betterment List lists this item and explains the reasoning.

While the Offerors should not include the price for the betterments within their base bids, the PRICING SCHEDULE attached to the RFP has a place (Line 28 on Tab 'Sheet 2') for the Offerors to choose to add pricing for Betterments. The availability of pricing is seen to be beneficial to decision making.

Volume 4 of the Phase II proposal affords the Offerors an opportunity to explain any proposed deviations and betterments that have been included as part of the base price proposed.
​Q.
There appears to be a conflict in the floor plan of the LTC building in both the structural and architectural plans when overlaying the 1st floor with the basement floor for the 2 north wings. Basement floor plan/footprint appears to be larger than the 1st floor. If this is intentional it would seem to require more documentation to indicate green roof, etc. If unintentional, please provide updated design documentation to clarify the scope requirements.
​A.
It was intended that the basement floor footprint exceeds the 1st floor at some areas to accommodate expanded mechanical rooms. At such areas, an appropriately waterproofed and vegetated green roof is intended to be provided. It is acceptable that they not be intended for occupancy.
A green roof is beneficial and may have advantages to the Offeror's pursuit of LEED targets. As the Bridging Documents do not profess to cover every different detail or condition on the project, the Offeror shall resolve the conditions satisfactorily and no further details are intended to be released.
​Q.
Are existing building drawings or other information available that might convey the extents and elevations of the basements/lowest levels of each of the buildings to be demolished?  This will help with our earthwork calculations and quantification.
​A.
CDB has distributed drawings, for reference only, to the Offerors shortlisted to participate in Phase II. These are compilations of available information and may not be comprehensive.
​Q.
Per the MBE/WBE/VBE Phase II Utilization Plan issued with Amendment 1 on 11/21/2019, subcontractors must be certified with CMS to count toward the project requirements. 1. Will any other certifying agencies be allowed?  a. What other certifications are considered reciprocal?
​A.
CMS is the only recognized certification at this time.
​Q.
Is GSG Consultants, Inc. available to discuss the findings and recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Report provided?   Design-Build Contractors and our engineering teams are looking for some additional clarification to inform additional design requirements.
​A.
No. Please submit all RFIs to CDB.040-010-115@illinois.gov.
​Q.
Can you email me the existing drawing of the building that have been made available to the design team?
​A.
Existing drawings have been provided to the three firms shortlisted to submit Phase II Proposals. Subcontractors, Subconsultants and Suppliers to reach our to one of the shortlisted firms to obtain copies of these documents as needed.

​Updated February 12, 2020​

​Q.
​For clarification, Can the project budget be increased? Can offerors submit deviations to the base bid amount to bring the project within the posted budget? The DBPS has 8 options for deviations, can more be included?
​A.
Funds available for construction are $185,000,000 as noted in the RFP. This is the portion of the budget that is left over after all other project related costs and related projects have been funded from the appropriation that was passed by the legislature in 2019. While selection committee members do not see costs associated with “deviations” prior to a selection they are provided with copies of the deviation narratives and scoring of technical items can and should take those proposed deviations into consideration from a technical perspective. It is possible that the deviations could be used to bring the project into budget, but only after the successful firm has been identified through scoring of technical and cost/schedule criteria (for the base bid budget). If a firm has more than 8 deviations that they would like to propose an additional sheet may be attached to the DBPS but it is the Offerors responsibility to ensure that all costs on the attachment are carried over and included in Line 17 of Page 1 of the DBPS. This can be accomplished by using one of the 8 “deviations” on Page 2 of the DBPS to summarize any additional “deviations” from an attachment to the form.

Updated March 24, 2020​
​Q.
Sheet L-A003 in the LTC volume 3 contains a door and frame schedule.  The DOM documents do not appear to have a similar sheet in that set.  Can one be provided?
​A.
This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
​Q.
Please provide a responsibility matrix for Furniture Budgets provided with the Project Manual - Volume 1 to confirm who is responsible for the purchase and install of the interior and exterior furniture.
​A.
This response clarifies that while the Offeror shall be responsible for the design and coordination of furniture and FF&E items, the final PO for furniture shall be placed by the State of Illinois' purchasing arm, coordinated via the CDB. An amendment is not required to formalize this clarification because such has been stated in the paragraph titled "Design and Installation Responsibility Assignments" on page 4 & 5 of the Concept FF&E Narrative in the Bridging Documents. This information has not changed since the original RFP as an understanding of this responsibility is an important part of the offerer's proposal, we encourage any further questions in the form of an RFI.

Items in the matrix supplied by the "DB" are intended to be purchased by the Offeror.
​Q.
The No-Deviation List #22 states to provide a portion of parking to planting / landscape area.85/15 or better to ensure the landscape islands are big enough for achieving the LEED points are big enough related to Onsite Water Management. Is the percentage the requirement or do we just need to meet the LEED credit requirement?
​A.
It shall be sufficient to meet or exceed the LEED requirements. The Offeror has room for being creative. The intent behind the no-deviation was to ensure that parking lots have some shade and allow for progressive water management ideas. No amendments shall be issued for this item.
​Q.
1. In reviewing the Quality Control Plan section of the Request for Proposal page 28 C. Item 1 calls out review Technical Specification Section 01440- Contractor Quality Control (furnished with the Phase 2 RFP package) entitled "Contractor Quality Control Design- build. "
a. It's our belief this document has not been issued.  Can you please issue this document for reference?  

2. In spec section 315000 “Excavation Support and Protection” under 1.2.B “Related Requirements” Section 312000 “Earth Moving” is referenced, but is not provided. 
a. Is specification section 31 20 00 - Earth Moving available?

3. In Section 017419 “Construction Waste Planning, Management and Disposal” 1.2 Summary B. Related Requirements Item 4. States to reference Section 31 00 00 “Site Clearing”, however this specification is not provided. 
a. Is specification section 31 00 00 - Site Clearing available?
​A.
1. This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
2. & 3. No, we do not intend to release these spec sections.  The general intent required has already been added to the Bridging Documents under Division 01 General Requirements "Project General Requirements 01 31 00." These sections were not added because they would not have carried any project specific information beyond industry standards.
​Q.
For the bulk O2 skid we understand that the contractor will be providing piping to the skid, concrete pad, fencing, bollards, and electrical requirements.  Will the tank and associated equipment will be purchased by the owner and installed by the vendor?
​A.
The Using Agency would be responsible for choosing and independently contracting with an LOX vendor. Their contract with their current vendor includes for supply of the bulk tank and the reserve capacity tank.

Additional Clarifications:
The Bridging narratives require the Offeror to coordinate all other requirements. Offeror’s final engineering design for site layout will depend on coordination with the Using Agency’s bulk LOX vendor/supplier. The narrative has stated that this shall include piping, conduits, wiring from the tank site to the building Oxygen distribution system. The narrative also states that the Offeror shall allow for monitoring of tank level and conditions via the medical gas alarm system. This typically includes all the items listed in NFPA 99 and NFPA 50/55 requirements. No amendments are intended to be issued on this matter
​Q.
Per the Project Manual Volume 1 - Civil Narrative - Section 3.C.3 (pg 172) An impermeable liner is required for the underground detention facility. Is there a code requirement, LEED requirement or other concern driving this requirement?
​A.
This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
​Q.
Are As-Built drawings available for the existing buildings to be demolished?

Is a more comprehensive asbestos survey for Markword, Shapers, Nielson, the tunnel systems, and the power plant available to bidders?
​A.
The CDB has shared scans of available drawings of existing buildings with the Offerors.
Asbestos and hazardous material reports has also been shared with the Offerors through the CDB via their ftp site.
​Q.
1. Is removal of the 2400v loop cable and equipment part of this scope of work? 

2. Many of the existing oil filled switches and transformers may contain PCB's.  If we are to remove and dispose the existing equipment does the IVH have an inventory of equipment that contains PCB's?  If not should we assume it all contains PCB's?
​A.
1.It is the intention to leave in place/abandon 2400V loop ducts/conduits once the switching from 2400V to 12.47KV is complete (after Schapers resident transferred to LTC). Offeror to pull the conductors for disposal. Some ducts/conduits are terminating in the exist to remain under ground vaults.

2. IVH doesn’t have an inventory of which switches are PCB containing and which aren’t. 

Unless the DBE want to test the switches, based on the age of the building, all of the oil-filled switches should be assumed to contain PCBs. 
​Q.
According to the VA Space Planning Criteria Chapter 312 Domiciliary (attached), there appears to be some required program space missing for the Domiciliary building.  Please advise if these program areas are required and how they should be addressed in the Bridging documents for pricing.
 
Provide one for Domiciliary
Reception Area – 260 NSF
Consult Room – 120 NSF
Staff Lounge – 80 NSF min
Staff Lockers – 80 NSF min
Staff Toilet – 60 NSF
Vending Area – 75 NSF
Recreation/Therapy – 300 NSF
Recreation/Therapy Storage – 60 NSF
Occupational Therapy – 125 NSF
Occupational Therapy Storage – 40 NSF
Physical Therapy Storage – 40 NSF
Job Development Center – 120 NSF
Non Food Storage – 112 NSF
Medication Room – 80 NSF

Provide one for each Domiciliary Patient Care Unit (floor)
Waiting – public – 125 NSF
Public Toilet – 60 NSF
Computer Room – 120 NSF
Multipurpose/Kitchenette – 400 NSF
Laundry – 150 NSF this space accommodates (3) washers and (3) dryers an area for folding and ironing.  Laundry with (1) washer & (1) dryer is shown.
Workstation Health Technician – 56 NSF
Storage General – 120 NSF
Clean Linen – 60 NSF – a small closet is shown
Dietitian Office – 120 NSF
​A.
The Domiciliary on this State Veterans Home campus is intended to be a general purpose Domiciliary, and not a specialized mental health treatment facility found on other federal VA run campuses. It is intended that feedback and confirmation of this approach will be gained at the 35% review submission made to the USDVA.

In addition, as this project intends to create a holistic and integrated campus, some of the support spaces like Therapy spaces that are required in the VA criteria are already available in spaces and buildings dedicated to that purpose on campus (e.g., Multi-Therapy Building). Therefore, it was decided to not duplicate spaces, which would lead to under-utilization.
​Q.
Regarding plumbing fixtures, the following observations were made in consideration of the small house guidelines.  Please clarify/confirm requirements on the list provided.

Domiciliary
Housekeeping Closets - No mop sinks shown.  Will mop sink be required?
Resident Bathrooms – LA1 – China sink shown.  Sinks required to be solid surface integral with countertop.
Public Toilet Rooms – LA2- China sink shown.  Sinks required to be solid surface integral with countertop.

LTC
Housekeeping – SK1 is shown, not required.  Will mop sink be required?
Soiled Utility – SK3 is shown (2 compartment sink with drain board) not required. A handwashing sink and a clinical sink (hopper sink) is typically required (room looks too small to accommodate)
Resident Bathrooms – LA1 – China sink shown.  Sinks required to be solid surface integral with countertop.
Public Toilet Rooms - LA2- China sink shown.  Sinks required to be solid surface integral with countertop.
Multipurpose & Activity Rooms -  No sink shown.  A sink is typically required.
​A.
We recognize that there were some discrepancies between the Space Needs Inventory documents, Plumbing documents, and the VA Small House Guides. The following fixture selection types align with the design intent of the Bridging Documents:

Housekeeping Closets - Provide mop sinks as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory
Resident Bathrooms - Provide solid surface as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory
Public Toilet Rooms - Provide solid surface as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory

LTC
Housekeeping Closets - Provide mop sinks as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory
Soiled Utlility - The requirememts shown reflect what have been accepted by IDPH in recent projects. The offeror's plans and final sink arrangement will need to be confirmed with IDPH during the SIt Down review. A hand sink is not required.
Resident Bathrooms - Provide solid surface as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory
Public Toilet Rooms - yes, provide solid surface as referenced in the Space Needs Inventory
Multipurpose & Activity Rooms - The intent is to limit the provision of sinks to locations where they wil be frequently and well used in the interests of water quality management. Therefore, we did not provide sinks in these spaces.
​Q.
Sheet SM101 does not appear to require demo of the existing “North Tunnel” that runs generally west of the Kent Building (highlighted red on the attached overlay drawing), but if not demolished it will conflict with the proposed LTC building.  Please clarify tunnel demo requirement and proposed route of replacement tunnel.  Additionally, is there any remaining steam or other utility in the tunnel section highlighted yellow in the attachment?  Once the “Northern Guest House” and connected tunnels are demolished it would seem this portion of tunnel would be cut-off from any other tunnels.
​A.
The tunnel running alongside and parallel to the Kent Building is intended for demolition per notes on Sheet S-ASD101 - CENTRAL CAMPUS DEMOLITION SITE PLAN. In addition, the Mechanical narrative referencing this tunnel states that when Kent is demolished, the steam and condensate piping systems in this tunnel are vulnerable.

Sheet S-ASD100 OVERALL CAMPUS DEMOLITION SITE PLAN & S-ASD101 - CENTRAL CAMPUS DEMOLITION SITE PLAN will be Amended to represent the associated tunnel structures in the area that are intended for demolition.

In terms of replacing functionality carried in this tunnel, the mechanical narrative in Volume 1 of 4 of the Project Manual released via Amendment #3 on 01/13/20 carries the relevant information.

A preliminary phasing plan is explained and major steps are indicated starting on page 22 of this narrative (points ‘A’ through ‘V’). Along with the sheets referenced in the mechanical narrative, this accurately express the work required of the Offeror to make room for the LTC footprint and also keep the steam loop functional into the future.

Paragraphs F and G in the section of the Mechanical Narrative referenced above address the Kent tunnel piping and piping to other buildings.  This narrative includes requirements and options and flexibility.

As to the question on the tunnel section highlighted in yellow in the RFI attachment, connected to the Northern Guest House, this is actually not a tunnel and is instead a direct buried chilled water line and is intended for demolition. Please see sheet SM101 for reference.

As to the question on other utilties, there is wiring in this section of tunnel, as there is in most of the tunnel systems. This includes fire alarm wiring, IT cabling, lighting system wiring, and others that will need to be demolished along with. While there is a requirement for maintaining continuity of campus utilities, there is no schematic to direct the routing of electrical, fire  alarm and technology wiring, thus allowing the Offeror flexibility in routing and the final solution for continuity.
​Q.
Please confirm the intent that the existing site sanitary main shall remain running SE->NW and beneath the proposed Dining wing of the Domiciliary building for tie-in of proposed Domiciliary sanitary lateral piping.
​A.
It shall remain in place and be protected and maintained or be re-routed as required by the Offeror. A re-routing that maintains the intended function is acceptable.
​Q.
Architectural Narrative-Page 8-LTC Private Resident Room - Please clarify whether the material for built-in desk, full-height wardrobe, and custom-built pass-thru casework for sanitizer/sharps are to be carried in the FFE budget or the DB budget.

Space Needs Inventory-Page 36-LTC - Please clarify whether footwall furniture (bureau, desk, and wardrobe) are to be carried in the FFE budget or the DB budget. These items are also identified on page 18 of the FFE Budget.
​A.
This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
​Q.
The Roland Building #11 does not show on the site demolition drawing S-C200 to be removed. However the building does not show on New Site Plan S-C300 and would be in the courtyard of the LTC building. Is this building to be removed?
​A.
Please know the Roland building was demolished last year in its entirety including foundation and backfilled and is currently green space.
​Q.
For items in the FFE matrix that have no quantity provided, are we to assume those items are not required and should be ignored?
​A.
The FF&E and concept interior design narratives help outline quality and count expectations commensurate with the design scheme at the Bridging Phase. If there are gaps in the numbers of items shown, the Offerors shall make reasonable assumptions to fill gaps based on the general design intent.

The responsibility matrices shown within the FF&E tables are accurate. While there are gaps in the movables and equipment lists by the using agency, it is expected that they will be filled to completion. The narratives require the Offerors to conduct design confirmation meetings to coordinate installation and required electrical outlets.
​Q.
The language of article 00 73 18.7.D of the State of Illinois Capital Development Board’s Standard Documents for Design-Build Projects August 2007 edition indicates the Professional Liability insurance limit requirement is 10% of the total contract value unless otherwise stated in the RFP.  We’ve been unable to locate a specific requirement elsewhere in the RFP.  Given the size of this project, complying with the 10% threshold may require a project-specific policy and the associated increased expense of that approach.  Is it the intent of Capital Development Board to require a project-specific Professional Liability placement of a $15-20M magnitude?
​A.
Offerors are required to provide the limits indicated in the SD-DB. This has been required on previous projects in the $150m plus range.
​Q.
The Risk Category for the Domiciliary is not consistent in the bridging documents per the reference locations below:
 
1. Project Manual Volume 1 - 00 31 00 - Additional Project Information - Structural Narrative - 1.2.D CDB DCM 2009 with 2016 Amendments
1a. CDB DCM 2009 - Section 3.12.E (DCM page 11, pg 21 of 135)
"State buildings which are administrative, (National Guard armories, State Police headquarters, Emergency Operation facilities) residential, (hospitals, skilled care), or institutional facilities (K-12 schools, prisons, mental health centers) shall be considered essential facilities for assignment of importance factors.
1b. USDVA VA-H-18-8 guidelines VA Definitions Section 1.4 and Section 7.0
Long Term Care and Domiciliary facilities are listed in Table 5 of section 7.0 as Essential Facilities and are subject to Risk Category III Requirements per Section 1.4
 
2. Project Manual Volume 1 - 00 31 00 - Additional Project Information - Structural Narrative - Section 2.2.A (pg 140 of 687 no amendments)
"The new residential building construction type shall be R-2, Type IIA and will be design per Risk Category IV.
 
3. Project Manual Volume 3 - Geotechnical - Section 3.2 Seismic Parameters - Table 3
Table 3 lists the Domiciliary occupancy category as II
 
Can the CDB confirm the Risk Category for the Domiciliary as II, III or IV?
​A.
This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
​Q.
The Electrical Narrative provided with Amendment 3, Section 00 31 00 – Additional Project Documents – Section 1 Applicable Codes – 1.13 states the following as an applicable document for electrical design:
 
ALL OTHER VETERANS HOME CODES APPLICABLE TO QUINCY VETERANS HOME AND GUIDELINES FROM CDB.
 
Can the CDB please provide a list of the other codes and guidelines to the Design-Builders for inclusion in our Phase II Technical proposal?
 
Please reference the Fire Suppression, Mechanical and Plumbing narratives for types of additional information provided.
​A.
This will be provided in Amendment No. 7.
​Q.
Per the RFP, the Phase II Technical Proposal does not include page limits for any portions of the submission.  Can the CDB confirm that there are no page limitations associated with the Phase II Technical Proposal submission?
​A.
There are no page limits for Phase II submittals.
Q.
The current Bulk Oxygen Tank and Medical Gasses are located at Shapers.
 
1. Do these tanks service any other building on campus?
 
2.  Do any temporary measures need to be considered with regards to Medical Gases and their distribution on campus?
A.
The bulk oxygen tanks located at Schapers serves or is piped to the following buildings:
1. Schapers A,  in use.
2. Schapers B,   in use.
3. Andrew,   Not in use,  but pressured.
4. Elmore,  Not in use,  but the piping from Elmore serves Fifer that does use 02. 
5. Fifer,   in use.
6. Kent, not in use,  but pressured.
7. Markword, in use. Not clear how the piping from Kent gets to Markword. Facilities engineer believes it is direct bury.

Design Build Team will have to investigate. May require a locating service.

Facilities engineer has checked the IVHQ prints and do not have a clear pipe routing of the bulk system.

Design Build Team to provide temporary piping  of oxygen as needed to maintain service to occupied buildings. Use of temporary O2 tanks would be acceptable to serve buildings where needed during construction until point when final O2 installation is complete.

Medical Air and Vacuum are provided by stand alone units in these building and demolition of buildings should not affect them.

Updated May 8, 2020
​Q.
Is the CDB going to provide any additional site environmental information other than the Phase I and Phase II Site Environmental Assessment reports provided in Volume 3 of the Project Manual?
 
The site assessment report shows large areas around the Domiciliary and North Parking Lot expansion that require haul off and certified disposal, indoor air pollution at the Domiciliary and Construction Air Quality exposures requiring additional PPE and safety protocols for construction workers, staff and residents.
 
Will any additional information be provide?

​A.
In response to the RFI question on whether the CDB going to provide any additional site environmental information other than the Phase I and Phase II Site Environmental Assessment reports provided in Volume 3 of the Project Manual, the Offerors are informed that revised and updated hazardous material reports have been provided as part of Amendment No 7.

In addition, current and past asbestos management plans and survey reports, recently updated supplemental sampling reports for multiple buildings, have been made available for reference by the CDB to Offerors on the FTP site. Please inform the CDB if you do not have access to these documents.

No additional environmental information will be provided other than the above.

The reasoning is that the Phase II ESA was limited in scope and provides an assessment of the absence or presence of contamination above IEPA TACO Tier 1 Site Remediation Objectives. The location of borings and sampling was based on the concept site plans for the proposed redevelopment. The Offeror shall be required to perform the supplemental soil investigation to delineate the impacted soil to be excavated and disposed in order to construct the facility improvements. The Offeror, in responding to the RFP, may propose cost-saving alternatives for addressing the soil management and disposal of excavated soil, which may include the siting or location of improvements differing from the concept site plans.

In response to the RFI question on the scope of soil remediation, including haul off and certified disposal, the remediation scope shall be determined by the Offeror as explained above. With the information available, the delineation of the impacted soil within the limits of the project (disturbed area and soils to be excavated) shall be the responsibility of the Offeror. The reasoning for this response is the same as stated in the previous paragraph.

As to construction air quality, and safety protocols, those are Means and Methods that are not covered within the Bridging Drawings and Narratives. Those expectations are clarified in the RFP and the CDB’s standard documents for Design-Build referenced therein. Other references in the RFP include but are not limited to CDB document standards and current versions of the CDB Design and Construction Manuals available in the CDB’s online resource and reference libraries.

​Q.
Reference:  Project Manual Volume 3 of 4 – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – Section 4.3 Recommendations – Paragraph 1 (pg 1196)

With regards to environmental cleanup of contaminated soils, the recommendation from GSG Consultants is to enroll the site in the Illinois EPA’s Site Remediation Program to receive a “No Further Remediation” Letter (NFR).  Is it the intent of the CDB(Owner) to enroll the Illinois Veterans Home at Quincy, whole or in partial,  into the Site Remediation Program?

If so, please provide a delineation of scope of the soil remediation required on the “Construct New Nursing Home and Domiciliary” project #  040-010-115, by each entity:  Design-Builder and Owner.

Previous NFR Letters have been provided for portions of the Campus.  Does the CDB have a plan showing the boundaries of these NFR letters?

​A.
RFI response with three PDF doc attachments to be emailed to the Offerors:

The CDB has verified with the Using Agency and confirms that they DO NOT INTEND to enroll the site for the Illinois EPA’s Site Remediation Program (SRP).

The scope of soil remediation shall be the responsibility of the Offeror, along with the delineation of the impacted soil within the limits of the project (disturbed area and soils to be excavated). This is because the Phase II ESA provided with the Bridging Document was limited in its scope of location of borings and sampling based on the concept Bridging level site plans. The Offerors shall coordinate efforts around their final proposed site plans.

While the Bridging Phase II ESA provides an assessment of the absence or presence of contamination above IEPA TACO Tier 1 Site Remediation Objectives, the Offeror shall be required to perform the supplemental soil investigation to delineate the impacted soil to be excavated and disposed in order to construct the facility improvements. The Offeror may propose cost-saving alternatives for addressing the soil management and disposal of excavated soil, which may include the siting or location of improvements differing from the concept Bridging site plans.

In terms of NRF letters, one NFR Letter dated May 15, 1997, for LUST Incident No. 931055, is attached. The Offeror shall be required to comply with the NFR Letter Conditions and Terms of Approval. A second LUST Incident No. 20160283, was reported during the removal of a UST at the Water Treatment Plant. This UST was a “Pre-1974” UST, and the IL DVA opted out of the LUST program. The IL DVA Letter (no date on letter) and the IEPA Letter dated June 24, 2016, indicating that this UST is not subject to the reporting requirement of the LUST program are attached.

Due to the fact that both sites, referenced in the NFR Letter and the “Pre-1974” UST Letter, have residual soil contamination remaining at the Site, the Offeror shall be required to manage impacted soil to be excavated and disposed, and to construct the facility improvements in accordance with the NFR Letter and applicable environmental regulations.

Attachments to be emailed: Three PDFs related to NFR documents

​Q.
Amendment 4 and Amendment 6 both added a Betterment B-12.  Can one of these be re-numbered for clarity?
​A.
This will be revised in Amendment #8.
​Q.
As it relates to the scope of existing roadway removal, can any information be provided by IDVA or others regarding which roads may be concrete pavement overlaid by asphalt and which are full-depth asphalt?
​A.
There is no other information is available.
​Q.
Drawing S-C-104
1. The sanitary sewers shown on S-C-104 in the area North of Fletcher Infirmary ends and shows no connection to the sewer shown Northwest of the Equipment Storage, and Ehle Laundry Building.
Can you provide the connection sewer layout or is it the same as shown on the AutoCAD file IDVA_Quincy_Utilities_Flatten_Moved.dwg ?
2. The existing manhole shown at the Northwest corner of Building 37 Lippincott appears to be a storm sewer manhole with all the connection pipes with elevations shown. On the AutoCAD drawing file IDVA_Quincy_Utilities_Flatten_Moved.dwg, the manhole appears to be a storm sewer manhole. Which is correct?
3. A sanitary sewer is shown in the same location as the tunnel from West of Fletcher Infirmary (Building 37) going South and East to South of Smith Hall (Building 36) then going Northeast to South of Roland Barracks (Building 11) then North to near Frog Barracks (Building 21). Since this sewer and tunnel are shown to be removed from West of Smith Hall (Building 36) to East of Roland Barracks, can you confirm the location of the sanitary sewer, size, and where it connects to any other sewer line?
4. Several sanitary sewer manholes and connecting lines are shown on the plans with no connections to other sewers. [See manholes around Anderson Barracks (Building 22), and North and East of Schapers Hospital (Building 93)]. Can the connections to other sewers be provided?
The AutoCAD file IDVA_Quincy_Utilities_Flatten_Moved.dwg appears to provide answers to many of the above questions. Can AutoCAD file IDVA_Quincy_Utilities_Flatten_Moved.dwg information be used for the purpose of providing the missing information shown on Drawing S-C-104?
5. Drawing S-C-104 shows a new proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed on the East side of existing Building 94 (Filmore Infirmary) and Building 31 (Northern Guest House).
The existing sewer line does not appear to be in conflict with the new construction. Is there a reason for it to be relocated?

​A.
1.  Response: Design Build team will be responsible for detailed design of Fletcher Infirmary. We
assumed best connection point would be at existing location. Please note drawing SC-104 only
shows existing conditions proposed utilities are show on drawing SC-500.
2.  Response: Design build team will be responsible for verifying location of storm, sanitary, and
combined sewer structures and piping on campus. This would be accomplished through televising
and mapping sewers in the work area.
3.  Response: This is the drain for the tunnel and will be removed as part of tunnel demolition.
Remaining piping at edge of demolition should be capped.
4.  Response: Design Build team will be responsible to verify locations of sewer connection through
televising and mapping of sewers in the work area.
5.  Response: Please note SC-104 shows existing conditions of utilities on site drawings SC-500
shows proposed utilities.

​Q.
Please clarify if Betterment B-2, Meet and Exceed Net Zero Target for Domiciliary, is still required to be priced with the RFP response.
​A.
A Betterment is considered an optional and desirable project goal. While meeting the goal will be beneficial for the project, it is not required to be priced into the RFP response. However, because the Betterment list contains ideas and goals that would be beneficial to the project in a general sense, creative and innovative responses to meeting or exceeding those goals and targets will be reviewed and considered by the selection committee when evaluating proposals.

Due to the fact that the Net Zero target referenced above is part of the Betterments, it is not required to be priced into the RFP.

However, sustainability remains an important goal for both this project and the State of Illinois’ initiatives. As the Domiciliary building type is not as energy intensive as the Long Term Care building, a creative and innovative response to meeting or exceeding this goal will be considered by the selection committee.


Updated May 14, 2020​

​Q.

Please confirm that the budget for the Using Agency’s purchase of the FFE as described in the Project Manual is not included in the $195,000,000 funds available for the project as listed on the revised Design-Build Pricing Schedule.

If the Project is dependent upon major Deviations in order to attain the desired budget, are the narratives requested as part of Volume 3 of the RFP response required to be included if the Deviations majorly alter the narratives that support the Bridging Document?  If so, should they be limited to the items that are not being altered from the original bridging documents?
​A.
This is confirmed. The budget for the Using Agency’s purchase of the FFE as described in the Project Manual is not included in the $195,000,000 funds available for the project as listed on the revised Design-Build Pricing Schedule.

However, the “Concept Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (‘FF&E’) package narrative for Bridging Documents,” issued under Amendment 3 to the RFP, outlines the requirements and responsibility for the FF&E package. Additional attention should be given to the “Design and Installation Responsibility Assignments” and “Storage Requirements” section for a clear understanding of the Design-Build Entity’s responsibility.

The narratives in Volume 3 of the RFP are required and should reflect the information requested in the RFP and the specifications as written in the Bridging Documents, regardless of whether the proposal exceeds the project budget. Any proposed deviations, including those offered to attain the desired budget, should be included in Volume 4 of the RFP. There are no page limits to Volume 4 – Proposed Deviations and the Offeror may include additional narratives in this section.

Please do not include any cost information in any of the narratives. Cost information must be limited to the cost proposal.

Updated May 21, 2020

​Q.
Please confirm our understanding in regards to the MBE/WBE/VBE requirements for the RFP response.  For the Phase 2 submission, the form 00 41 05 is to be submitted with the goals of 20% MBE, 5% WBE, and 5% VBE.  The RFP states that the “form included shall demonstrate the intent to comply with the stated goals.”  I believe that comments were made during the November 19, 2019 Pre-submittal Meeting that it was understood that the project will have not been designed and/or bid at the time of submission and that the subcontractor list would not be known.  However, the handout that was given at the meeting regarding CDB Fair Employment Practices must be submitted completely with all M/W/VBE subcontractor names and dollar amounts that achieve the goals.  Furthermore, it states that these subcontractors must be used in the construction at those dollar amounts.


Given that the project has a substantial amount of design yet to be developed before the project can be responsibly bid to or negotiated with the subcontractors, please confirm that a plan can be included in lieu of the fully completed 00 41 05 Form and that individual subcontractor names and dollars are not required with this submission to reach the stated goals.

​A.
Reference Section 00 51 02.8 for information regarding MBE/WBE/VBE goals compliance. The scoring value for this specific criteria is 50 points. Because of the nature of Design-Build and with the understanding that there is still significant design work to be completed, 100% compliance with the goals is not required at the time of the Phase II submittal. However, it is important to understand that the number of points received for this criteria is directly related to the level of participation achieved in the submittal. For example, a firm that meets the goals without exceeding them will only receive 25 points, whereas a firm that exceeds the published goals by 30% or more will receive all 50 points. If a firm were not to meet the goals, they would have to achieve at least 75% of the published goals in order to receive any points for this criteria.

While 50 points may not seem like much out of the 1000 points possible, even a difference of 12.5 or 25 points can determine whether a firm is selected. Ultimately, the selection is based on points and every last point will count.