Supply of Radiology Equipment (Sample Preparation System & Liquid Scintillation Spectrometer & Air Filter) for SES of the Republic of Uzbekistan

New amendment added #1: The ITB has been amended in order to replace the document titled "ITB_2026_62791_Section III_Returnable Bidding Forms_Form D_Technical Bid Form" with "ITB_2026_62791_Section III_Returnable Bidding Forms_Form D_Technical Bid Form_REV_21MAY2026" that introduces amendments (in red font) to technical requirement lines #6 and #25 of Lot #2.

New clarification added: Q5: Reference is made to Lot #2: Air Filtering Device (with an alpha and beta activity monitoring detector),technical requirement line #25 "Built-in or external battery, ensuring operation of the device for at least 6 hours". Could you please clarify if a battery should ensure 6 hours of a pump operation or this requirement is for electronics only?  A5:This requirement will be changed and read as follows: "Built-in or external battery, ensuring operation of the device (excluding pump) for at least 30 min". Amended document titled "ITB_2026_62791_Section III_Returnable Bidding Forms_Form D_Technical Bid Form" will be uploaded in the section "Documents" of the ITB.

New clarification added: Q4: Reference is made to Lot #2: Air Filtering Device (with an alpha and beta activity monitoring detector),technical requirement line # 7 "The speed of air pumped through the filter is not less than 3 liters per minute".Typically, this type of equipment has an airflow through the filter of 20-40 liters per minute, not 3.  A4:This requirement has been approved by the client and does not restrict models with higher airflow rate, which means you may offer model with the flow rate of 20 to 40 lpm and it will be considered compliant.Therefore this requirement remain unchanged.  

New clarification added: Q3: Reference is made to Lot #2: Air Filtering Device (with an alpha and beta activity monitoring detector),technical requirement line # 6 "Built-in or external portable, low-noise, oil-free pump with adjustable air volume". Would it be acceptable to provide pump with automatically adjustable power instead of volume? It is more typical and important, to maintain constant air flow through filter during measurement, therefore, air volume rate is constant, but power should decrease or increase automatically, dependent from other factors, such as how clogged air filter is.  A3: A pump with automatically adjustable power is also acceptable, provided that the system ensures stable and controlled airflow through the filter during operation. The requirement will be updated and read as follows: "Built-in or external portable, low-noise, oil-free pump with adjustable air flow rate or with automatically adjustable power of the pump ensuring stable airflow". Amended document titled "ITB_2026_62791_Section III_Returnable Bidding Forms_Form D_Technical Bid Form" will be uploaded inthe section "Documents" of the ITB. 

New clarification added: Q2: After reviewing the clarification provided, we consider that the requirement “manufactured under the same brand” constitutes an unjustified restriction of competition that exceeds the scope of functional and performance-based technical requirements. In your response, UNOPS acknowledged that multi-brand integrated solutions are widely used in laboratory practice for liquid scintillation spectrometry and radiochemical applications. Consequently, the stated requirement does not appear to be based on technical impossibility or objective incompatibility between systems from different manufacturers. At the same time, the arguments provided by UNOPS relate primarily to operational preferences, workflow standardization, and procurement convenience rather than to mandatory technical necessity. We respectfully note that the UNOPS Procurement Manual establishes the principles of effective international competition and specifically states that:“There shall be no restriction of competition through over-specification, e.g. inclusion of unjustified or unrealistic requirements in specifications.” The Procurement Manual further states that: “Every effort must be made to ensure competition and not to place restrictions on vendor eligibility.”In addition, the Manual requires that: “Specifications shall be linked to function and to performance as much as possible.” In this regard, we respectfully submit that the requirement “manufactured under the same brand” represents a brand-based market restriction rather than a function- or performance-based technical requirement. Operational integration, workflow validation, software synchronization, consumables compatibility, recalibration procedures, and single-point responsibility can all be fully ensured contractually and technically by the supplier or system integrator without requiring both systems to originate from the same brand. Where operational risks can be adequately addressed through contractual obligations, supplier responsibility, validation procedures, installation requirements, training obligations, and performance guarantees, the introduction of a brand-based restriction appears disproportionate to the stated procurement objective.No explanation has been provided as to why the stated operational concerns cannot be adequately mitigated through supplier responsibility and contractual performance obligations without imposing a same-brand restriction. In such circumstances, limiting participation exclusively to same-brand configurations may effectively exclude technically compliant and functionally equivalent solutions without objective technical necessity. The fact that technically compatible multi-brand solutions were accepted and technically evaluated under the previous procurement procedure ITB/2025/59437 concerning the same scope further demonstrates that such configurations are operationally feasible and technically acceptable within the intended application framework. Procurement preference or administrative convenience alone should not constitute sufficient grounds for introducing restrictive brand-based eligibility conditions in an international competitive tender procedure. In view of the above, we respectfully request UNOPS to reconsider the requirement in Item 38 and align the tender specification with the principles of open competition and function-based procurement established in the UNOPS Procurement Manual.  A2: We acknowledges that technically compatible multi-brand configurations for liquid scintillation counting and radiochemical sample preparation systems may exist and may be successfully implemented in certain laboratory environments. However, this requirement introduced as per our client request, not as a preference for a particular manufacturer or brand as such, but as a risk mitigation measure intended to ensure end-to-end operational compatibility, validated analytical workflow performance, and software synchronization, consumables compatibility, calibration traceability, etc. Therefore we have to remain this requirement unchanged.

New clarification added: Q1:Reference is made to the technical requirement  #38 of item #1 under Lot #1 in the document "ITB_2026_62791_Section III_Returnable Bidding Forms_Form D_Technical Bid Form". It is kindly requested to reconsider the requirement stated in the said line “Item 1.1 and 1.2 must be compatible and manufactured under the same brand.”  We consider this requirement to be unjustified, artificially restrictive to competition, and not directly related to technical compatibility, measurement quality, operational safety, or overall system functionality. Compatibility between a sample preparation system and a liquid scintillation spectrometer is determined by the technical and software integration of the equipment rather than by belonging to the same brand. In international laboratory practice, including radiochemical and liquid scintillation applications, integrated multi-brand solutions are widely used and fully ensure correct joint operation of the equipment. It is also to emphasize that during the previous tender procedure ITB/2025/59437, technically compatible multi-brand solutions were accepted for participation, underwent technical evaluation, and were considered by UNOPS as compliant with the procurement requirements. The introduction of the new “same brand” requirement after completion of the previous procurement procedure substantially changes the participation conditions and leads to an unjustified restriction of potential suppliers without any apparent technical justification. Furthermore, the requirement “manufactured under the same brand” is not a generally accepted industry standard for laboratory systems of this type and does not directly affect compatibility, performance, or measurement quality. In view of the above, we respectfully request UNOPS to: Remove the requirement: “manufactured under the same brand” from line # 38 or allow participation of technically compatible integrated systems from different manufacturers, provided that full compatibility, installation, service support, warranty obligations, and system performance are fully guaranteed by the bidder.  A1:We recognize that multi-brand solutions are also used in laboratory practice for liquid scintilation spectrometry. However, this requirement was introduced to mitigate risks related to the use of mismatched consumables, potential chemical incompatibilities, and differences in validated methods that may arise when devices from different manufacturers are combined. The requirement is also intended to support a fully integrated workflow, ensure single-point responsibility for overall system performance, and facilitate routine operation by radiology laboratory personnel by avoiding additional manipulations associated with cross-platform method adjustments, software synchronization (if any), recalibration procedures and compatibility verification between different systems.