Supply and delivery of Fully automated slide stainer and film cover slipper (Part VII) to the Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Oncology and Radiology in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

New amendment added #2: The RFQ has been amended in order to:Extend the bid submission deadline from from 11-Jun-2026 till 18-Jun-2026The RFQ has been amended in order to replace the document titled "RFQ_Section_III_Returnable_Bidding_Forms_Form C_Technical Bid Form" with the document titled "RFQ_Section_III_Returnable_Bidding_Forms_Form C_Technical Bid Form_Rev. 1" that introduces amendments to the certain requirments stipulated in red font.

New clarification added: Q16:   Dear Evaluation team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 41 – LIS Compatibility. We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Nature of the EquipmentThe staining and coverslipping system performs a dedicated pre-analytical laboratory function related to slide preparation. Its primary purpose is the automated staining and coverslipping of microscope slides rather than specimen registration, case management, or diagnostic data processing.Workflow ConsiderationsIn a typical pathology laboratory workflow, integration with the Laboratory Information System (LIS) is generally performed at specimen accessioning and slide identification stages through barcode printing and tracking systems. Additional integration may occur at the digital pathology scanning and image management stages. The staining and coverslipping process itself can be performed efficiently without direct LIS connectivity.Maintaining Functional RequirementsThe essential operational requirements for this equipment are reliable slide processing, traceability through slide identification, and compatibility with standard laboratory workflows. Direct LIS integration is not necessary to achieve these objectives.Promoting Fair CompetitionRequiring LIS compatibility as a mandatory feature may unnecessarily restrict participation of manufacturers whose systems provide equivalent staining and coverslipping performance but are designed to operate independently within the laboratory workflow.Proposed revision of the specification: Delete the requirement "LIS compatibility". Alternatively, revise the requirement as follows: "The system shall support standard laboratory workflow and slide traceability. LIS connectivity, if available, may be considered an optional feature and shall not be mandatory."A16:  Dear bidder, please find response below: Line 41 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The offered system shall support data exchange and integration with the Laboratory Information Management System (LIS). The staining system and the system control software shall support LIS connectivity. LIS integration in the coverslipping unit shall be offered as optional." Explanation: LIS connectivity is a legitimate and necessary feature for an institution establishing a digital pathology infrastructure, in terms of traceability and workflow integration; the request for its complete removal has therefore not been accepted. However, LIS integration is meaningful at the system/staining-unit level, and making it mandatory for the standalone coverslipping unit would unnecessarily exclude technically equivalent coverslipping systems. The item has accordingly been clarified in scope, so as to preserve the laboratory's workflow and integration requirements while avoiding unnecessary technical restrictions concerning the coverslipping unit. 

New clarification added: Q15:   Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 34 – Adjustable parameters: Film length, Xylene volume, Process settings. We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Technology-Specific ParameterThe parameter "adjustable film length" is applicable only to film-based coverslipping systems that utilize adhesive film rolls. Conventional coverglass-based coverslippers use standardized glass coverslips and therefore do not require film length adjustment.Equivalent Functional PerformanceBoth film-based and coverglass-based technologies are capable of providing complete, uniform, and artifact-free coverage of tissue sections. The availability of film length adjustment is a design characteristic of a particular coverslipping technology rather than a performance parameter affecting diagnostic quality.Promoting Fair CompetitionIncluding "adjustable film length" as a mandatory parameter may unnecessarily restrict participation of manufacturers offering coverglass-based systems that fully satisfy the intended laboratory application and performance requirements.Focus on Operational ParametersAdjustable process settings and xylene volume control directly affect workflow optimization and laboratory operation. In contrast, film length adjustment is relevant only to specific equipment designs and is not required to achieve the intended coverslipping result.Proposed revision of the specification: "Adjustable parameters: Xylene volume; Process settings."A15:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 34 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The system shall allow the user to adjust the xylene/solvent volume, the process times, and the operating parameters defined by the manufacturer, in order to adapt to different specimen and laboratory needs." Explanation: Complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area is already secured under line 22; requiring film length additionally as an "adjustable parameter" is both redundant and unnecessarily excludes systems that operate with a fixed film length. Film length has therefore been removed from this item, and the operational adjustable parameters that enable the instrument to adapt to different specimen and laboratory needs have been retained. 

New clarification added: Q14: Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 22 – Adjustable film length: 45 mm, 50 mm, 55 mm, 60 mm (mandatory selectable options). We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Technology-Specific Design FeatureThe specified film lengths represent a design characteristic of particular film-based coverslipping systems rather than a performance parameter directly related to laboratory or diagnostic outcomes. Different manufacturers employ various approaches to achieve complete specimen coverage, including fixed film lengths, alternative adjustment ranges, or conventional coverglass technology.Focus on Functional PerformanceThe primary objective of the coverslipping process is to ensure complete, uniform, and artifact-free coverage of the tissue specimen while preserving slide quality for microscopic examination and long-term storage. The exact film length adjustment increments do not, by themselves, determine the quality of the final slide.Promoting Fair CompetitionRequiring specific selectable film lengths may unnecessarily restrict participation of manufacturers whose systems provide equivalent or superior coverslipping performance through alternative technical solutions. Performance-based specifications would allow broader competition while ensuring the required laboratory outcome.Clinical RelevanceStandard microscope slides have a fixed format, and tissue sections vary in size depending on the specimen and application. Therefore, the key requirement should be reliable and complete specimen coverage rather than the availability of predetermined film-length settings.Proposed revision of the specification: "Coverslipping coverage: The system shall automatically apply glass coverslips or adhesive film of sufficient dimensions to ensure complete, uniform, and artifact-free coverage of the tissue specimen on standard microscope slides (approximately 25 × 75 mm)."A14:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 22 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The system shall operate with an adjustable or fixed film length within the 40–60 mm range so as to provide complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area on standard 25 × 75 mm slides." Explanation: The four discrete length values specified are a design feature of a single model; other film systems use different approaches (adjustable within a 40–60 mm range, or a fixed length). The critical requirement is not predefined length increments but complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area. The item has been adapted accordingly.

New clarification added: Q13:   Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 21 – Eliminates need for mounting media. We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Technology-Specific CharacteristicThe elimination of mounting media is a characteristic specific to film-based coverslipping systems, where the adhesive film contains a pre-applied resin layer. Conventional coverglass coverslippers use mounting media as part of the standard coverslipping process and achieve the same intended result: preparation of a permanent, diagnostic-quality slide.Equivalent Diagnostic OutcomeBoth film-based and coverglass-based coverslipping technologies are widely used in pathology laboratories and provide slides suitable for routine diagnostics, microscopy, and long-term storage. The presence or absence of mounting media does not affect the clinical purpose of the prepared slide.Avoiding Unnecessary Restriction of CompetitionRequiring elimination of mounting media may unnecessarily limit participation to film-based systems only, excluding alternative technologies that provide equivalent laboratory performance and diagnostic quality.Proposed revision of the specification: Delete the requirement "Eliminates need for mounting media". Alternatively, revise the requirement as follows: "For film-based coverslippers, coverslipping shall be performed without mounting media. For coverglass-based coverslippers, appropriate mounting media may be used in accordance with the manufacturer's standard operating procedure."A13:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 21 - Suggestion is rejected. Explanation: The elimination of the need for mounting media is a defining feature of the film coverslipping technology whose rationale is explained under line 17, and it is met by all film-based manufacturers. The item is therefore meaningful and achievable, and neither its deletion nor the addition of an exception has been deemed necessary. 

New clarification added: Q12:   Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 18 – Film activated by xylene (mandatory). We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Technology-Specific RequirementThe requirement for film activation by xylene is applicable only to coverslipping systems that utilize adhesive film technology. It is not relevant to systems based on conventional coverglass coverslipping.Consistency with Coverslipping TechnologyIf both film and coverglass technologies are accepted, this requirement should apply only to film-based systems. Otherwise, the requirement may unnecessarily exclude technically equivalent solutions that do not use adhesive film.Promoting Fair CompetitionLimiting the specification to a particular film activation method may unnecessarily restrict participation of manufacturers offering alternative coverslipping technologies that fully satisfy the intended laboratory application and performance requirements.Proposed revision of the specification:Delete this requirement if both film and coverglass technologies are accepted.Alternatively, revise the requirement as follows: "For film-based coverslippers, the adhesive film shall be activated by xylene or an equivalent manufacturer-recommended reagent."A12:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 18 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The film shall be activated by xylene or an equivalent solvent recommended by the manufacturer." Explanation: In line with the film technology preference explained under line 17, all film-based coverslipping systems use a solvent for activation. The requirement has been retained; the wording has been slightly extended solely to also encompass systems prepared for the use of an alternative solvent. 

New clarification added: Q11:   Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 17 – Resin-coated adhesive film (mandatory). We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Equivalent Laboratory FunctionalityBoth resin-coated adhesive film and conventional coverglass technologies serve the same essential purpose: protecting stained tissue sections and preserving slide quality for microscopic examination. Both methods are widely used in histopathology laboratories and are accepted for routine diagnostic applications.Avoiding Unnecessary Restriction of CompetitionSpecifying only one coverslipping technology may unnecessarily limit participation of manufacturers whose systems utilize alternative, widely accepted coverslipping methods. Allowing either technology would promote fair competition while maintaining the required laboratory performance and diagnostic quality.Operational and Cost ConsiderationsThe choice between adhesive film and coverglass is generally based on laboratory preferences, workflow organization, and consumable costs rather than diagnostic performance. In many cases, coverglass-based systems may offer lower consumable costs per slide, which can contribute to reduced operating expenses throughout the lifecycle of the equipment.Long-Term ArchivingBoth technologies are used for slide archiving; however, laboratories may have different preferences regarding long-term storage and archival practices. Therefore, the selection of one technology over the other should remain at the discretion of the laboratory rather than being a mandatory technical requirement.Proposed revision of the specification: "Coverslipping technology: Resin-coated adhesive film or coverglass."A11:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 17 - Suggestion is rejected, line 17 remains unchanged. Explanation: the use of resin-coated adhesive film is a technical requirement established in line with the laboratory's digital pathology infrastructure, its high specimen volume and its standardization needs. By virtue of its automated, operator-independent application, film coverslipping technology provides a uniform and consistent coating layer across slides; this uniformity supports a consistent focal plane during digital scanning and contributes to the standardization of the workflow in high-volume laboratories. Considering end user's current and planned digital pathology applications, this feature is significant for current laboratory's needs.On the other hand, film coverslipping technology is not specific to a single manufacturer, but is offered by several manufacturers. This technical criterion cannot therefore be regarded as pointing to any particular brand or model. In line with the justifications set out above, the resin-coated adhesive film requirement has been assessed as necessary for the technical and operational needs of the laboratory, and the request to add a glass coverslip option has not been deemed appropriate.  

New clarification added: Q10:   Dear Evaluation Team, the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 15 – Processing speed: not more than 3 seconds per slide. We kindly request reconsideration of this requirement.Justification:Overlap with Throughput RequirementThe processing speed parameter is directly related to the throughput requirement already specified in the technical specifications. A processing speed of 3 seconds per slide corresponds to approximately 20 slides per minute or 1,200 slides per hour.Potential Inconsistency Between RequirementsThe requirement for processing speed may create inconsistencies with the throughput specification, as both parameters describe the same performance characteristic using different measurement units. Establishing separate limits for both parameters may unnecessarily restrict participation without providing additional operational value.Performance Assessment Through ThroughputLaboratory productivity is typically assessed using overall system throughput (slides per hour), which reflects the actual operational capacity of the equipment under routine working conditions. Therefore, throughput represents a more practical and objective performance indicator.Proposed revision of the specification: Delete the requirement "Processing speed: not more than 3 seconds per slide" and evaluate system performance solely based on the throughput requirement (slides per hour).A10:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 15 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specification will be amended into: "The processing speed shall be not more than 5.5 seconds per slide."Explanation: Processing speed expresses the same performance characteristic as the throughput requirement (line 14) in a different unit. Rather than being deleted, the item has been expanded to be consistent with the not-less-than-700-slides-per-hour threshold in line 14, thereby removing the potential inconsistency between the two requirements. 

New clarification added: Q9:    Dear Evaluation Team,  the reference is made to the Technical specification Line 14 – Throughput: not less than 1000 slides per hour. We kindly request reconsideration of the requirement for a coverslipper throughput of not less than 1000 slides per hour.Justification:System Workflow OptimizationIn routine histopathology laboratories, the slide stainer and coverslipper are typically configured as an integrated workflow. The overall productivity of such a system is determined by the throughput of the staining unit. If the stainer processes up to 500 slides per hour, a coverslipper with a capacity of 1000 slides per hour would not provide any additional operational benefit, as its utilization would be limited by the output of the preceding staining stage.Efficient Use of Budget ResourcesSpecifying a coverslipper capacity significantly exceeding the throughput of the associated stainer may result in procurement of equipment with unused operational capacity. Aligning the throughput requirements of both modules ensures optimal use of project resources while maintaining the required laboratory productivity.System Performance ConsiderationsFor integrated staining and coverslipping workflows, the effective throughput of the complete system is determined by the component with the lower processing capacity. Therefore, increasing coverslipper throughput beyond the staining capacity does not increase the actual number of slides processed per hour.Proposed revision of the specification: "Coverslipper throughput: synchronized with the output capacity of the stainer and not less than 500 slides per hour."A9:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 14 - Suggestion is accepted. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The coverslipper shall have a capacity of not less than 700 slides per hour."Explanation: The value of not less than 1,000 slides per hour excluded technically equivalent film coverslipping systems. The requirement for compatibility with the staining unit is secured under Item 3; for the coverslipper, a realistic minimum threshold (not less than 700 slides per hour) has been set that meets the laboratory workflow while allowing the participation of multiple film coverslipper manufacturers. 

New clarification added: Q8:   Dear Evaluation Team, we kindly request reconsideration of the requirement stated in Line 8: “Storage of not less than 50 user-defined protocols.”This parameter appears technically outdated and does not objectively reflect the actual performance or functionality of modern staining systems. In routine laboratory practice, including H&E and special staining applications, most laboratories typically utilize approximately 15–30 protocols. Therefore, the requirement for storage of “not less than 50 protocols” may be excessive and does not directly indicate the quality, flexibility, dispensing precision, or operational efficiency of the instrument.For modern instruments of this category, a more meaningful technical parameter is the number of programmable steps available within each protocol, as this determines the system’s flexibility and capability to support complex staining workflows. We therefore respectfully suggest revising the requirement as follows: “Storage of not less than 20 user-defined protocols. Each protocol shall accommodate not less than 50 programmable steps.” This wording would more accurately define the functional capabilities of the equipment while ensuring fair and technically relevant evaluation criteria.A8:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 8 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The system shall be able to store not less than 30 user-defined protocols, and each protocol shall be able to accommodate not less than 50 programmable steps." Explanation: A requirement for 50 stored protocols exceeds routine laboratory practice and does not directly reflect the flexibility of the instrument; the number of programmable steps per protocol is a more meaningful criterion. The threshold has nevertheless not been lowered unnecessarily, but set so as to retain an adequate protocol capacity while adding the flexibility criterion. 

New clarification added: Q7:   Dear Evaluation Team, we kindly request reconsideration of the requirement stated in Line 5 regarding “Special stains”.The term “Special stains” represents a broad clinical category rather than a clearly defined technical specification. The use of non-specific terminology in procurement documentation may create ambiguity in bid evaluation and could potentially lead to disputes regarding compliance of the offered equipment.In addition, the current wording allows participation of systems that technically support only basic staining procedures, while lacking essential functional capabilities required for more advanced staining applications. For example, certain complex staining protocols require dedicated technical features such as controlled heating modules, drying stations, or protection from light exposure.To ensure transparent and objective evaluation of bids, as well as fair competition among manufacturers, we respectfully suggest replacing the generic term “Special stains” with specific functional and technical requirements. For example, the requirement could be formulated as follows:“H&E staining, Cytology staining, Dewaxing, rehydration, dehydration, Parallel processing capability (multiple protocols simultaneously), no less than 4 washing stations, no less than 2 drying oven stations.” Such wording would more accurately reflect the required functionality of the system while avoiding ambiguity and unnecessary restrictions in the procurement process.A7:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 5 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "Staining and processes to be supported: H&E staining, cytology staining, dewaxing, rehydration and dehydration. The system shall be capable of running histochemical special staining protocols including at least PAS, Masson's trichrome, reticulin and Ziehl-Neelsen, and shall additionally support user-programmable and modifiable supplementary special-stain protocols. The system shall be able to run multiple different staining protocols simultaneously and shall provide the washing, drying and/or heating steps required by the special staining protocols." Explanation: "Special stains" is a broad clinical category and is open to ambiguity in bid evaluation; the item has therefore been reworded in functional terms. As special stains are clinically essential in an oncology pathology laboratory, the category has not been removed but defined by representative examples, with the addition of programmable supplementary protocols and the washing, drying and/or heating functions required by the protocols. This removes the ambiguity without introducing any unnecessary or manufacturer-specific restriction. 

New clarification added: Q6:   Dear Evaluation Team, we kindly request reconsideration of the requirement stated in Line 3: “Throughput: not less than 500 slides/hour and not more than 550 slides/hour” and propose revising it to: “Throughput: not less than 500 slides/hour” without an upper limitation, based on the following considerations:Restriction of Fair CompetitionThe inclusion of a maximum throughput limit (“not more than 550 slides/hour”) does not appear to have a clear technical or clinical justification and may unnecessarily restrict competition by excluding manufacturers offering higher-performance systems with improved operational capabilities.Improved Laboratory Efficiency and ScalabilityHigher throughput is an advanced feature that enhances laboratory productivity, enables faster processing during peak workloads, reduces turnaround time (TAT), and provides additional capacity for future growth in sample volumes.No Negative Impact on Workflow IntegrationAs the equipment operates autonomously, increased processing speed does not adversely affect downstream laboratory processes. On the contrary, it allows routine workloads to be completed more efficiently, after which the system can remain in standby mode until the next batch is processed.In view of the above, we respectfully request removal of the upper throughput limit in order to ensure broader participation and allow procurement of the most efficient and technologically advanced solution.A6:  Dear bidder, please find response below:Line 3 - Suggestion is accepted. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The staining system shall have a throughput of not less than 500 slides per hour. The offered staining and coverslipping systems shall operate in a mutually compatible manner and shall not create a bottleneck in the laboratory workflow arising from any capacity mismatch."Explanation: Imposing an upper limit on the throughput of a staining system cannot be justified on technical grounds and, by effectively pointing to a particular model, restricts the participation of higher-performance systems. A minimum performance threshold (not less than 500 slides per hour) is sufficient for laboratory productivity; removing the upper limit broadens competition and ensures internal consistency with the coverslipper capacity (referred to in Line 14). 

New clarification added: Q5:  Dear UNOPS team, the reference is made to the Technical specification line No. 30.Current requirements: Xylene tank capacity of at least 500 ml. Our proposal: Optimized 250 ml xylene tank. Technical rationale and benefits:Reduction of chemical waste and exposure: Xylene is a highly toxic, volatile aromatic hydrocarbon. A larger volume (500 ml) results in increased evaporation, a higher rate of chemical degradation, and an increased risk of exposure to laboratory personnel. Our automated supply system is optimized and uses a 250 ml reservoir, ensuring xylene remains fresh, reducing hazardous waste, and meeting modern "green lab" safety standards without disrupting continuous workflow. Requested Amendment: Change the requirement to "The xylene reservoir volume must be at least 250 ml."Amendments:# 30. Xylene reservoir: Capacity: not less than 500 mLNew version: Xylene reservoir: Capacity: not less than 250 mLTo ensure a transparent and non-restrictive bidding process, we propose the following changes to the tender nomenclature: Change the item title from "Fully automated staining device for slides and films" to "Fully automated staining device for slides and films (for films or glass)".A5:  Line 30 - Suggestion is rejected. Line 30 remains unchanged. Explanation: The minimum capacity of 500 mL relates not only to reagent storage volume but is determined so as to ensure uninterrupted operation at high specimen volumes without frequent reagent replenishment, and to reduce operator intervention. This value is not specific to a single brand and is also met by film coverslipping systems available on the market (e.g., a standard 500 mL reservoir capacity). Taking into account the laboratory's current and future service capacity and operational needs, the item remains unchanged.

New clarification added: Q4:  Dear UNOPS team, the reference is made to the Technical specification:Productivity limitations (items 3, 14, 15)Current requirements: Staining machine throughput: strictly 500–550 slides/hour; coverslip machine throughput: at least 1000 slides/hour; processing speed: no more than 3 seconds per slide. Our proposal: Staining machine throughput: at least 600 slides/hour (H&E); coverslip machine throughput: up to 800 slides/hour; processing speed: no more than 4.5 seconds per slide. Technical rationale and advantages: Artificial efficiency limitation: Limiting the staining system's throughput to a maximum of 550 slides/hour reduces the efficiency of more efficient and faster systems. Our model provides throughput of over 600 slides/hour, optimizing laboratory turnaround time. Precision versus speed when applying coverslips: The processing speed of 4.5 seconds per slide (compared to 3 seconds) for coverslipping is a deliberate technical decision. Precise, controlled placement of the slide is required to completely remove air bubbles and prevent tissue fragmentation. The coverslipper's throughput of 800 slides per hour is perfectly balanced with the staining system's throughput, preventing bottlenecks and guaranteeing zero risk to diagnostic safety. In addition, there is no need for a throughput of no less than 1000 slides per hour for Coverslipper if the Slide-Stainer throughput is only 550 slides per hour. Requested Amendment: Expand the staining machine throughput requirement to "at least 500 slides per hour" (removing the upper limit) and adjust the coverslipper speed requirement to accommodate high-precision glass processing systems (e.g., "coverslipper throughput of up to 800 slides per hour").Amendments:# 3. Throughput: no less than 500 slides/hour and no more than 550 slides/hourNew version: Throughput: no less than 500 slides/hour# 14. Throughput: no less than 1000 slides per hourNew version: Throughput: no less than 800 slides per hour# 15. Processing speed: no more than 3 seconds per slideNew version: Processing speed: no more than 4.5 seconds per slideA4:    Dear bidder, please find responses for all points raised above:Productivity limitations (items 3, 14, 15)Line 3 - Suggestion is accepted. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The staining system shall have a throughput of not less than 500 slides per hour. The offered staining and coverslipping systems shall operate in a mutually compatible manner and shall not create a bottleneck in the laboratory workflow arising from any capacity mismatch."Explanation: Imposing an upper limit on the throughput of a staining system cannot be justified on technical grounds and, by effectively pointing to a particular model, restricts the participation of higher-performance systems. A minimum performance threshold (not less than 500 slides per hour) is sufficient for laboratory productivity; removing the upper limit broadens competition and ensures internal consistency with the coverslipper capacity (line 14).Line 14 - Suggestion is accepted. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The coverslipper shall have a capacity of not less than 700 slides per hour."Explanation: The value of not less than 1,000 slides per hour excluded technically equivalent film coverslipping systems. The requirement for compatibility with the staining unit is secured under Item 3; for the coverslipper, a realistic minimum threshold (not less than 700 slides per hour) has been set that meets the laboratory workflow while allowing the participation of multiple film coverslipper manufacturers.Line 15 - Suggestion is accepted partially. Revised specifications will be amended into: "The processing speed shall be not more than 5.5 seconds per slide."Explanation: Processing speed expresses the same performance characteristic as the throughput requirement (Item 14) in a different unit. Rather than being deleted, the item has been expanded to be consistent with the not-less-than-700-slides-per-hour threshold in Item 14, thereby removing the potential inconsistency between the two requirements.

New clarification added: Q3:  Dear UNOPS team, the reference is made to the Item No. 1: Fully automated slide stainer and film cover slipper.We would like to respectfully draw your attention to several mandatory requirements that are restrictive to a single proprietary technology (specifically, xylene-activated film coverslipping) and certain narrow speed margins. This significantly limits open international competition and excludes alternative advanced methods that offer superior diagnostic quality and long-term specimen preservation. The technical specifications are strictly based on film-mounted smear embedding technology (the hallmark of Sakura Tissue-Tek systems). Limiting the specification to film-mounted smears exclusively artificially limits competition and precludes the use of the more reliable and classic method of cover slip embedding. To ensure the best value for money and access to state-of-the-art technology, we kindly request UNOPS to consider amending the following technical clauses based on the expert clinical and technical justifications detailed below: Coverslip Material and Technology (Items 17, 18, 20, 22, 34). Current Requirements: Film with an adhesive resin coating (required), Film activated by xylene (required), Adjustable film length (45, 50, 55, 60 mm). Our Proposal: An automated coverslip applicator using pre-coated coverslips (glass-based technology) activated by xylene, with a standard size of 50 mm. Technical Rationale and Benefits: Long-Term Archival Quality: Clinical studies show that plastic films yellow over time, degrade, and peel off during storage. When the film detaches, it directly damages or removes the biopsy material, forcing technicians to recut and stain the specimen, which is often impossible if the tissue block is exhausted. Glass coverslips maintain staining integrity and color unchanged for decades. Optical Clarity: The glass has excellent optical properties and a refractive index ideally matched to microscope optics, minimizing distortion during high-magnification diagnostics and digital pathology scanning. Mechanical Reliability: The standard 50 mm cover glass eliminates the complex internal cutting mechanisms required for films of varying lengths, significantly reducing the incidence of mechanical failures and downtime during scheduled maintenance. Furthermore, the cover glass used is easily found in any market, as it is a common laboratory consumable worldwide and is sold everywhere, unlike adhesive film, which must be purchased exclusively from the manufacturer.  Requested Amendment: Modify the specification to allow the use of both "resin-coated adhesive film and pre-coated cover glass technology" and change the adjustable parameters for glass-based systems.Amendments:#17. Resin-coated adhesive film (mandatory)New version: Resin-coated adhesive or glass-based pre-coated cover glass#18. Film activated by xylene (mandatory)New version: Film activated by xylene or pre-coated cover glass activated by xylene or simple cover glass.#20. Optical clarity equivalent to glassNew version: Optical clarity equivalent to glass or glass itself (possibility of use of glass of any manufacturers)#22. Adjustable film length:45 mm, 50 mm, 55 mm, 60 mm (mandatory selectable options)New version: Adjustable film or simple cover glass length: 45 mm, 50 mm, 55 mm, 60 mm. In case of Pre-coated Cover glass - 50 mm (please find that Pre-coated Cover glass has only 1 size – 50mm. For simple Cover glass – can be used any size over 40 cm).# 34. Adjustable parameters:Film lengthXylene volumeProcess settingsNew version:Film length or Pre-coated cover glassXylene volumeProcess settingsA3:  Dear bidder, please find responses for all points raised above:Coverslip Material and Technology (Items 17, 18, 20, 22, 34)Line 17 - Suggestion is rejected, line 17 remains unchanged. Explanation: the use of resin-coated adhesive film is a technical requirement established in line with the laboratory's digital pathology infrastructure, its high specimen volume and its standardization needs. By virtue of its automated, operator-independent application, film coverslipping technology provides a uniform and consistent coating layer across slides; this uniformity supports a consistent focal plane during digital scanning and contributes to the standardization of the workflow in high-volume laboratories. Considering our institution's current and planned digital pathology applications, this feature is of significance with respect to the laboratory's needs. On the other hand, film coverslipping technology is not specific to a single manufacturer; it is offered by several manufacturers. This technical criterion cannot therefore be regarded as pointing to any particular brand or model. In line with the justifications set out above, the resin-coated adhesive film requirement has been assessed as necessary for the technical and operational needs of the laboratory, and the request to add a glass coverslip option has not been deemed appropriate.Line 18 - Suggestion is accepted partially, revised specifications will be amended into: "The film shall be activated by xylene or an equivalent solvent recommended by the manufacturer." Explanation: In line with the film technology preference explained under Item 17, all film-based coverslipping systems use a solvent for activation. The requirement has been retained, however the wording has been extended to encompass systems prepared for the use of an alternative solvent.Line 20 - Suggestion is rejected, line 20 remains unchanged. Explanation: This item defines does not define a technology but an outcome-based performance criterion (optical clarity equivalent to glass), which film technology meets. As it is a performance requirement, no change has been deemed necessary.Line 22 - Suggestion is accepted partially, revised specifications will be amended into: "The system shall operate with an adjustable or fixed film length within the 40–60 mm range so as to provide complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area on standard 25 × 75 mm slides." Justification: The four discrete length values specified are a design feature of a single model; other film systems use different approaches (adjustable within a 40–60 mm range, or a fixed length). The critical requirement is not predefined length increments but complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area. The item has been reworded accordingly.Line 34 - Suggestion is accepted partially, revised specifications will be amended into: "The system shall allow the user to adjust the xylene/solvent volume, the process times, and the operating parameters defined by the manufacturer, in order to adapt to different specimen and laboratory needs." Explanation: Complete and uniform coverage of the tissue area is already secured under Item 22; requiring film length additionally as an "adjustable parameter" is both redundant and unnecessarily excludes systems that operate with a fixed film length. Film length has therefore been removed from this item, and the operational adjustable parameters that enable the instrument to adapt to different specimen and laboratory needs have been retained. 

New clarification added: Q2: Dear UNOPS team, please kindly extend the deadline to one more week.A2: The RFQ has been amended in order to: extend the bid submission deadline from 04-Jun-2026 till 11-Jun-2026

New amendment added #1: The RFQ has been amended in order to:Extend the bid submission deadline from from 04-Jun-2026 till 11-Jun-2026

New clarification added: Q1:  Dear UNOPS team, please clarify the following: Regarding the requirement for a Copy of the Manufacturer’s Environmental Management Certificate (ISO 14001 or EMS certificate issued by a competent national body), the manufacturer is compliant with environmental management system requirements; however, it does not currently hold a formal ISO 14001 certification. In this regard, could an official compliance statement issued by the manufacturer be submitted in lieu of the certificate?A1: Confirmed, the bidder can submit internal policy document or similar as proof of ISO 14001.