UNSPSC 41116016: Electrolyte analyzer reagent

Reagents for use with the electrolyte analyzer for testing electrolytes such as Na, K, CL.

UNSPSC 41116016 Electrolyte analyzer reagent is a Commodity code covering laboratory consumables and equipment used in clinical and public health testing programs, specifically hematology analyzers, blood chemistry proficiency testing samples, and ion-exchange HPLC systems for hemoglobin analysis. State and local purchasers under this code include state health departments and public universities; the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) appears as a repeat buyer across multiple laboratory testing procurements. The work solicited spans replacement of clinical laboratory equipment that has exceeded useful life, procurement of specialized testing consumables such as ICP-MS supplies for pediatric lead screening, and custom-manufactured proficiency testing samples used to validate laboratory procedures and ensure quality assurance in hematology and blood chemistry testing.

Recent activity concentrates in Texas and Wisconsin. The Texas HHSC issued an IFB (HHS0017310) posted May 1, 2026, for a D-10 Hemoglobin Testing System with Rack Loader for the South Texas Lab in Harlingen, replacing end-of-life equipment and including one compact analyzer unit, power cords, and automated rack loader capable of processing up to 50 samples; bidding closed May 18, 2026, at 10:30 AM Central Time, with historical spending for similar goods ranging from $45,050 to $80,000 in fiscal year 2025. The University of Wisconsin-Madison issued a competitive bid (2026UWMSN01287RFB) on April 3, 2026, for custom-made Hematology/Whole Blood Chemistry Proficiency Testing Samples with a May 5, 2026 response deadline through the ShopUW+ portal. A second Texas HHSC IFB (HHS0017071) posted February 18, 2026, for PerkinElmer ICP-MS consumables and supplies—including probes, filters, cones, nebulizers, and torches for pediatric blood lead screening—with a March 5, 2026 close date and historical spend of $20,000 to $30,000. None of the three solicitations carried disadvantaged-enterprise set-asides; awards were subject to best-value evaluation rather than price alone and contingent on appropriations and fund availability.