Combo Synopsis- Instructions to Offerors -26 AUG.docx

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation & Instructions to Offerors AFLCMC/PZI Installation Contracting Support, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 Date: 26 August 2026 Title: 88th MDG Slide Stainer Request for Quote (RFQ) / Solicitation Number: FA8601-26-Q-0134 Quotes Due: 9 September 2026 at 12:00 PM EST Primary Contact Point: TSgt Adam Holden, Contract Specialist (adam.holden.1@us.af.mil) Secondary Contact Point: Jessica Stamper, Contracting Officer (jessica.stamper.2@us.af.mil)

Part I: Combined Synopsis and Solicitation Details This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with RFO Part 12, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a separate written solicitation will not be issued.

Solicitation number FA8601-26-Q-0134 is issued as a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for an automated immunohistochemistry/in situ hybridization (IHC/ISH) staining system for the 88th Medical Group (88th MDG), Laboratory Flight, located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

This acquisition is for a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) under NAICS code 334516 (Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing), which has a small business size standard of 1,000 employees. This solicitation incorporates provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2026-1. The full text of provisions and clauses may be accessed electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with some, none, or all offerors, or make no award at all depending on available resources and the quality of the quotes received. The Government also reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date.

Part II: Basis for Award (Best Value Tradeoff)

1. Overview of Award Methodology The Government intends to award a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose quote, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government will utilize a Best Value Tradeoff methodology (FAR 15.101-1). This means the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest-priced offeror if it determines that a higher-priced quote offers superior technical capability or past performance that provides greater clinical value and reduced operational risk to the 88th MDG Laboratory.

2. Relative Importance of Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to assess quotes:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. As quotes become more equal in their technical merit and past performance confidence, the evaluated price will become increasingly important in the final award decision. The Government will not make an award at a price premium that is determined to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the clinical benefits provided.

Part III: Evaluation Factors and Criteria Factor 1: Technical Capability The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed automated IHC/ISH staining system to determine the degree to which it meets or exceeds the requirements defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). To assist the evaluation, the technical volume must address the following key areas:

Factor 2: Past Performance The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of performance on recent and relevant contracts to assess confidence in their ability to successfully execute this BPA.

Recency: Performance must have occurred within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

Relevancy: Performance will be deemed relevant if it involves the lease, installation, validation, and maintenance support of automated immunohistochemistry or clinical pathology analyzers with consumable reagent schedules at Department of Defense (DoD), federal, or high-volume civilian hospital laboratories.

The evaluation will focus on the contractor's reputation for reliability, specifically assessing:

Instrument Uptime: Historical analyzer uptime rates and the frequency of critical mechanical/software failures.

Technical Support Response: Field service response times and compliance with onsite emergency repair commitments (e.g., 8-hour response, 24-hour resolution).

Supply Chain & Logistics: Supply chain reliability for temperature-sensitive reagents (cold chain), and history of avoiding backorders or delayed shipments.

Validation Support: Performance in assisting laboratory staff with the physical setup, precision, and accuracy validations required for clinical certification.

Note: The Government is not limited to the references provided by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to obtain and consider past performance information from any available sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other government databases, or interviews with laboratory personnel.

Factor 3: Price (Total Evaluated Price) The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for fairness, reasonableness, and mathematical balance. The TEP is a calculated estimate of the total cost over the 5-year (60-month) ordering period of the BPA based on the quantities provided in the Price Schedule.

The TEP will be calculated as follows:

(Monthly Lease Fee×60 Months)+(Estimated 5 year Quantity × Proposed Unit Price)

Disclaimer: The quantities used to calculate the TEP are Government estimates for evaluation purposes only. They do not constitute a guaranteed minimum or maximum purchase commitment under the resulting BPA.

Part IV: Proposal Submission Instructions (FAR 52.212-1 Addendum)

1. Quote Structure and Format Offerors shall submit their quotation in two (2) separate, clearly identified volumes:

Volume I: Technical Capability and Past Performance Section 1: Technical Proposal. Provide a narrative and commercial product literature (specifications, footprints, utilities, and throughput data) demonstrating how the proposed stainer meets the requirements of the PWS. Do not include any pricing information in this section.

Section 2: Past Performance References. Provide a list of up to three (3) recent and relevant references. For each reference, include:

1. Customer/Agency Name and Physical Location.

2. Contract or BPA Number.

3. Period of Performance and Total Contract Value.

4. Customer Point of Contact (Name, Title, Email Address, and Phone Number of the Lab Manager or Contracting Officer).

5. Model of the analyzer(s) provided.

6. A brief narrative describing execution, including uptime rates, service responsiveness, and reagent shipping reliability.

Volume II: Price Complete and return the attached BPA Price Schedule Spreadsheet.

Offerors must provide a firm-fixed unit price for every single line item listed. Failure to price a line item may result in the quote being evaluated as non-responsive and excluded from award consideration.

All quotes shall be in whole dollars.

2. Submission Details & Logistics Submission Deadline: Quotes must be received no later than 09 September 2026 at 12:00 PM EST. Any quotes received after this date and time will be considered late and will not be evaluated.

Submission Method: Quotes must be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist (TSgt Adam Holden at adam.holden.1@us.af.mil) and the Contracting Officer (Jessica Stamper at jessica.stamper.2@us.af.mil).

Email Constraints:

The entire quotation must be contained in a single email not exceeding 5 megabytes (5MB) including attachments.

Compressed or zipped files (.zip, .exe, etc.) are prohibited and will be blocked by the Wright-Patterson AFB email filters.

Only .pdf, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats are allowed.

The email subject line must read exactly: "FA8601-26-Q-0134 – 88th MDG Slide Stainer".

DoD Safe Drop-Off: If a DoD Safe file transfer is required due to file size constraints, the offeror must notify the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer at least 48 hours prior to the submission deadline to obtain a drop-off request link.

Quote Validity: Offerors must agree to hold their quoted pricing firm for a minimum of 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of quotes.

3. Mandatory Compliance and Administrative Requirements System for Award Management (SAM): Offerors must be actively registered and in good standing in the SAM database (SAM.gov) at the time of quotation submission. In accordance with deviation R-DFARS 252.204-7998(g), submission of the quote legally binds and certifies that SAM registration is current, complete, and accurate.

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 Assessment: In accordance with DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204-7025, a CMMC Level 1 assessment is a mandatory requirement. Offerors must demonstrate full compliance with the 15 basic safeguarding requirements of FAR 52.204-21 and enter their assessment results into the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) module prior to award.

Customs Duties and Tariffs: In accordance with R-DFARS 252.225-7013, the contractor is prohibited from including customs duties on eligible items destined for Government use within their quoted price.

Required Information Sheet: All vendors must fully complete and return the 'Required Information Sheet' attached to the solicitation.

Part V: Attachment A - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Instructions to the Offeror:

Complete Section I of this form and send it to your past performance points of contact (POCs). Instruct the POCs to complete Section II and Section III and return the completed form directly to adam.holden.1@us.af.mil and jessica.stamper.2@us.af.mil by the quote due date of 09 September 2026 at 12:00 PM EST*.*

SECTION I: CONTRACT/AGREEMENT IDENTIFICATION (To be completed by the Offeror) Contractor Name:

Contract or BPA Number:

Contract Type (e.g., FFP, Lease with Consumables):

Period of Performance:

Total Value of Agreement: $ Analyzer Model(s) Provided:

SECTION II: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION (To be completed by the Reference) Evaluator Name:

Title:

Agency/Hospital/Company:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

SECTION III: PERFORMANCE RATING (To be completed by the Reference) Please select the rating that best describes the contractor's performance in each area based on the following scale:

Outstanding (O): Performance met all requirements and exceeded many. Very low risk to the customer.

Good (G): Performance met all requirements and exceeded some. Low risk.

Satisfactory (S): Performance met all contractual requirements. Moderate risk.

Marginal (M): Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. High risk.

Unsatisfactory (U): Performance failed to meet most contractual requirements. Extreme risk.

Not Applicable (N/A): Insufficient information or non-applicable.

1. Equipment Reliability & Uptime Did the analyzer consistently meet clinical uptime requirements (e.g., 95%+)? Was the mechanical failure rate minimal?

2. Emergency Repair Responsiveness Did field service technicians arrive within agreed-upon emergency windows (e.g., 8 hours)? Were repairs completed within 24 hours?

3. Preventative Maintenance & Support Did the contractor perform scheduled preventative maintenance in accordance with manufacturer guidelines? Was telephone technical support helpful?

4. Supply Chain & Consumables Delivery Were diagnostic reagents, kits, and validation materials delivered on time? Did the vendor maintain a reliable cold chain during transport?

5. Validation & Training Support How effectively did the contractor support initial validation studies (e.g., accuracy, precision) and operator training?

6. Business Relations & Communication Was the contractor professional, cooperative, and proactive in resolving billing, delivery, or technical disputes?

General Narrative Questions:

Would you enter into another contract or lease agreement with this contractor again? Why or why not?

Response:

What were the contractor's greatest strengths during the period of performance?

What were the contractor's primary areas for improvement?

Evaluator Signature: _______________________ _____ Date: _______________