COLLAR, SHAFT

The contract SPE7L225P0230, awarded by the Defense Logistics Agency to A&M AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. with CAGE code 9D1B0, was for the procurement of six COLLAR, SHAFT units (NSN 3040-01-606-6661) and one Government First Article Test (NSN 0001S00000052), with a total estimated value of $8,984.00 prior to termination. The contract was structured as a firm-fixed-price arrangement under NAICS code 332710, with performance expected to occur at the contractor’s facility in Jacksonville, FL, and administrative oversight handled by DLA LAND AND MARITIME in Columbus, OH, and the Defense Contract Management Agency Southeast in Orlando, FL. The period of performance included delivery dates of December 1, 2026, for the collar and February 4, 2026, for the first article test, though no formal start date or overall performance window was specified. FOB terms, packaging and marking requirements, inspection protocols, and quality standards were not detailed in the documentation, and no special contract requirements such as security clearances or socioeconomic certifications were identified. The contract was subsequently terminated in its entirety through Modification P00002 under FAR 52.249-8, Termination for Default, following a Show Cause Notice issued on March 25, 2026. This administrative action reduced the contract value to $0.00, canceling both line items without acceptance of any deliverables. The termination was executed based on the contractor’s failure to perform, as governed by the default clause, with no indication of an alternative resolution such as cure or reperformance. The contracting officer, Jessica Ramsey, served as the sole point of contact for both administrative and payment functions, with payment processing handled through DLA LAND AND MARITIME’s designated office in Columbus, OH. No payment method, invoicing system, accounting codes mapping, or COR/COTR designation were explicitly provided, and the documentation includes no evidence of evaluation factors, solicitation criteria, or required representations and certifications, suggesting that award was based on a non-competitive or streamlined procurement process. The contract file lacks attachments, detailed specifications, and formal inspection or acceptance procedures, leaving only the termination action and basic administrative details as the definitive record.