CONTRACTOR FIRST ARTICLE TEST

The contract SPE4A526P2340, awarded by the Defense Logistics Agency to HOOSIER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC. (CAGE 0RCD8), was initially established for the performance of a Contractor First Article Test and delivery of a Meter Movement component, with CLINs totaling $21,441.00 prior to cancellation. The award, dated January 14, 2026, was subsequently canceled in its entirety under Modification P00001 issued on April 12, 2026, due to the vendor’s inability to fulfill requirements stemming from supplier shortfalls, as documented in Vendor PAR Case 5386383. The contract involved two line items—NSN 6695-00-438-3975 and NSN 0001-800000053—both of which were reduced to zero quantity and value, resulting in a final contract value of $0.00 with no active obligations, options, or extensions. Although the place of performance and delivery were not formally specified, the contractor’s location is listed as Goshen, IN, and administration was handled by the DLA Aviation ASC Commodities Division in Richmond, VA, with the DCMA Ohio River Valley office at Wright Patterson AFB, OH involved in oversight. The contract was structured under simplified acquisition procedures consistent with FAR 13.302-4(b) and modified under FAR 43.203(b), with no formal contract type designated but implying a firm-fixed-price structure through its priced line items. No explicit evaluation factors, payment office details, invoicing procedures, or inspection criteria were provided beyond the context of a first article test, which implies adherence to standard defense quality practices such as AS9102 or MIL-STD-129R and MIL-STD-130 for labeling and barcoding, though not explicitly mandated. Packaging, preservation, and marking requirements were not detailed but are inferred to follow standard DLA logistics protocols. The contracting officer was Larry Conner, with Jada Northington serving as the point of contact. The vendor’s UEI status and socioeconomic certifications were not documented, and no Contracting Officer’s Representative or technical oversight personnel were identified. No attachments, special contract requirements, or detailed compliance certifications were appended to the award, and the contract’s administrative termination reflects a complete