PRIMER COATING

The Defense Logistics Agency awarded a delivery order under contract SPE8ES24D0005 to ASRC FEDERAL FACILITIES LOGISTICS (CAGE 79343) for the delivery of one box of PRIMER COATING (NSN 8010015148410, manufacturer part number 519X303) at a total contract price of $479.27. The award was issued on July 14, 2026, with a required delivery date of July 28, 2026, to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. The contract specifies FOB destination terms, meaning the contractor bears all transportation costs and risk of loss until delivery at the destination, where government personnel will inspect and formally accept the item. The order is designated as a rated priority under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) per 15 CFR 700, mandating adherence to priority performance and reporting obligations. Shipment must be sent via the fastest traceable means, and parcel post is explicitly prohibited. Payment will be processed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Columbus, Ohio, under appropriation code BX: 97X4930 5CBX 001 2620 S33189. The contractor’s CAGE code is 79343, with associated manufacturer CAGE codes listed as 83574, 85570, and 42701, though only the awardee is responsible for performance. No standard FAR or DFARS clauses are explicitly identified in the documentation, and the contract lacks detailed sections on packaging, inspection criteria, evaluation factors, or special requirements beyond operational directives. No contract modifications, option periods, or additional line items are included; the action is a single-line-item delivery order under an existing basic contract. The contracting office is administered by DLA Troop Support Construction & Equipment in Philadelphia, with Nate Prattico listed as the local administrator and primary point of contact. Submission of proposals occurred through the DIBBS portal, and invoicing is assumed to be handled electronically, though the specific system is not confirmed. The awardee provided no socioeconomic certifications or small business status representations, and no formal evaluation factors, weights, or selection rationale were documented, suggesting the award was likely based on lowest price technically acceptable standards. The contract does not reference any specific MIL