PRODUCTION LOT TESTING (GOVERNMENT)

The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency awarded JANELS INDUSTRIES INC, with CAGE code 3B8L1, a contract valued at $21,000.00 under solicitation SPE4A6-26-T-9406, with the award issued on July 21, 2026, and performance occurring at the contractor’s facility in Dowagiac, Michigan. The contract covers two line items: PRODUCTION LOT TESTING (GOVERNMENT) and a CABLE ASSEMBLY, SPEC, with no detailed quantities, unit prices, or delivery schedules provided. The work is subject to the mandatory inclusion of FAR 52.222-90, Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, as modified by DoD Class Deviation 2026-00040, Revision 1, which imposes strict obligations on the contractor to avoid discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, require flow-down of the clause to all domestic subcontractors, and report any known violations by subcontractors or legal challenges to the Contracting Officer. Compliance with this clause is tied to payment and can result in contract termination for noncompliance. The NAICS code 541380 is assigned, indicating scientific research and development services, and the contract was awarded without a stated socioeconomic set-aside or size certification. While the place of performance is clearly identified, no specifications for packaging, preservation, or labeling were included, though standard military practices such as MIL-STD-129 or MIL-STD-2073 are implicitly expected. Inspection and acceptance responsibilities rest with the government, administered through DCMA Ohio River Valley at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and the contracting office in Richmond, Virginia. The contracting officer is Dean Allen, with no identified COR or COTR. Payment details, accounting data such as TAS or AAC, invoicing method, and FOB terms are not specified in the documentation. The contractor must immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing if unable to comply with the terms or if they dispute the modification. The contract includes administrative requirements aligned with Standard Form 30 and electronic submission protocols, but no evaluation factors, weights, or basis of award are explicitly stated, suggesting a potential Low Price Technically Acceptable determination due to the contract’s minimal scope and value.