TRANSMITTER, LIQUID

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) awarded a contract modification, SPE4A726P4831, to GMS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (CAGE 0JGJ8) for the procurement of a liquid transmitter (NSN 6680011754206) with a total contract value of $146,712.00, awarded on July 21, 2026, under solicitation SPE4A6-26-T-269V. The contract is a modification to an existing agreement, identified as Amendment P00001, and is administered by the DLA Aviation, ASC Commodities Division in Richmond, Virginia, with Dean Allen serving as the Contracting Officer. The place of performance is the contractor’s facility at 1984 Isaac Newton Sq W Ste 104, Reston, VA, and while no delivery schedule, FOB terms, or quantity details are specified, performance is governed by the inclusion of FAR 52.222-90, Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, which was incorporated as modified under Deviation 2026-00040, Revision 1, requiring the contractor to prohibit racially or ethnically discriminatory DEI practices in employment and subcontracting, report violations by subcontractors, notify the government of any legal challenges to the clause, and flow it down to all applicable subcontracts unless performed entirely outside the United States. Compliance with this clause is a material condition of payment and may trigger liability under the False Claims Act. The contract does not specify technical performance specifications, inspection criteria, packaging, preservation, or labeling standards beyond requiring the use of the NSN 6680011754206, CAGE code 0JGJ8, and contract number for identification purposes. No MIL-STD or other technical standards are cited, and there is no explicit information regarding inspection location, acceptance procedures, or quality assurance requirements. The NAICS code 334419 is listed, but no socioeconomic or small business certifications are asserted by the contractor. No Contracting Officer’s Representative or technical representative is named, and invoicing methodology is not stated, though DLA’s typical use of WAWF is likely applicable. The contract lacks detailed evaluation factors, pricing breakdowns by line item, or a formal contract type indication, although the fixed-price nature is inferred from the