Anthony M. Whitfield, d/b/a Whitfield Realty, No. 3944 (August 1, 1994), Docket No. SIZ-94-5-4-63 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. SIZE APPEAL OF: ) ) Anthony M. Whitfield, d/b/a ) Whitfield Realty ) ) Appellant ) ) Re: The Prudential Carolinas ) Remax Professional Realty ) Bulwinkle Real Estate ) Docket No. SIZ-94-5-4-63 O'Shaughnessy Realty Co. ) Jerry Smith Realty ) John E. Bourne Company ) ) Solicitation No. ) DACA21-94-B-0010 ) Department of the Army ) Corps of Engineers ) Savannah, Georgia ) DIGEST Protests that merely assert that the challenged firms are either dominant in their field or exceed the applicable size standard lack the specificity required under the provisions of 13 CFR 121.1604 and must be dismissed. Deficiencies in the protests may not be cured on appeal. DECISION August 1, 1994 BLAZSIK, Administrative Judge, Presiding: Jurisdiction This appeal is decided under the Small Business Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. 632 et seq.., and the regulations codified at 13 CFR Part 121. Issue Whether the Regional Office was correct in dismissing the protests for nonspecificity. Facts On January 26, 1994, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, issued the instant solicitation for "Real Estate Property Management" and classified it under Standard Industrial Classification code 6531 (Real Estate Agents and Managers), having a $1 million average annual receipts size standard. The solicitation was totally set aside for small businesses, and the bids were due on March 18, 1994. By letters dated March 22 and 23, 1994, Anthony M. Whitfield, d/b/a Whitfield Realty (Appellant) timely challenged the small business size status of six bidders: The Prudential Carolinas (Prudential); Remax Professional Realty (Remax); Bulwinkle Real Estate (Bulwinkle); O'Shaughnessy Realty Co. (O'Shaughnessy); Jerry Smith Realty (Jerry); and John E. Bourne Company (Bourne).1/ Appellant's March 22, 1994, protest letter stated: Upon information and belief the Prudential Carolinas are not independently owned and operated...and have estimated annual gross revenues...[that] exceed $5 million per year and well over $1 million average for the past 3 fiscal years. Remax Professional Realty...upon information and belief have commission revenues exceed $2 million per year for the past 3 fiscal years and are also dominant in the field of real estate sales. Appellant's March 23, 1994, protest letter stated: Bulwinkle Real Estate are [sic] dominant in the field of real estate and have revenues believed to exceed $1 million for the past 3 years. O'Shaughnessy Realty [is] clearly and most dominant in the field of real estate among all Charleston area real estate companies. Far exceed [sic] $1 million per year for past 3 years in gross revenues. Jerry Smith Realty is the HUD Property Manager for the Charleston County area and both offices are not independently owned, only one. They are dominant in the field of real estate. John E. Bourne Co. [is] dominant in the field of real estate. Mr. Bourne has been a VA Property Manager since on or about 1970 without any competitive solicitation of this contract. He now has the entire Charleston, Dorchester and Berkeley County areas as VA Property Managers. Gross revenues to this office are believed to exceed $1 million. On March 28, 1994, the Contracting Officer forwarded the two protest letters to the Atlanta Regional Office of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a size determination. On April 15, 1994, the Regional Office issued six separate determinations on each of the challenged firms and dismissed all the protests as nonspecific pursuant to 13 CFR 121.1604(a) and (b). For administrative convenience, we have consolidated the cases. Appellant received the size determinations on April 20, 1994, and timely filed an appeal postmarked April 28, 1994. 2/ Appellant merely reasserts the allegations made in its protest and, in an attempt to cure the insufficiency of its protests, Appellant submits that in a publication called The Charleston Trident Multiple Listing Service. Inc.. Confidential Market Digest, No. 15, April 15, 1994, the following number of agents was shown for the companies being protested: The Prudential Carolinas, 166 agents; The Remax Realty Co., 23 agents; and The O'Shaughnessy Company, 251 agents. Appellant also submits that the April 10, 1994 edition of The Post and Courier, a local Charleston newspaper, listed the following real estate agencies as being in the 1993 "Million Dollar Club." These were the Prudential Carolinas, Remax, and O'Shaughnessy. 3/ Discussion The pertinent regulations regarding the specificity requirements for protests and the introduction of new evidence on appeal are set forth at 13 CFR 121.1604 and 121.1707. Section 121.1604 states, in pertinent part: (a) Required specificity. No specific form is required for a protest. However, a protest must be sufficiently specific to provide reasonable notice as to the grounds upon which the protested concern's size is questioned. A protest merely alleging that the protested concern is not small or is affiliated with unnamed other concerns will not be deemed to specify adequate grounds for the protest. Some basis for the belief stated in the protest must be given.... (b) Non-specific Drotest. Protests which do not contain sufficient specificity shall be dismissed by SBA. Section 121.1707 provides as follows: The Office of Hearings and Appeals will not consider issuges not previously presented to the Small Business Administration official whose size determination is being appealed unless such consideration is determined to be necessary to prevent manifest injustice to a party and such omission was not due to the fault of such party.... A review of the protests demonstrates that, except for general allegations that the protested firms are either dominant in the realty field or their average annual receipts exceed the applicable size standard, no specific grounds for the allegations have been provided within the meaning of the above-cited regulations. In consequence, the Regional Office properly dismissed the protests for their nonspecificity. Size Appeal of Optical Extravaganza, No. 3862 (1993). Further, Appellant's belated attempt to cure the protests' deficiencies on appeal, by presenting arguably more adequate grounds, cannot be allowed. We have often held that, although SBA regulations (13 CFR 121.1707, supra), permit the introduction of new evidence at the appellate level under certain limited circumstances, the regulations cannot be used as a vehicle for curing protests which were so unspecific, as here, that a Regional Office determination on the merits could not be rendered. Ibid, at 4. Conclusion For the above reasons, the Regional Office's determinations dismissing the protests for nonspecificity are AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DENIED. This constitutes the final decision of the Small Business Administration. See 13 CFR 121.1720(a), (b), and (c). _________________________________ Gloria E. Blazsik (Presiding) Administrative Judge _________________________________ Elwin H. White (Concurring) Administrative Judge _________________________________ G. Stephen Wright (Concurring) Administrative Judge _________________ 1/ See 13 CFR 121.1603(a)(1). 2/ The appeal was timely filed within the five-business day provision of 13 CFR 121.1705(a)(2). April 27, 1994, was a Federal holiday in honor of President Richard Nixon's funeral. Thus, our decision will apply to the solicitation at issue here. 3/ Appellant also refers to a letter dated May 16, 1994, from a R. Milton Thomas, III, of the Prudential Carolinas Realty. However, this Office has not received this letter and, therefore, it is not of record in this proceeding.