Cobra Technologies, Inc., No. 3951 (September 13, 1994) Docket No. SIZ-94-4-21-53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. SIZE APPEAL OF: ) ) Cobra Technologies, Inc. ) ) Appellant ) ) Docket No. SIZ-94-4-21-53 Re: MManTec, Inc. ) ) Solicitation No. ) IRS-93-MA-09 ) Department of the Treasury ) Philadelphia Service Center ) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ) DIGEST When a protestant alleges that a protested concern exceeds the size standard assigned the solicitation in terms of average annual receipts, and supports that allegation only by reference to information regarding number of employees, it has failed to be sufficiently specific within the meaning of 13 CFR 121.1604, and its protest was properly dismissed. An appellant's attempt to formulate more adequate grounds on appeal is ineffective. DECISION September 13, 1994 WRIGHT, Administrative Judge, Presiding: Jurisdiction This appeal is resolved in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 632 et seq., and the regulations codified at 13 CFR Part 121. Issue Whether the Regional Office erred in dismissing the instant protest as nonspecific. Facts On June 7, 1993, the Department of the Treasury, Philadelphia Service Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania issued the captioned solicitation for mechanical maintenance services, set it entirely aside for small business concerns, and classified it by amendment dated July 7, 1993, under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 7349, which bears a size standard not to exceed $8 million in average annual receipts. A timely protest of the apparent award of the solicitation to MManTec, Inc. was made by Cobra Technologies, Inc. (Cobra or Appellant) as follows: Enclosures (1) [sic] provides a copy of Dun & Bradstreet's business information report showing that MManTec, Inc. has 400 employees. Based on industry standards, a company this size would have gross sales equivalent to ten to twelve million dollars per year. Gross sales per year are normally on this report. We have been informed by a Dun & Bradstreet customer representative that MManTec, Inc. has declined all financial information request. I therefore contend they are "other than small business" as described in Section "L" and are not eligible for award. We are requesting a ruling to this effect by the IRS/SBA. On March 30, 1994, the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Region IV Regional Office dismissed Appellant's protest as nonspecific, pursuant to 13 CFR 121.1604. The record shows that Appellant received this action on April 5, 1994 and the present appeal was received on April 13, 1994. */ In its appeal, Appellant attempt to buttress its argument as follows: This appeal is to clarify and show specific grounds for the allegations that MManTec, Inc. exceeds the size standard set forth for this solicitation of eight million dollars. As you will see by the attached Dun & Bradstreet report they [sic] have approximately 400 employees and have refused to disclose to Dun & Bradstreet their [sic] gross sales. For a direct comparison if [sic] sales volume per number of employees, in this industry, I have enclosed the Dun & Bradstreet reports on the following companies who are major competitors to MManTec. Appellant then lists five concerns and, respectively, annual sales, number of employees, and sales per employee per year for each concern. Discussion 13 CFR 121.1604 requires the following demonstration in a legally sufficient protest: (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 ground for the protest. Some basis for the belief stated in the protest must be given. (b) Non-specific protest. Protest which do not contain sufficient specificity shall be dismissed by SBA. While no specific form is required for a protest, we cannot conclude that the present appeal was sufficiently specific. Here the applicable size standard was expressed in terms of average annual receipts. However, the Protestant attempts to derive knowledge of those receipt sums by extrapolating from information contained in Dun and Bradstreet which only states the number of employees of MManTec. As we cannot quantify the relationship, if any, between a concern's average annual receipts and number of employees, we are unable to conclude that this protest is sufficiently specific so as to provide reasonable notice as to the grounds upon which the protested concern's size is questioned. Accordingly, the Regional Office made no error in dismissing the protest as non-specific. Furthermore, Appellant's attempt to buttress its protest on appeal is ineffective. See Size Appeal of Waste Management of Wisconsin. Inc., No. 3893 (1994). Conclusion For this reason the determination of the Regional Office is AFFIRMED; the relief sought by this appeal is DENIED. This constitutes the final decision of the Small Business Administration. See 13 CFR 121.1720(b). ________________________________ G. Stephen Wright Administrative Judge _______________________ */ The appeal is, thus, timely only as to future procurements, pursuant to 13 CFR 121.1705(a)(1).