Spacesaver Design, Inc., No. 4678 (January 3, 2005) Docket No. SIZ-2004-10-19-63 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. ) SIZE APPEAL OF: ) ) Spacesaver Design, Inc. ) Docket No. SIZ-2004-10-19-63 ) Appellant ) Decided: January 3, 2005 ) Solicitation No. F9WGOA41540100 ) Pennsylvania Air National Guard ) 171st Air Refueling Wing ) Coraopolis, Pennsylvania ) ) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL [1] HOLLEMAN, Administrative Judge: I. BACKGROUND A. The Size Determination On July 28, 2004, the 171st Air Refueling Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard (171st Wing), based at Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, issued the subject Request for Quotations (RFQ) for movable shelving systems. The RFQ would result in the 171st Wing placing an order against the successful offeror's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Contract. The Contracting Officer (CO) designated the procurement as a 100% small business set aside, and designated North American Industry Classification system (NAICS) code 337215, Showcase, Partition Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing as the appropriate NAICS code for the procurement, with a corresponding 500 employee size standard. Quotations were due on August 12, 2004. On September 2, 2004, unsuccessful offerors were notified that Spacesaver Design, Inc. (Appellant) was the awardee. On September 9, 2004, Alpha-Omega Shelving, Inc. filed a protest alleging Appellant was not an eligible small business because it would be providing products produced by a large business. On September 17, 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Government Contracting - Area II (Area Office) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, contacted Appellant, informing it of the protest and requesting that it submit a response, together with a completed SBA Form 355, and certain other information. Appellant informed the Area Office that the actual manufacturer of the shelving it proposed to provide was Spacesaver Corporation (Spacesaver) and that the two firms were not affiliated. According to a September 8th letter submitted by Spacesaver's Vice President for Finance, Spacesaver is owned by, and thus affiliated with, Krueger International, a large corporation. Appellant argued that the requirements of Part 19 (Small Business Programs) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation do not apply to purchases against FSS contracts. The Area Office requested that Spacesaver submit a SBA Form 355. Spacesaver failed to do so. On October 5, 2004, the Area Office issued a size determination finding Appellant other than small. The Area Office found that it was appropriate to perform a size determination here, despite Appellant's objections, relying on Size Appeal of Advanced Management Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4638 (2004). The Area Office concluded, on the basis of Spacesaver's September 8th letter and Spacesaver's failure to submit a SBA Form 355, which justified the Area Office drawing an adverse inference against Spacesaver, that Spacesaver was a large corporation. Accordingly, Appellant sought to provide the product of a large business, and was thus not an eligible small business for this procurement. On October 13, 2004, Appellant received the size determination. B. The Appeal On October 19, 2004, Appellant filed the instant appeal. The appeal states: I must start out by saying that I do not feel that the size determination was an error. This decision was completed properly and without any question from Spacesaver Design, Inc. . However, the above mentioned [the size determination's conclusions] is technically true, but the reality is that Spacesaver Corporation the manufacturer could be a small business. . In addition, Spacesaver Design Inc. is also a small business . Appellant also attaches a copy of Spacesaver's September 8th letter and a letter from the CO, which does not question the size determination, but urges that the award to Appellant be allowed to move forward. II. DISCUSSION Appellant filed the instant appeal within 15 days of receiving the size determination. Thus, the appeal is timely. 13 C.F.R. Section 134.304(a)(1). Nevertheless, the Administrative Judge must dismiss this appeal, because it fails to meet the requirement that it claim or set forth specific reasons why the Area Office's size determination is erroneous. 13 C.F.R. Section 134.305(a)(3); Size Appeal of Williamson Metal Works, SBA No. SIZ-4353, at 3 (1999). Appellant fails to identify any error of fact or law in the size determination. [2] Indeed, it concedes that the determination is correct. Appellant offers no reason why this Office should overturn the size determination, other than it is a small business and wants the contract. Its mere assertion that Spacesaver "could be" small is not an assignment of error, and is contradicted by Spacesaver's own letter, which admits to affiliation with a large firm. III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Administrative Judge DISMISSES the instant appeal and AFFIRMS the Area Office's size determination. This is the final decision of the Small Business Administration. 13 C.F.R. Section 134.316(b). CHRISTOPHER HOLLEMAN Administrative Judge _________________________ 1 This appeal is decided under the Small Business Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. Section 631 et seq., and 13 C.F.R. Parts 121 and 134. 2 Because Appellant does not reassert on appeal its claim that the Area Office should not have performed a size determination in this case, it has abandoned it, and the Administrative Judge need not consider it. Size Appeal of Apex Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4300 (1998). Posted: January, 2005