Rels Manufacturing, No. 3909 (April 6, 1994)
Docket No. SIZ-94-2-7-7


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                  SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

                 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                

SIZE APPEAL OF:                 )
                                )
Rels Manufacturing              )
                                )
     Appellant                  ) Docket No. SIZ-94-2-7-7
                                )
Re: Winona Van Norman           )
Solicitation No.                )
DAAA09-93-B-0512                )
Department of the Army          )
AMCCOM Procurement Directorate  )
Rock Island, Illinois           )


                             DIGEST

Where an Appellant fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that a Regional Office size determination was erroneous,
that determination will be sustained by the Office of Hearings
and Appeals.

                            DECISION

                          April 6, 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 challenged concern was other than small.

Facts

On October 18, 1993, the Department of the Army, AMCCOM Procure
ment Directorate issued the present procurement for "lathe brake
drum and disc brake rotors," set it aside for small business
concerns, and classified it under Standard Industrial Classifica
tion (SIC) code 3549, "Metalworking Machinery, Not Elsewhere
Classified," which bears a size standard not to exceed 500
employees.

On December 13, I993, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Region V Regional Office received a timely protest from Rels
Manufacturing, Inc. (Rels, Protestant, and Appellant) claiming
that Winona Van Norman, a division of Hein-Werner Corporation is
a large business which exceeds the applicable size standard.
Rels also asserted that it had contacted Hein-Werner Corporation
by telephone and the person spoken with stated "that Hein-Werner
Corporation had more than 500 employees."

In its size determination, the SBA Region V Regional Office ruled
that the challenged concern was small within the 500 employee
size standard.

Rels timely filed */ the present appeal on February 7, 1994.  In
its pleading Rels notes that Hein-Werner "filled out a 10K Form
as of December 31, 1992 which states they have 502 employees."
Appellant does not further identify nor provide a copy of the
referenced document.

It argues further that

     [i]n addition to this, a representative of our company spoke
     to Mr. Duffy, the executive Vice President of Hein Werner on
     November 19, 1993.  He said that Hein Werner had about 440
     employees in the U.S. and about 120 in Europe.  We also
     spoke to a woman by the name of Barbara on November 17,
     1993. She told us that Hein Werner had exactly 566
     employees, as of that date.

Discussion

The regulation found at 132 CFR 121.1707 provides in pertinent
part that "[t]he Appellant shall have the burden of proof, by a
preponderance of the evidence, in both size and SIC code
appeals." In the present case, Rels has failed to demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that the determination of the
Regional Office was erroneous. Accordingly, that determination
should be sustained.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reason, the determination of the Region V
Regional Office is AFFIRMED; the relief sought in this appeal is
DENIED.

This constitutes the final decision of the Small Business
Administration.  See 13 CFR 121.1720(b).


                              ________________________________
                              G.   Stephen Wright (Presiding)
                              Administrative Judge
                              
                              
                              _________________________________
                              Gloria E. Blazsik (Concurring)
                              Administrative Judge
                              
                              
                              __________________________________
                              Elwin H. White (Concurring)

_________________

*/   While the Regional Office file does not contain a signed
     receipt and Appellant does not aver the day upon which it
     received a copy of the size determination, the date of that
     written determination and the date of filing lead us to
     conclude that it was filed within 5 days of receipt of
     notice, within the meaning of 13 CFR 121.1705(2).