Dove Mailing, Inc., No. 4415 (November 2, 2000) Docket No. Docket No. SIZ-2000-10-10-31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. ) SIZE APPEAL OF: ) ) Dove Mailing, Inc. ) ) Appellant ) Docket No. SIZ-2000-10-10-31 ) Solicitation No. ) SSA-RFQ-00-0262 ) Decided: November 2, 2000 Social Security Administration ) Office of Acquisition & Grants ) Baltimore, Maryland ) ) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL [1] I. BACKGROUND On July 6, 2000, the Office of Acquisition and Grants of the Social Security Administration issued the subject solicitation for services to pick up and prepare first-class national distribution mail at its Southeastern Program Service Center in Birmingham, Alabama. The Contracting Officer (CO) designated the procurement as a total small business set-aside and assigned to it Standard Industrial Classification Code 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, with a corresponding $5 million average annual receipts size standard. On September 14, 2000, the CO notified unsuccessful offerors that the apparent successful offeror was Dependable Mail Services, Inc. (Dependable). On September 20, 2000, Dove Mailing, Inc. (Appellant), the incumbent contractor, filed a protest with the CO "to challenge the small business size status of the apparent successful offeror." On September 25, 2000, the CO transmitted Appellant's protest to the Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of Government Contracting-Area III (Area Office) in Atlanta, Georgia. The CO's transmittal letter identified Dependable as the challenged firm. On September 26, 2000, the Area Office dismissed Appellant's protest as insufficiently specific. Appellant received the dismissal that same day via facsimile transmission. Also on September 26th, the CO awarded the procurement to Dependable. On October 6, 2000, Appellant, through counsel, filed the instant appeal. Appellant asserts the Area Office erred in dismissing its protest for two reasons. First, though its protest did not identify the apparent successful offeror by name, it did include the solicitation number, which was sufficient to place SBA on notice of the identity of the apparent successful offeror. Second, though Appellant concedes it did not present any information with its protest supporting its challenge to Dependable's size, it alleges that such information was and remains readily available. In support of its allegation, Appellant attaches to its appeal, as new evidence, a Dun & Bradstreet report stating Dependable's annual sales are $35 million. Appellant argues that to dismiss its protest based on technicalities will result in the manifest injustice of an ineligible firm receiving the award. II. DISCUSSION Appellant filed the instant appeal within 15 days of receiving the Area Office's dismissal of its protest. Thus, it is timely. See 13 C.F.R. Section 134.304(a)(1); see also Size Appeal of MBI Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-4375, at 5 n.8 (1999). As a threshold matter, the Administrative Judge EXCLUDES from consideration Appellant's proffered new evidence. The Administrative Judge will not consider evidence Appellant failed to present to the Area Office unless he orders it presented or a motion is served and filed establishing good cause for the submission; neither event occurred here. See 13 C.F.R. Section 134.308(a); Size Appeal of Premiere Building Maintenance Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-4358, at 2 (1999). Further, Appellant cannot "cure" a nonspecific protest on appeal by submitting information it did not present to the Area Office. See Premiere, SBA No. SIZ-4358, at 2. The Administrative Judge concludes he must dismiss this appeal. While Appellant is correct in its assertion that its protest, together with the CO's transmittal letter, put the Area Office on notice of the identity of the challenged firm, this alone is insufficient to support its appeal. A review of Appellant's protest reveals it articulated no basis whatever for the allegation that Dependable is other than small. A size protest must provide some evidentiary basis for its allegations. A mere assertion a firm is other than small provides no such basis. See 13 C.F.R. Section 121.1007(b); Size Appeal of Dawkins/CSI Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-4321, at 2 (1998) (citing Size Appeal of CardioMetrix, SBA No. SIZ-4226, at 3 (1996)). Further, the fact that information on Dependable's size was available does not compel SBA to seek it out. Rather, Appellant had the burden of producing the information to support its protest. Id. Appellant is really challenging, not the Area Office's dismissal, but the regulatory scheme, which requires a protester to provide a specific evidentiary basis for its allegations. This Office cannot entertain such a challenge. See Size Appeal of Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4151, at 7 (1996). Finally, even if Appellant's protest were specific, the Administrative Judge would have to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellant seeks to appeal a favorable size determination regarding another offeror after contract award. This Office's precedent requires the Administrative Judge to dismiss such appeals as moot. See, e.g. Size Appeal of Technical Ordnance, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4414, at 3 (2000). III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Administrative Judge AFFIRMS the Area Office's dismissal of Appellant's protest and DISMISSES the instant appeal. This is the Small Business Administration's final decision. See 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 (2000). Posted: November, 2000