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).