Augusta Buildings & Spas, Inc., No. 4029 (May 10, 1995)
Docket No. SIZ-94-11-14-151

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                  SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

                 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________
                               )
SIZE APPEAL OF:                )
                               )
Augusta Buildings & Spas, Inc. )
                               )
     Appellant                 )  Docket No. SIZ-94-11-14-151
                               )
Solicitation No.               )
DABT11-94-R-0005               )        
Department of the Army         )
Fort Gordon, Georgia           )
_______________________________)

                             DIGEST

A challenged firm's failure or refusal to submit documents
regarding its small business size when requested by the Regional
Office as part of a size investigation is sufficient reason to
presume that disclosure would be contrary to the challenged
firm's interest.  Thus, the Regional Office may properly draw an
adverse inference that disclosure of such information would be
contrary to that firm's interest, and thus a basis for an adverse
finding regarding the firm's small business size status.

                            DECISION

                          May 10, 1995

BLAZSIK, Administrative Judge:

Jurisdiction

This appeal is decided under the Small Business Act of 1958, 
15 U.S.C. Section 631 et seq., and 13 CFR Part 121.

Issue

Whether the Regional Office was in error in finding the
challenged firm to be an other-than-small business based upon
that firm's failure to supply documents and relevant information
requested by the Regional Office.

Facts

On March 1, 1994, the Contracting Officer for the Department of
the Army, Fort Gordon, Georgia, issued this solicitation for
"leasing relocatable buildings," and classified it under Standard
Industrial Classification code 6515 (Leasing of Building Space to
Federal Government by Owners), having a $10 million average
annual receipts size standard. [1]  The Contracting Officer set
the solicitation aside for small businesses, and awarded a
portion of the contract to Allenhurst Industries (Allenhurst) and
a portion to Morgan Building and Spas (Morgan) on September 23,
1994.

On September 27, 1994, Allenhurst timely challenged the small
business size status of Morgan on the grounds that Morgan is
affiliated with Morgan Portable Buildings which, Allenhurst
believes, is a large business under the applicable size standard. 
On September 29, 1994, the Contracting Officer forwarded the
protest to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Atlanta
Regional Office (Regional Office).

By letter dated October 18, 1994, the Regional Office requested
Morgan to respond to the protest's allegations and to submit an
SBA Form 355, as well as other specific documents (Articles of
Incorporation, financial statements, and Federal income tax
returns).  The Regional Office enclosed an SBA Form 355, and
specifically requested that all the information be submitted to
the Regional Office within three working days after Morgan
received the Regional Office's letter and enclosure.  The letter
stated that failure to submit all the information requested in a
timely manner could result in the Regional Office's finding that
Morgan was other than small.

On November 2, 1994, the Regional Office noted in its determina-
tion that, as of close of business on October 28, 1994, Morgan
never responded to the Regional Office's letter and did not
request an extension of time to file its response.  Accordingly,
the Regional Office concluded that, because Morgan had failed to
provide the requested information by the due date, pursuant to
13 CFR 121.1606(e), it was assuming that disclosure would be
contrary to the Morgan's interests and, accordingly, found Morgan
to be an other-than-small business under the applicable size
standard.

Morgan received the determination on November 2, 1994; however,
the postmark of the appeal is obliterated and thus, this Office
cannot determine whether the appeal is timely under the five-day
or 30-day rule.  See 13 CFR 121.1705(a)(1) and (2).   The appeal
was received in this Office on November 14, 1994, and the
Presiding Judge is considering it timely. [2]

Arguments on Appeal

The appeal, which is undated, and bears the letterhead "Augusta
Buildings & Spas, Inc." (Appellant) states that, at the time of
the bidding, Appellant was a dealership for Morgan; however, it
has now "dropped all alliances with Morgan" and that it is now
called Augusta Buildings & Spas, Inc.  Appellant merely asserts
that its financial status "currently falls well within the realms
[sic] of the criteria set forth by your department."

Discussion

Under 13 CFR 121.1606(d), a challenged firm bears the burden of
proving that it is small.  Where the firm fails or refuses to
timely provide pertinent information requested by a Regional
Office, SBA may properly presume that the information would have
been adverse to that firm's interest.  See 13 CFR 121.1606(e). 

Here, the record demonstrates that Morgan, who now has filed an
appeal under the name Augusta Buildings & Spas, Inc., failed to
submit the information requested by the Regional Office, or to
even request an extension of time to file the information. 
Accordingly, the Regional Office, based upon well established
case precedent, as well as the regulation at 13 CFR 121.1605(c)
and (e), properly drew an adverse inference regarding Morgan's
size status.  See Size Appeal of Kelly Temporary Services,  No.
4027 (1995) and Size Appeal of Gartrell Travel Service, Inc., No.
3939, at 4 (1994).

Finally, Appellant's sole assertion on appeal that it now meets
the applicable size standard, is self-serving and without
probative value and does not meet the specificity requirements of
13 CFR 121.1706(a)(4) that mandates that an appeal give a "full
and specific" statement for the reasons why appellant considers
the Regional Office's determination to be erroneous.

Accordingly, the Regional Office's finding that Morgan is other
than small, was correct.

Conclusion

The Regional Office's determination is AFFIRMED, and the appeal
is DENIED.

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

                              _______________________________
                              Gloria E. Blazsik 
                              Administrative Judge

____________________
 [1]      On April 22, 1994, the size standards were revised. 
          SIC code 6515 now has a $15 million size standard. 
          Because the solicitation was issued before that date,
          the $10 million size standard applies.

 [2]      The appeal also fails to contain the certification
          required by 13 CFR 121.1712(a).  This omission,
          however, is irrelevant in view of the decision's
          ultimate conclusion.