River City Railroad Contractors, Inc., and Railroad Contractors,
Inc., A Joint Venture, No. 3799 (June 24, 1993)
Docket No. SIZ-93-5-28-63

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                
                  SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
                                
                 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
                                
                         WASHINGTON, D.C

SIZE APPEAL OF:                )
                               )
River City Railroad            )
Contractors, Inc., and         )
Railroad Contractors, Inc.     )
A Joint Venture                )
                               )
     Appellant                 )   Docket No. SIZ-93-5-28-63
                               )
Re:  Metroplex Corporation     )
                               )
Solicitation No.               )
DTRS57-92-B-00400              )
Department of Transportation   )
Cambridge, Massachusetts       )

                             DIGEST

A Regional Office finding that a Section 8(a) firm is eligible
for award of a particular contract may not be appealed by another
firm.

                            DECISION

                          June 24, 1993

PHILLIPS, Administrative Judge, Presiding:

Jurisdiction

This appeal is resolved pursuant to the Small Business Act of
1958, 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq., and the regulations codified at 13
CFR Part 121.

Issue

Whether the Appellant lacks standing to file a size appeal in
this matter.

Facts

On May 18, 1993, the Atlanta Regional Office issued a size
determination finding Metroplex Corporation to be small under the
$17 million average annual receipts size standard designated for
the captioned solicitation, which has been assigned to SBAfs
Section 8(a) program. The determination resulted from a request
by the Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and
Capital ownership Development (AA/MSB&COD) for an assessment of
Metroplex's size status, based on information submitted to the
Contracting Officer by River City Railroad Contractors, Inc. and
Railroad Contractors, Inc., a Joint Venture.

On May 26, 1993, the Joint Venture filed a timely appeal of this
determination. on June 16, 1993, Metroplex filed a motion to
intervene and motions to expedite and to dismiss the appeal for
lack of standing. On June 22, 1993, the Contracting Officer filed
a request for an extension of time in which to file a response to
the appeal. */

Discussion

Section 121.1601(b)(2)(ii) identifies which entities may request
a formal size determination in the context of a Section 8(a)
procurement:

     For purposes of individual 8(a) contract awards,
     whether sole source or competitive, the following
     entities may request a formal size determination.
       (A) The section 8(a) concern nominated by SBA for the
     particular sole source 8(a) award or the apparent
     successful offeror for the particular competitive 8(a)
     award;
       (B) The SBA program official in the relevant SBA
     office with authority to execute the section 8(a)
     contract;
       (C) The SBA Regional Administrator of the region
     servicing the geographical area in which the principal
     office of the 8(a) concern, excluding parent companies
     and affiliates, is located or the Associate
     Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital
     Ownership Development.

The Joint Venture is not included within this group, which is
confined to the Section 8(a) firm itself and SBA officials
responsible for administering the Section 8(a) program. As we
stated recently in Size Appeal of Barrett Refining Corporation,
No. 3780 (1993), with respect to an appeal by a competitor of the
Section 8(a) firm, "where its alleged economic interests have
been unequivocally ignored at the protest level, they cannot be
permitted to reassert themselves at the appellate level.
Standing to protest having been barred, standing to appeal must
also be denied." In consequence, the Joint Venture's appeal is
dismissed for lack of standing.

Conclusion

The appeal is DISMISSED.

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

                         _______________________________
                         Jane E. Phillips (Presiding)
                         Administrative Judge

                         _______________________________
                         Gloria E. Blazsik (Concurring)
                         Administrative Judge

                         _______________________________
                         G. Stephen Wright (Concurring)
                         Administrative Judge

_______________

*/   In light of our determination on the issue of standing, the
     Contracting Officer's request for an extension of time is
     denied as moot.