Jack Faucett Associates, No. 3848 (October 22, 1993)
Docket No. SIC-93-8-20-97

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                  SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

                 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

SIC APPEAL OF:                     )
                                   )
Jack Faucett Associates            )
                                   )
     Appellant                     )  Docket No. SIC-93-8-20-97
                                   )
Solicitation No.                   )
DACW21-93-R-0070                   )
Department of Defense              )
U.S. Army Engineering District     )
Savannah, Georgia                  )

                             DIGEST

When an interim size standard for "Environmental Services," under
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 8744 has been
judicially vacated and a procurement seeks feasibility,
environmental and economic planning studies, in support of
projected engineering projects, SIC code 8748, "Business
Consulting Services, NEC," best describes the principal purpose
of the services sought.

                            DECISION
                                
                        October 22, 1993

WRIGHT, Administrative Judge, Presiding:

Jurisdiction

This appeal is decided under the Small Business Act of 1958, 15
U.S.C. 632 et seq., and the regulations codified at 13 CFR Part
121.

Issue

Whether the services sought should be classified under SIC code
8748.

Facts

On August 2, 1993, the Department of Defense, United States Army
Engineering District, Savannah, Georgia, issued 1/, and set
entirely aside for small business concerns, the instant solicita
tion for feasibility, environmental, and economic studies under
SIC code 8744, "Environmental Services," which bears an interim
size standard of 518.0 million in average annual receipts. The
solicitation required the bids to be submitted by September 14,
1993. The present appeal was timely filed, pursuant to 13 CFR
121.1705, on August 20, 1993, by Jack Faucett Associates (Jack
Faucett or Appellant).

In its appeal, Jack Faucett observes that an injunction against
the use of the interim size standard of $18.0 million in average
annual receipts established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) for Environmental Services under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 8744 was issued on June 23, 1993 by the
U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. and that the Small
Business Administration indicated, in the Federal Register
published August 9, 1993, that:

     [n]otice is hereby given that the interim size standard of
     $18.0 million in average annual receipts established by the
     Small Business Administration (SBA) for Environmental
     Services under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
     8744 has been judicially vacated.
     
The Statement of Work for the subject procurement indicates the
following at C.1.1:

     Character and extent of services. Perform Reconnaissance and
     Feasibility Level Planning Studies, Environmental and
     Cultural Resources Planning Studies, and Economics Planning
     Studies. Work will be performed in the Contiguous [sic]
     United States and its territories with emphasis on the
     Southeastern United States.... Over 50% of the work is
     expected to be environmentally related. In performing
     services that are ordered, the Contractor shall provide all
     the necessary personnel, facilities, material, equipment and
     supervision to assure a complete end product.

The "Reconnaissance and Feasibility Level Planning Studies"
required in the statement of work of the present procurement
include "planning studies for the development of navigation,
beach erosion and wildlife conservation, hydropower, and other
project purposes." These studies include fieldwork, data
collection, and "public involvement programs." The studies result
in "reports documenting entire reconnaissance and feasibility
study methods, results, and recommendations." The "Environmental
and Cultural Resources Planning Studies" cover a range of studies
including, but not limited to, wetland mitigation or restoration
plans, historic architectural or archaeological surveys, and
mitigation plans for cultural, historical and architectural
resources. The "Economic Planning Studies" contemplated by the
procurement include socioeconomic impact studies and benefit-
cost, financial and market analysis, relating to the contemplated
projects.

Appellant asserts that the subject procurement "only involves
reconnaissance and feasibility level planning studies" and that
as such it should be reclassified in either SIC code 8732,
"Commercial Economic, Sociological, and Education Research," SIC
code 8742, "Management Consulting Services," SIC code 8748,
"Business Consulting Services, N.E.C.," or SIC code 8711,
"Engineering Services."

Letters were received from two interested parties in this appeal,
both apparently unaware of the vacation of environmental services
size standard for SIC code 8744. Mote Environmental Services,
Inc. asserts that it "support[s] the use of SIC code 8744 in this
and selected future solicitations...." Gulf Engineers &
Consultants, Inc. submitted an extensive argument in support of
the use of SIC code 8744.

Discussion

In its SIC appeal Jack Faucett correctly observes that "the $18.0
million size standard for Environmental Services under SIC code
8744 is not in effect," 2/. We conclude that the vacation of this
SIC code by the United States District Court on June 23, 1993,
applies to the assigned SIC code of the present procurement,
issued on August 2, 1993. Pursuant to the appeal before us, we
must determine the appropriate SIC code which should be assigned
to it. In that regard, 13 CFR 121.902(b) provides the following:

     The proper SIC code designation for the goods or services
     being procured is that which best describes the principal
     purpose of the procurement, giving primary consideration to
     the industry descriptions in the SIC Manual, the product or
     service descriptions in the solicitation and attachments
     thereto, the relative value an importance of each of the
     components in the procurement (if in fact there is more than
     one component which makes up the end item being procured)
     and the function of the goods or services being purchased.
     Consideration may also be given to previous Government
     procurement classifications of the same or similar products
     or services, additional information on the industries and on
     the product or service procured, and to evaluations on which
     industry classification would best serve the purposes of the
     Small Business Act. Generally, a procurement will be
     classified according to the component which accounts for the
     greatest percentage of the contract value. A contracting
     officer must have a good reason to classify a procurement in
     a way that is inconsistent with this general rule.

As indicated in the work statement of the present procurement,
the services required include a broad range of extensive feasi
bility, environmental and impact studies in the southwestern
United States in anticipation of certain engineering projects
which the U.S. Army Engineering District might deem appropriate.
In light of these study requirements more fully set forth in the
foregoing factual recitation, we conclude that three of the SIC
codes, 8711, 8732, and 8742, advocated by Appellant, are
inapplicable. SIC code 8711 is inappropriate, as the contract
does not call for an establishment which is "primarily engaged in
providing professional engineering services." The services

sought in the present contract do not appear to be commercial
within the definition of SIC code 8732. Further, the present
solicitation does not call for an establishment "primarily
engaged in furnishing operating counsel and assistance to
management's of private, nonprofit, and public organizations," as
called for under the description of SIC code 8742.

However, the Standard Industrial Classification Manual describes
SIC code 8748, "Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified," as "[e]stablishments primarily engaged in furnishing
business consulting services, not elsewhere classified, on a
contract or fee basis." Examples listed include the following:

     Agricultural consulting
     City planners, except professional engineering
     Economic consulting
     Educational consulting, except management
     Industrial development planning service, commercial
     Radio consultants
     Systems engineering consulting, except professional
       engineering or computer related
     Test development and evaluation service, educational or
       personnel
     Testing services, educational or personnel
     Traffic Consultants

We conclude that these requirements are analogous to some of the
business consulting services enumerated under SIC code 8748, such
as "Economic consulting," or "Industrial development planning
service." Accordingly, in the absence of the judicially vacated
SIC code 8744, "Environmental Services," the alternative, SIC
code 8748, "Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified," best describes the principal purpose of the service
sought in this procurement.

Conclusion

This solicitation is properly classified under SIC code 8748 and
the $3.5 million average annual receipts size standard. The
relief sought in this appeal is GRANTED, and the Contracting
Officer's designation is REVERSED.

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

                    ____________________________________
                    G. Stephen Wright (Presiding)
                    Administrative Judge
                    
                    
                    ____________________________________
                    Michael S. Cole (Concurring)
                    Administrative Judge
                    
                    
                    _____________________________________
                    Jane E. Phillips (Concurring)
                    Administrative Judge

_______________

1/  The Contracting Officer indicated, inter alia, that

          I have also attached a copy of the mail room
          rooster [sic] that shows that this solicitation
          was mailed out of the Savannah District on August
          6, 1993 and that the issuance date of August 16,
          1993 is a mistake....I have also attached a
          memorandum to Office of Counsel showing that it
          was approved on the [sic] August 2, 1993.
          
    Based on these representations, we conclude that for
    purposes of this appeal, the instant solicitation was
    issued the day it was approved, August 2, 1993.

2/  Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 151, August 9, 1993.