Opinion ID: 2795702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Palladian’s Subsequent OHA Appeal

Text: On April 14, 2014, Palladian appealed the contracting officer’s new NAICS code designation to OHA. OHA provided notice of the appeal and the contracting officer issued an amendment to the solicitation to notify all potential offerors of Palladian’s appeal. Palladian argued that NAICS code 541611 was inappropriate because it is used for “general consulting services in support of an agency.” NAICS Appeal of Palladian Partners, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5553, 2014 WL 1924608, at  (May 7, 2014) (“Palladian OHA Dismissal”). According to Palladian, NAICS code 519130, “Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals,” which has a size standard of 500 employees, best describes the work to be performed because the RFP’s tasks “all relate to the creation of the Coordination Center website or to basic contract administration.” Id. Palladian asserted that it would be eligible to bid if that code and its accompanying size standard were used, but not if the revenue-based NAICS code 541611 applied, which restricted the solicitation to comPALLADIAN PARTNERS, INC. v. US 9 panies with less than $14 million in average annual receipts. Notably, Palladian did not defend or seek reinstatement of the original code chosen by the contracting officer—NAICS code 541712. On May 7, 2014, OHA dismissed Palladian’s appeal under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Specifically, OHA found that Palladian is “barred from relitigating issues already decided in NAICS Appeal of Information Ventures,” and that the issue presented there was the same: which NAICS code is appropriate for RFP No. N01DA-144423. Id. at . OHA emphasized that, in Information Ventures, the contracting officer notified Palladian and other prospective offerors that a NAICS appeal was pending at OHA, that the record would close on March 25, 2014, and that SBA’s regulations permit interested parties to intervene “at any time until the close of record.” Id. at  (quoting 13 C.F.R. § 134.210(b)). OHA explained that, if Palladian “wished to litigate the issue of what NAICS code should apply to this RFP,” it “could, and should, have intervened in Information Ventures.” Id. OHA rejected Palladian’s suggestion that its decision in Information Ventures should have addressed every possible NAICS code, noting that it would not be “practicable to specifically comment in the text of a decision on every NAICS code theoretically applicable to a procurement.” Id. Finally, OHA explained that the regulations “specifically preclude reconsideration of a NAICS code decision.” Id. (citing 13 C.F.R. § 134.316(f)).