C.F.R. » Title 13 » CHAPTER I—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION › PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS › Subpart A—Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards

13 C.F.R. § 121.1102

Are NAICS code designations subject to appeal?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A NAICS code designation made by a procuring activity contracting officer may be appealed to OHA. The procedures governing OHA appeals are set forth in part 134 of this chapter. The OHA appeal is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before judicial review of a NAICS code designation may be sought in a court.

[67 FR 47245, July 18, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 783 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 783 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “” 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 . OHA’s decision in a NAICS code appeal is “final” and “may not be reconsidered.”
Ceres Env't Servs., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 23 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 4× “13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 . Accordingly, in order to prevail when the SBA is the final agency decision-maker, the protestor must establish that the SBA-OHA’s NAICS code determination had no rational basis or that in making the decision, the SBA-OHA violated an applicable procurement…”
Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 393 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (2006). Here, defendant argues that Rotech has attempted to challenge the NAICS codes assigned to RFPs 583 and 247, but that such claims are barred by the ten day deadline set forth in 13 C.”
Advanced Sys. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 474 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “13 C.F.R. §§ 121.1102 , 121.1103(b)(1), 134.”
Lawrence Battelle, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 ; Rotech Healthcare Inc.”
Red River Serv. Corp. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 532 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “” 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (emphasis added). The standard of review before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals is whether the size determination or NAICS code designation was based on clear error.”
Florida Home Med. Supply, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “In Palla-dian Partners, the Federal Circuit reviewed Small Business Administration regulation 13 C.F.R, § 121.1102 and found that it included a jurisdictional exhaustion requirement.”
Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 417 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “” Defendant cites to 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (2014), which states that, “[t]he OHA appeal is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before judicial review of a NAICS code designation may be sought in a court.”
Paradigm Engineers & Constructors, Pllc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). · cites it 2× “See 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (providing for judicial review after the exhaustion of administrative remedies at the OHA).”
Am. Relocation Connections, L.L.C. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “” 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (2018). Therefore, ARC’s failure to appeal the CBP’s determination that NAICS Code 531210 applied to the 2018 RFQ prevents this court from reviewing the merits of the CBP’s assignment of NAICS Code 531210 to the 2018 RFQ.”
Advanced Concepts Enter., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “Second, ACEs argues that OHA acted irrationally when affirming MDA’s NAICS code designation.”
Am. Relocation Connection v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2019). “See 13 C.F.R. § 121.1102 (“The [Office of Hearings and Appeals] appeal is an 14 AMERICAN RELOCATION CONNECTION v.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.