C.F.R. » Title 13 » CHAPTER I—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION › PART 134—RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CASES BEFORE THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS › Subpart C—Rules of Practice for Appeals From Size Determinations and NAICS Code Designations

13 C.F.R. § 134.314

Standard of review and burden of proof

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

The standard of review is whether the size determination or NAICS code designation was based on clear error of fact or law. The appellant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, in both size and NAICS code appeals.

[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 47250, July 18, 2002; 69 FR 29209, May 21, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Ceres Env't Servs., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 23 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ceres Env't Servs., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 23 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 3× “13 C.F.R. § 134.314 . The SBA-OHA’s decision is the final decision of the SBA and becomes effective upon issuance.”
Red River Serv. Corp. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 532 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 2× “See AR at 590-592 (citing 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 ; SIC Appeal of Four Winds Services, Inc.”
Advanced Sys. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 474 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 . OHA’s Decision After close of the record, the OHA Judge is required to issue “a decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, reasons for such findings and conclusions, and any relief ordered.”
Arcata Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 290 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 3× “ll (size standards and definitions for NAICS Code 541712); 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 (standard of review in NAICS Code appeals).”
Metters Indus., Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 444 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 (2012). The Court confesses to some difficulty in following the reasoning of the Area Office decision.”
Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 417 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 (2014); Info. Ventures, Inc.”
Vets. Tech. LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). · cites it 4× “” AR 3835–36 (citing 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 (2015) (italics added)).”
Kingfisher Sys., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 2× “at 4397 (citing 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 ), the Office of Hearings and Appeals explained: [Kingfisher] made no argument to the Area Office as to the manner in which [Kingfisher] believed its receipts should be calculated.”
Ideogenics LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “For these reasons, the court has determined that Ideogenics has standing to request that the court adjudicate the claims alleged in the December 13, 2017 Complaint.”
Daniels Bldg. Co., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “” 13 C.F.R. § 134.314 . “[A] finding is clearly erroneous when[,] although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Multimedia Env't Compliance Grp. Jv v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “The Court finds that OHA applied the proper standard of review.”
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.