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. § 134.318

NAICS appeals

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

(a) General. The regulations at §§ 121.402, 121.1102, and 121.1103 of this chapter also apply to NAICS code appeals.

(b) Effect of OHA's decision. If OHA grants the appeal (changes the NAICS code), the contracting officer must amend the solicitation to reflect the new NAICS code. The decision will also apply to future solicitations for the same supplies or services.

(c) Summary dismissal. OHA may summarily dismiss a NAICS appeal either on the Judge's own initiative or on motion by a party. A summary dismissal may be with or without prejudice, and may be issued before the date set for close of record. Grounds for summary dismissal include: premature appeal, withdrawn appeal, settlement, cancellation of the procurement, and contract award.

[75 FR 47442, Aug. 6, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 66199, Oct. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2013–2020 · 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). “” 13 C.F.R. § 134.318 (b). With this framework in mind, we turn to the solicitation at issue.”
Arcata Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 290 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “JAR at 31 (citing 13 C.F.R. § 134.318 (defining NAICS appeal procedure)).”
Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 417 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “” In its motion for judgment on the administrative record, defendant argues, “[b]ecause the contracting officer was required by 13 C.F.R. § 134.318 (b) to amend the solicitation to reflect the NAICS code that OHA determined should be assigned to it, the resolution of this issue…”
Supplycore Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1933 (Fed. Cl. May 1, 2018). “The government argues that should SupplyCore succeed in establishing that the NAICS code assigned by the government is wrong, SupplyCore would not be entitled to injunctive relief requiring the government to change the NAICS code for this procurement under 13 C.F.R. § 134.318…”
Paradigm Engineers & Constructors, PLLC v. United States, No. 19-2014 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2020). “” 13 C.F.R. § 134.318 (b); FAR 19.303(c)(8) (same).”
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.