__________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: April 5, 1994 __________________________________________________ GSBCA 12791-P DATAEQUIP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Pat T. Balan, President of DataEquip Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, appearing for Protester. William E. Thomas, Jr., Philip Kauffman, Merilee Rosenberg, and Dennis Foley, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, WILLIAMS, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. DataEquip, Inc. (DataEquip) wishes to challenge the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code that respondent assigned to a procurement. Respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion and dismiss the protest. Background On March 11, 1994, DVA published a synopsis of a proposed procurement in the Commerce Business Daily. The synopsis explains that the DVA intends to issue a request for proposals for replacement of a telephone system at a medical center in Denver, Colorado. The synopsis states that SIC code 1731 has been assigned to the procurement. Finally, the synopsis states that eligible 8(a) firms may compete for award of the contract. Protest File, Exhibit 5. On March 15, 1994, DataEquip filed this protest. DataEquip asserts that the DVA should not have assigned SIC code 1731, which applies to construction contracts, to the procurement of a telephone system. Instead, DataEquip alleges, the DVA should have assigned SIC code 4813, which applies to communications. In DataEquip's view, the DVA should not require compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act and should not require the awardee to post a bond, because these requirements are imposed in construction contracts and not in communications contracts. Protest 1, 4. DataEquip's firm profile establishes that it is eligible to perform contracts which are assigned SIC code 4813. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 6. During a prehearing conference convened by the Board on March 24, 1994, DataEquip stated that its only ground of protest is that SIC code 1731 should not have been assigned to this procurement. The success of DataEquip's argument concerning the Davis-Bacon Act and the bonding requirement is dependent upon the success of its argument concerning the assignment of a SIC code. On March 25, 1994, the DVA filed a motion to dismiss. DVA asserts that we lack jurisdiction to consider protests which challenge SIC code assignments. DataEquip's response to the DVA's motion was due to be filed on April 1, 1994. No response was filed. Discussion The Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for administering the program established by section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, which provides assistance to socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. 15 U.S.C. 637 (1988). The Small Business Act authorizes the SBA to establish size standards for businesses within any industry and, pursuant to this authority, the SBA developed a comprehensive list of industries, assigned a SIC code to each industry, and established size standards for each industry. 13 CFR 121.601 (1993). In order to determine which SIC codes are applicable to a particular contractor, the SBA considers the contractor's distribution of receipts and employees, costs of doing business among different industry areas, patents, contract awards, and assets. 13 CFR 121.1102(b)(1). The SIC codes applicable to a contractor are important because a contractor may perform only those 8(a) contracts which have been assigned SIC codes which are applicable to the contractor. 13 CFR 124.301(b). Pursuant to its statutory authority to promulgate regulations necessary to administer the section 8(a) program, the SBA published regulations that explain how SIC codes are assigned and that explain how to challenge the assignment of SIC code designations. 15 U.S.C. 634(a)(6); 13 CFR 121.1102(b)(2), 121.1703, 124.308(b). In JC Computer Services, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GSBCA 12731-P (Feb. 20, 1994), we held that we lacked jurisdiction to entertain a protest which challenged the assignment of a SIC code because "the assignment of SIC codes and appeals of those assignments are exclusively within the province of the SBA." Id., slip op. at 6. The rationale of JC Computer Services is equally applicable in this case. Congress granted the SBA exclusive authority to administer the section 8(a) program and, pursuant to that authority, SBA developed procedures for assigning SIC codes and provided a mechanism by which those assignments may be challenged. For this reason, we lack jurisdiction to consider this protest and the protest must be dismissed. Decision The motion to dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. The suspension of respondent's procurement authority lapses by its own terms. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ _______________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge