BNUMBER:  B-275946; B-276729 
DATE:  April 17, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc. 

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc.

File:     B-275946; B-276729

Date:April 17, 1997

Conrad C. Ledoux, Esq., Braude & Margulies, for the protester.
Shari Weaver, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for 
the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Propriety of agency determination regarding proper Standard Industrial 
Classification code assigned to a procurement is not for consideration 
by the General Accounting Office since conclusive authority over this 
matter is vested in the Small Business Administration. 

DECISION

Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc. protests the Department of Housing 
and 
Urban Development's (HUD) cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) 
No. 803R95081800000 for real estate closing agent services in 
Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and HUD's resolicitation of 
those requirements under solicitation No. H03B97008200000.  

We dismiss the protests.

On September 25, 1995, the agency issued solicitation No. 
803R95081800000 as a total small business set-aside under Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) code 6531, "real estate agents and 
managers."  The solicitation permitted the selection of multiple 
awardees.  

Several firms, including Lawyers Advantage, submitted proposals by the 
closing date; best and final offers (BAFOs) were subsequently 
requested and submitted.  By letter dated October 30, 1996, the agency 
notified the offerors that it intended to award two contracts and 
identified Lawyers Advantage and another firm as the successful 
offerors.  Offerors' prices were not disclosed.  

On February 11, 1997, the agency canceled the solicitation, stating 
that the SIC code incorporated in the solicitation was erroneous.[1]  
The agency explains that the duties of a real estate closing agent 
"are a blend of legal, title and clerical type services," that these 
activities are not encompassed within SIC code 6351, "real estate 
agents and managers,"[2] and that it would be more appropriate to use 
SIC code 7390, "business services not elsewhere classified."  
Following cancellation of the RFP, the agency resolicited the 
requirements under solicitation No. H03B97008200000 using SIC code 
7390.

Lawyers Advantage protests that HUD did not have an adequate basis for 
canceling the RFP because "the solicitation meets the government's 
actual and minimum needs."  More specifically, Lawyers Advantage 
challenges the agency's determination that SIC code 7390 is more 
appropriate for this procurement than SIC code 6531, stating:  "[t]he 
issue before the GAO is . . . whether a proper [SIC code] 
classification was designated."

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has conclusive authority to 
determine the proper SIC code for a procurement.  15 U.S.C.  sec.  
637(b)(6) (1994); K&M Maintenance Servs., Inc., B-239568, Aug. 28, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  167.   Under SBA Regulations, the initial 
determination of the appropriate SIC code is made by the procuring 
agency, with the right of appeal to the SBA.  13 C.F.R.  sec.  121.902(a), 
(c) (1996).   Since SBA is the sole authority for reviewing SIC code 
designations, challenges to selected SIC code are not subject to our 
bid protest jurisdiction.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(b)(1) (1997). 

Regarding the assertion that cancellation of the solicitation was 
improper, Lawyers Advantage erroneously relies on decisions of this 
Office which deal with sealed bid procedures.  See, e.g., Independent 
Metal Strap Co., B-231756, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  275; Twehous 
Excavating Co., Inc., B-208189, Jan. 17, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  42.  Where 
invitations for bids (IFB) are issued under sealed bid procedures, a 
contracting officer must have a "compelling" reason to cancel a 
solicitation after bids have been submitted.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.404-1(a)(1).  The reason for this is that bids 
responding to an IFB are publicly exposed, and to reject them and seek 
new bids would discourage competition.

In contrast, where, as here, a request for proposals (RFP) is issued 
and negotiated procedures are used, an agency need only have a 
reasonable basis for canceling the solicitation.  See, e.g., Business 
Communications Sys., Inc., B-218619, July 29, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  103.  
This Office has specifically stated that an agency's belief that an 
RFP incorporates an improper SIC code constitutes a reasonable basis 
for canceling a solicitation.  See Empire Moving and Storage Co., 
B-210139, May 20, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  543.  Accordingly, Lawyers 
Advantage's objection to the agency's cancellation of the RFP because 
the agency believed the SIC code was improper fails to state a valid 
basis for protest.

The protest is dismissed. 

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. During this period, Lawyers Advantage was performing the solicited 
closing services under modifications to an existing contract. 

2. The definition of activities encompassed within SIC code 6531 is:  
"Establishments primarily engaged in renting, buying, selling, 
managing, and appraising real estate for others."