BNUMBER:  B-276389.2 
DATE:  July 8, 1997
TITLE: The Holiday Inn North Raleigh, B-276389.2, July 8, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:The Holiday Inn North Raleigh

File:     B-276389.2

Date:July 8, 1997

Herbert C. Ross for the protester.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department 
of the Army, for the agency.
Ray E. Baker, Sunrise International Group, Inc., for the intervenor.
Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST
 
Protest that Small Business Administration (SBA) improperly failed to 
consider vital information bearing on awardee's status as a small 
business in connection with deciding whether the awardee was eligible 
for the Certificate of Competency program is dismissed since protest 
essentially involves the issue of what information should be 
considered by SBA and challenges SBA's determination of the awardee's 
size status, matters within SBA's exclusive statutory authority to 
determine small business size status and not for review under General 
Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations.

DECISION

The Holiday Inn North Raleigh protests the award of a contract to 
Sunrise International Group under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DABT23-97-B-0031, issued by the Department of the Army for meals, 
lodging, and transportation for military applicants being processed at 
the Military Entrance Processing Station in Raleigh, North Carolina.  
Sunrise, a small business which had initially been rejected as 
nonresponsible, was awarded the contract after the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) issued it a Certificate of Competency (COC).  
Holiday Inn contends that SBA should not have considered Sunrise 
eligible for a COC because Sunrise does not qualify as a small 
business for purposes of this procurement due to its relationship with 
two large business subcontractors.  According to the protester, 
Sunrise improperly failed to disclose its "affiliation" with its large 
business subcontractors, and SBA failed to consider the impact of 
Sunrise's proposed subcontracting arrangements in deciding whether 
Sunrise qualified as a small business eligible for a COC.

We dismiss the protest because the protester is in effect challenging 
the size status of Sunrise, which is not a matter for our review.

Under 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(b)(6) (1994), SBA has conclusive authority to 
determine matters of size status for federal procurement purposes.  
Consequently, our Office will neither make nor review size status 
determinations.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(b)(1) 
(1997); Independent Metal Strap Co., Inc., B-240033.3, Dec. 12, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  para.  481 at 3.  The protest here essentially involves the issue 
of whether SBA based its size determination on the proper information, 
with the protester arguing that Sunrise's subcontracting arrangement 
meant that Sunrise could not be properly be considered a small 
business for purposes of this procurement.  The question of what 
information must be considered by SBA in making a size determination 
is inextricably linked to the size determination itself; thus, SBA's 
authority, to be conclusive in this area, must encompass the 
determination of what information is to be considered.  Accordingly, 
this issue, and the issue of whether Sunrise qualifies as a small 
business for purposes of this procurement, are not for our review.  
CSR, Inc., B-260955, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  59 at 5; Wesley Medical 
Resources, Inc., B-257677, Aug. 17, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  75 at 3.

Citing section 21.5(b)(2) of our Bid Protest Regulations, the 
protester contends that it is appropriate for us to review the protest 
since it is based on the allegation that SBA improperly failed to 
consider vital information bearing on Sunrise's 
responsibility--namely, the extent of its subcontracting arrangements.  
The protester's position reflects a misunderstanding of our 
Regulations.  While we will review SBA's decision whether to issue a 
COC under certain circumstances, including where there is a showing of 
failure to consider vital information bearing on the firm's 
responsibility, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(b)(2), the "vital information" 
exception does not apply where, as here, the protest relates to the 
SBA's determination as to the size status of the challenged firm.  
Rather, as noted above, in recognition of the conclusive statutory 
authority vested in SBA over size status issues, our Regulations state 
that we will not review challenges to the size status of particular 
firms. 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(b)(1); Wesley Medical Resources, Inc., supra.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States