NAICS APPEAL OF: BRIDGES SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, LLC, APPELLANT

*1 This appeal involves a Request for Quotations (RFQ) issued by the U.S. Department of State (State) seeking to establish three blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) for video teleconferencing equipment services under the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedules. Specifically, State would establish the BPAs under GSA Schedule 58 I, Professional Audio/Video Telemetry/Tracking, Recording/Reproducing and Signal Data Solutions; or GSA Schedule 70, General Purpose Commercial Information Technology Equipment, Software, and Services. The contracting officer did not assign a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code to the RFQ.

*1 On May 26, 2017, Bridges Systems Integration, LLC (Appellant) filed the captioned appeal. Appellant challenges State's failure to designate a NAICS code to the RFQ, and argues that NAICS code 541519, Other Computer Related Services, is the appropriate NAICS code. Appellant contends that it is adversely affected by the failure to assign a NAICS code to the instant RFQ because “if the proper NAICS code is used, then [the procurement] would have to be done outside the [GSA Schedules] and [Appellant] would compete as a prime [[contractor].” (Appeal at 2.) Appellant argues it also has standing to bring the instant appeal because it “is interested in teaming with others as a joint venture member or subcontractor under the instant RFQ.” (Id.)

*1 On June 1, 2017, State informed OHA that Appellant “could not be awarded a BPA under the RFQ, since they do not have [a] GSA Schedule contract.” (E-mail from W. Thuman to D. George (June 1, 2017).)

*1 On June 2, 2017, OHA ordered Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. OHA cited State's representation that Appellant is not a GSA Schedule contract holder and directed Appellant to OHA's decision in NAICS Appeal of J.D. Broco, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5389 (2012), a case in which OHA held that the appellant lacked standing because it did not hold a prime contract under a multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract arrangement, and thus was not a potential offeror. J.D. Broco, SBA No. NAICS-5389, at 2. OHA also noted that in J.D. Broco, OHA considered, and rejected, the notion that the appellant had standing because if the advocated NAICS code were selected, the procuring agency might pursue a different acquisition strategy, and the appellant could potentially compete for the work. Id. OHA found this argument speculative, and that such conjecture is an insufficient basis to confer standing. Id. (citing NAICS Appeal of Integrated Lab. Sys., Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4735, at 2 (2005).)

*2 On June 6, 2017, Appellant responded to OHA's order. Appellant argues that J.D. Broco is distinguishable because, there, “the appellant had had an opportunity to bid, but did not receive an award.” (Response at 4.) In the instant case, though, Appellant is an incumbent subcontractor. As a result, “[e]ven if the new, follow-on work is procured under a GSA schedule, [[Appellant] can still receive work through a prime contractor team arrangement because [Appellant] has letters of authorization for all equipment being supplied (with the exception of Cisco) and can obtain letters of supply if necessary.” (Id.)

*2 Appellant contends that its arguments for why Appellant should have standing are not speculative like those in J.D. Broco. Due to requirements for certifications, State would need to conduct the procurement outside the GSA Schedules if the RFQ were assigned a proper NAICS code. (Id.)

*2 Appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal, and I must dismiss it. Under SBA regulations, an appeal of a NAICS code or size standard designation may only be brought by a party that is “adversely affected” by the designation. 13 C.F.R. §§ 121.402(f), 121.1103(a), and 134.302(b). In interpreting whether a party is adversely affected, “OHA has long held that ‘in order for an aggrieved party to establish its standing to bring a [NAICS] code appeal, it must show that it is a potential bidder or offeror on a small business set-aside.”’ J.D. Broco, SBA No. NAICS-5389, at 2 (quoting SIC Appeal of Advanced Tech., Inc., SBA No. SIC-2647, at 4 (1987).) Here, the BPAs are being established under GSA Schedule contracts. State maintains that Appellant is not a GSA Schedule holder, and Appellant does not dispute this assertion. As a result, Appellant has not shown that it is a potential offeror for the instant procurement. Appellant therefore is not “adversely affected” by the fact that State did not assign a NAICS code to the RFQ.

*2 Appellant's attempts to distinguish J.D. Broco are unpersuasive. Appellant's argument that it is an incumbent subcontractor is immaterial to whether it has standing because such status does not bear on whether Appellant is eligible to compete for a BPA. Nor has Appellant explained how failure to assign a NAICS code to the RFQ undermines Appellant's ability to serve as a team member or subcontractor to the successful offeror. Appellant's contention that State may be forced to pursue a different acquisition strategy if Appellant's desired NAICS code were selected is flawed for the reasons stated in J.D. Broco—it is speculative. Appellant does not, and cannot, know what State might do in the event Appellant prevailed on its NAICS appeal. See J.D. Broco, SBA No. NAICS-5389, at 2; NAICS Appeal of Integrated Lab. Sys., Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4735, at 2 (2005).

*3 For the above reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of standing. This is the final decision of the Small Business Administration. See 13 C.F.R. § 134.316(d).