SIZE APPEAL OF: ALPINE/FIRST PRESTON JV II, LLC, APPELLANT PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

*1 On March 22, 2016, Alpine/First Preston JV II, LLC, appealed Size Determination No. 5-2016-023 to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). On April 6, 2016, I requested the comments of SBA's Office of General Counsel and the parties. On April 15, 2016, SBA moved to remand the matter to the Office of Government Contracting — Area V (Area Office) for a new size determination. Because SBA was, in effect, confessing error, I immediately granted SBA's motion, vacated the size determination, and remanded the matter to the Area Office. Size Appeal of Alpine/First Preston JV II, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5727 (April 20, 2016) (Remand Order).

*1 On April 20, 2016, Precision Asset Management, P.C. (PAM), filed a Petition For Reconsideration (PFR) of the Remand Order. Docket No. SIZ-2016-04-20-37. Also on April 20, 2016, Q Integrated Companies, LLC, (QINT) filed a PFR of the Remand Order. Docket No. SIZ-2016-04-20-38. The two PFRs characterize themselves as a joint request for reconsideration. I therefore herewith CONSOLIDATE these two PFRs. QINT and PAM assert their disagreement with the reasoning SBA had set out in its April 15, 2015, motion for remand.

*1 A PFR may be granted by OHA upon a “clear showing of an error of fact or law material to the discussion.” 13 C.F.R. § 134.227(c). “A PFR is appropriate only in limited circumstances, such as situations where OHA has misunderstood a party or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties.” Id. (citing Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (quoting Above The Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983))). Thus, “[t]he moving party's argument must leave the Administrative Judge with the definite and firm conviction that key findings of fact or conclusions of law of the earlier decision were mistaken.” Size Appeal of TKTM Corp., SBA No. SIZ-4905 (2008) (citing Size Appeal of Taylor Consultants, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4775, at 11-12 (2006)); Size Appeal of KVA Elec., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5057 (2009).

*2 Here, Petitioners can point to no misunderstanding by OHA of its arguments or any portion of the decision based on any fact or law outside the issues presented. Rather, Petitioners express mere disagreement with OHA's decision to remand to the Area Office upon SBA's confession of error. These arguments cannot meet the standards for granting a PFR.

*2 Because the matter is on remand, the Petitioners' arguments provided in the PFRs should instead be directed toward the Area Office or to SBA counsel. Should QINT or PAM (or any other interested party) believe themselves to be adversely affected by the new size determination, that party may make its arguments in a subsequent OHA appeal.

*2 The consolidated Petitions for Reconsideration of the Remand Order ARE DENIED.