of the protest.”). As the GAO has recognized: [I]t is inconsistent with the integrity of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., to permit a large business, which was ineligible under the terms of the solicitation, to continue to perform the contract. In this regard, a formal size determination by the SBA becomes effective immediately and remains in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the SBA’s OHA, 13 C.F.R. § 121.1009(g)(l)[.] Matter of: Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 2005 WL 3578774, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-297320.2, 2005 CPD ¶ 227. Likewise, in this case, the SBA’s April 28, 2009 size determination affected the legitimacy of Plaintiffs January 25, 2009 award, because VETS’ January 30, 2009 protest was timely. Delaney v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 470, 476 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff also requests that the court direct
holding that when the contracting officer modified the contract to name the contractors bank as payee the contracting officers actions demonstrated an express agreement to pay the bank holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim  holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim holding that size protest filed postaward may be controlling if contracting officer decided to reaward the contract holding that the court lacked jurisdiction under the bid protest provisions of section 1491 to enjoin a contracting agencys termination of a contract