an appeal of a permanent mandatory injunction entered as a final judgment by the district court in new jersey on september twenty ninth of september according to our twenty sixteen the crux of the appeal today is three clearly erroneous  have everything you need i mean if that is the first very simple way to page at the bid stack off that we have supplied the ocean facts things and we have done what we need to do and it isn't there why does one pick up the phone and say listen there's something here i mean in the insurance industry when she did exactly the same thing but admittedly from a different perspective because she was doing it for the insurance carrier she used the exact same courage to really realize that the results of something jersey are you saying that anybody who does not have experience in pennsylvania new jersey it's totally disqualify from t r p and sounds like it's an inside track here might be disqualified because they don't have experience in pennsylvania new jersey of the invitation for the so you're saying he would not if someone has a work in pennsylvania new jersey date they can't they can't get it that's correct he is free to say it was a hypothetical that was correct created by the by the court that i think is more  strong which this should be so you can't just say oh you know you're not you're not responsible you have to determine that you're saying that because they did was not responsive that that does away with your obligation to do with the want answered they were not in their record is on record is absolutely clear from the testimony of a d f who is the contact administrator and adams record who is the project engineer there were the two that were in asking about the responsibility determination what investigation was done as to the responsibility and capability of the supported the decision to say they were not yet the more especially it's not the the right to do that though they used the forms they didn't benefit it out they gave alpha the ultimate benefit of the doubt they look at the ocean three hundred forms they look at the e m f factors and is that what they said in the letter that that they examined them an workers compensation hero through its calculations is equivalent to a one certain more than once today that is not what she testified she said it could bring a contractor she precisely said that contractors are not disqualified per se whether that is true or not i don't know but seventy five quite clearly and went out of her way and cost examination to correct counsel and say what i do is not a safety analysis so the court is absolutely correct in suggesting that she has no safety experience and what she does  we were entitled to a coherent explanation that the facts with a rational connection to that determination and this report found that neither of those things were satisfied here and when you looked at the facts you said firstly in a letter that says we're going to do you not responsible not capable of performing this work because you didn't provide two pieces of information then that itself seems irrational and arbitrary to him too because the lack of information has no given that you can't really say that oh hand this contract to alpha on a silver platter as compared to sending it back for d a p a to do responsibility someone can see the n t there's a line of authority that says that not misleading a waiver you cannot afford specific performance against a government agency that has sovereign immunity without the analysis in those cases calculated number that they can analyze and that they can analyze consistently across the board it's a number that is recognized in the insurance industry because the average of the three years is rice and two point five that's records of the idea of a contractors who are going to be working out of really dangerous job like this at a particularly vital job like this where safety of the people whether it's residents of chester whether it's