thank you honors may please the court this appeal presents this court with two important opportunities the st is to resolve the split at the court of federal claims and clarify a legal standard of great import to the government contracts community maybe we should go looking for issues rather than be deciding a case your honor i think in this instance would be the issue i'm referring to is the importance of these so called riley's wholesale factors that the rileys factors w have is a clear split at the court of federal claims we have confusion among federal agencies and among contractors about the political standard and what we what we see in the case law is a significantly different standard applied for the last fifteen year no actual relief we can give to your client this point here that what you wanted to do was overcome the override of this day and that there's no way we can grant that relief recommended you get the contract then you could appeal the stay there was more than one hundred days well at that point it still wouldn't be the seacrest according to the arguments of the defender the police still wouldn't be the state would be appealing would be the relief offered by you could appeal to the state at that point i don't see that it isn't i don't see that it is capable of repetition and evading review we could review the reilly factors in a scenario in which the g a o recommended you to get the contract that's not a slam dunk you don't have it yet so maybe you still do want to stay i don't know i stand i think again it's not specifically the override determination it appealing potentially the relief granted or not granted by by the court in the view of the defendant pelleas this case became you'd have to move after one hundred dollars days and that clearly can't be right this court does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a s override terminations g a o has already ruled in this case so what relief could your client receive there a couple of things one is right now the merits of the underlying case are on appeal before this court we expect th merits will be remanded back to the court of federal claims at that point whether the override ever should happen in the st place we think is going to be very relevant to the relief crafted by the court can you explain how because i can't think of any at the moment i'll state it simply out let's say there never been an override and the state been in place and then the g a o issues the recommendation that it did issue which is did protesters wrong you know contracting officer got it right isn't it that at that time being no could have started practicing the contract and you would be exactly where you are right now appealing an adverse decision from the court of federal claims to us trying to convince us that the contracting officer got it wrong well there's a big difference your honor because we would have had an injunction presumably or certainly would have asked for one and four for one all along so anyone i mean a different contractor presumably the incoming contractor not be you know would have been performing the status quo was inverted as we've discussed in the briefs by the see go over items we think it was on that will i don't understand how that harmed you or changed your rights and i think judge jones example is the perfect one and i don't see how that would have changed your rights or harm your client i don't see what relief we could give her come up again your honor i do this court has jurisdiction over the stay there would no longer be anything if this had happened well you let me just one other practical issue in addition to this the incumbent contractor is the forty nine percent the former incoming contractor before the status quo was was overridden was is the forty nine percent owner of the appellant's in this case so there was a concrete economic impact that no one side of the case in any of the briefs that say an economic harm to the forty nine percent minority owner of a j v is not economic harm upon the joint venture that's not harm to this party that's a whole different party where none of that party would have standing to bring some sort of lawsuit complaining but that's corporate entities have different meaning under the law you're i'm trying to address the common sense economic impacts that if that still affects the actual appellant in this case but separately we have a competitive injury that's like saying if you're somebody girlfriend you should never bring a case that they should be able to bring because you'd benefit if they got the money what you want to know to trust that case before before in the briefs but i understand your point i think here we have is we have a competitive injury based on the statute and that we have this practical economic impact but focusing only on the question of this from a statutory perspective somebody had a right that is appellant had a right to appeal to seek to override it should not matter to this court what happened in g o otherwise cases like this will forever be capable of repetition of aiding review i guess another concern i have is that what we have here is a decision to issue the override that's just very very fact and it's not so clear to me that the decision maker was employing some of that recording interpretation or something like that that we could say that it's very likely that that agency or the department is going to be employing this same statutory interpretation over and over and over again in future override decisions and so therefore there's a distinction here with this back down discretionary decision versus what we saw in kingdom where where the department there was making a very specific  position on how to construe the rule of two and so that's why i also wonder whether what you're arguing as a capable of repetition is is look less than clear here  this fact bound kind of a discretionary decision well i can tell you your honor is that if this decision is allowed to stand federal agencies particularly d h s s but i assume other federal agencies will be extremely powered to override secret stays in this case by the way we've got a clear statutory violation we've got a determination in findings issued after the override was affected and the d f the document that supposed to announce and explain the reasons for an override was issued only after the court ordered it that it is the court of federal claims ordered it to be issued it was there was a ineffective override that took place over the weekend on a sunday without notice so that's a clear statutory violation because it agency can't override until it presents its reasons to g a o and we also have several rationale for the override in particular let me let me tell you the that's the quote unquote most work via bridge contract would go against the rules of the a program and that is the important reason offered by the d n f and as everyone has admitted or conceded since since the issuance of the d n i have that's just false that there's no such rule a bridge contract could have gone to the incumbent and i can tell you that the friend acknowledged this on page one thousand one hundred and ninety four dollars of the appendix during the during the hearing and in the court's opinion appendix five of the trial court also acknowledge this is incorrect so we have a shoddy at best d n a after issued after the court ordered it to be issued it offers reasons that are exactly contrary facts that is whether you apply the rally's factors  not that is basically the definition of arbitrary and capricious under state farm overton park another supreme court precedent and so you know we have we have technical arguments as to as to moving this these guys also have argued standing throu and i've cases on standing there presented in the briefs i think that shouldn't be a question but the bottom line is we have a variety of technical arguments to try to get this court not to review what is a clear arbitrary into  that significantly impacted people's rights interested were cool and at the very very minimum we need the case to be reversed in this case to be reversed and remanded because we think it's still relevant to the relief we're going to ask for the court of federal claims particular case so unlike in kingdom where where the issue was the v a had a particular interpretation of the rule of two and that was going to be the same interpretation for that particular petitioner who had unlike safeguard who had won several federal contracts and therefore it the dating review going in terms of potential harm it's this company exists to try to get government contracts and perform and i mean it stands to reason they're going to continue to bid on contracts series again and so and so there the point is they're going to keep bidding on contracts and for the ones that they don't win you know they're they might protest that if they protest transfer an override during a g a o review it's a long chain of possibilities specular possibilities that's a far cry from what you saw in kingdom where in which it was far more certain and you had a contractor  practical matter then any party that wants to challenge an override can never get judicial review is that fair to say i mean what would be the circumstances where i think protester who is subjected to an incorrect irrational you decided override succeed in getting judicial what you know is difficult right given the that a court will look at facts around to determine where the night in particular instance an override proper or not which again so days your question it will be it will be difficult especially because the cable repetition components can be very difficult we met because i guess if the department issued some kind of memorandum that said we're going to override every single time well it has speckles of world view has something closer to kingdom where in which and then the one hundred days read out and and that's an area that perhaps would be an example where it's closer to canaan where where there is a issue is more the legality of that particular rule which petitioners would face if they're going to do an override we allow every incumbent contractor almost always to block an override because if you think about it if if this person is under these circumstances is capable of repetition and evade where view th any time and override took place a bitter especially if they were the incumbent could come in and seek the stay and if the state gets lifted they could complain about the stay and i can't see how any the what the rule is and here we're talking about seeka it's a competition contracting act in the automatic state that's the rule and it's an important rule and something congress took very seriously congress and wanted to see big protests at the g a o have some some teeth some impact some importance and there are limited exceptions to seek and that's exactly what we're talking about here we're talking about urgent compelling circumstances and best interests so in terms of exceptions swallowing rules as i think was the terminology i just heard it if this kind of d f with clear errors issued after the fact is allowed to stand and also arguably if this court doesn't give the quarter ransition had already happened according to d h s and the trial court relied on that representation that the overnight sunday transition had been effected so the trial court denied the t r o and then the fact of the inversion of the status was also extremely salient to the trial court insta cision and said that you know there's a good we're a significant harm to trying to undo that transition or undo being his performance and so the fact is if the if as judge chance said we have a government contractor here that is going to continue to compete for contracts specifically at the h s and we have the forty nine percent owner of the entity which is a longtime t h s contractor and like i said before if something is