issue versus a proposal our response in this issue we believe that the court erred on on that aspect of it a second the sponsors nurse means whether they answer the questions correct your honor  basically in the proposal or be the bidding process the offer is first have to submit a proposal and the first stage of the evaluation is where the the a technical evaluation panel in this case first has to review whether the offers responded to the solicitation requirements that's the first step before they get to the point of whether the contractor was responsible to perform the contract  at the second stage where the agency is using it for a contract or responsibility issue isn't it isn't the problem that the information was in the agency respectfully disagree i think one of the important things for the court is to realize that before this current evaluation this is a corrective action phase that we're into that prior to that the agency lost and actually v failed to submit a valid letter of intent that decision was made in the even see protests as a result they moved into a second phase and totally new evaluation and that  point that the technical evaluation panel relying on what they found at the big protests made in the firm of the determination that the letter of intent was invalid and because of that sole reason they did not get to be terminated or to evaluate the resume was so wasn't that the proposal that that you submit it was completely correct i mean all of them blacks were filled in and protests decided they came to a new conclusion and they took a different direction altogether they sustained the loss and protests and our point to the court here is that the new or the corrective action the evaluation is totally distinct from the prior art review this is a totally new evaluation and we believe that's where the core area because it related back to the prior evaluations which the the agencies determination if you look at the language from the technical evaluation panel it's clustered with actual language that says that based on our new review of the proposals we find that koso or ca g v did not meet the solicitation requirements when that as related to the letter of intent and for that sole reason we could not get to the second step of evaluating the disagree and the reason i disagree is because in manifest they drew a clear distinction in the pyrmont process of what the agency has to first before they get to responsibility issue correct and in this case the proposal was complete and that's what the government argued here where we're different with that is that the facial compliance would be use agency at for example that the big protest stage would have put its foot down and said look we base this proposal on the facial compliance but instead the agency took a totally different direction well i don't want husni confusion when i said clear on its face i guess what i'm saying is that the proposal contained enough information in it to make an evaluation so it was was complete in that respect i would agree with the core on that aspect but i think what's different here and i believe for the court of federal claims aired is to give weight to the fact that the new evaluation starts a totally new evaluation altogether and in that new evaluation the agency based on what they have found in the bit and at that point that new evaluation is actually the technical aspects of the of the other proposals r believe that the that the agency's determination at the evaluation stage if you look at the language again there's two notes and one of things i want to point out to the court is that appendi appendix seventy eight there's a resume for the site superintendent right down to the bottom of that this is where i wanted to draw the court's attention that this document was actually the old evaluation which is our position that the resume itself would go to the responsibility had they gotten to that point but they never got there so i believe that the court of federal claims opinion made a determination that the agency did actually did review the offer as qualifications i believe that a factual error because they didn't get to that stage they didn't get to review the actual qualifications they stopped only at the letter of intent which was six material requirement of solicitation and the reason why that was a requirement was the key personnel requirement expressly said that either you have a current employee or if you don't we require a letter of intent in this case costo did not have a current employee even though the resume that they submitted it clearly says that he was a i believe it makes a clear difference because it's a technical evaluation panel that actually reviews makes that the new evaluation it's that that board or that group of people feel makes a final decision on that correct and that would go to the issue of where we argued on the second point that the c e o failed to give proper and insufficient information to the s b a and we also address that stage where the c e o actually developed the seal see package and where he actually summarize you know my reason for and that is that document where we argued to the court of federal claims  that the letter of intent should not have been provided to the s b a simply because the affidavit that was in question came after the big protest after the fact and and actually after the technical evaluation and made their formal decision it's our position that the e p a should have rejected that letter because of the target of this which they admitted on the record six weeks after the investigation they should have rejected it because that document was not a solicitation requirement the affidavit was not a solicitation requirement it only came as a response as a response to the agenc that there's language on page seventy nine that explains that the t p s decision is based on information provided in the context of the protests new information and letter to the summary heading is that what you're referring to and it's consideration and so on that sense i think capsulated the issue which is that that the proposal was responsive and after the bill protests which provided additional information a decision was made by the responsible there's further process the s b a alternately makes that decision whether they're responsible or not and so here the process worked exactly as it should the even see additional information was provided after the finding of non responsibility and that is permissible under the regulatory framework the the regulations the s b a regulations provide that a firm is able to provide additional information to the s only factor for technical responsibility that was presented to the s b a was a key personnel factor and they wrote a paragraph about and address the issues with the evidence in front of that was presented and that evidence for good reason at that juncture and so as i said this is why this case sort of exemplifies the s p his role work as it should here the s b a came in and looked at for line of evidence giving the firm the opportunity for this contract you had to be hugs own all five and that means that thirty five percent of your employees are residing in what's called a hog zone which is a traditional historically underutilized business qualified it provided tax returns payroll records written evidence all under penalty of perjury that demonstrated that it was hobbs own eligible  ultimately it's not the regulators don't require you to choose what they were fire is for you to be a resident of the house out that's all it required and so even on just on that basis if you're paying federal taxes and you're on the payroll records and you live in  a determination for hubs on participant both at the time of award and at the time of bid offering the offer and award both periods it's not discretionary not a both your partner will say all they have to do is see a look at the dress and see if they're paying the payroll tax cut cetera it's not up to i think his argument is that it's not up to the s b a to make  immigration tight decisions and our position is that's what the s b a sense but when you look at the congressional intent given to the s b a to oversee the program there's a couple things that come into play admitted in that footnote that i believe the court referred to is this is on the second protests that they acknowledge that one of the same individuals with the same name in the letter actually worked for coastal at the time of the war even if that's true and you take that one person out of the equation and the remaining the number of employees so satisfied that residents requirement of work that's incorrect at the at the award stage which the s b a it made it that they saw at least one of the names and they did nothing they determined at the initial protest that four out of eleven employees met the hub's own requirements if the if the s b a had taken the investigation further a has an obligation that when issues come up and you can look at the tools given to him on this one twenty six five zero three and nine hundred that when when the hubs on participant doesn't meet the requirements my position as as that there's more that's required from the s b a to simply look at a manager especially when another federal agency gives them information to look at they have to go further to make sure that none of these participates participants are viol determination of what these to go into a package however the court of federal claims in the language of six zero two itself expressly has a requirement for nine one of the four g and that requirement and this is at the stage where the c e o is making the