happened in a complete sense to date one of these awardees have completed their contracts you don't know why because we begin tonight with the briefing so we don't know why that's happened now the bureau has accepted markley coast proposal it has not been finalized indeed there is it not even been an overture to negotiate contracts are understanding is that market call has been advised that they will be negotiated after all the contracts have been not but certain aspects and i think again if i give big courts indulgence look they won the contract they don't want to protest who they are they want to protest only to the extent that ninety six three seventy five has been interpreted incorrectly and the reason they want to do that is because they could go back reformulate their bid in accordance with the proper interpretation ninety six three seventy five that would enable them to expand their bit because they would have to because of the it is simply a refinement because there are three claims that we have put forth the first two that relate to the contract terminations dates those plans we're going to have to say are probably that your arm but the fact is one of the contract that expires in nine years six months right understood again or is there not the prospectus that is affecting this it's the contract really i mean i'm trying to figure out how you can represent two clients one of which seems to be happy at this point the other of which is on the outside looking in and so is very unhappy she is now micro people or at least substantially satisfied i would think were as the monticello resort people are losers right and sp still wants to go back and redo its bid pursuant to a prospectus that properly interprets ninety six three seventy five but they're no longer challenging the contract they want i mean the bid you know are they protesting the that they won they are protesting yes they're protesting to the extent that the statue is no longer is not being properly served i don't know what happened to them i mean so you're saying they still have a protest remain because they are being forced to what takes some of what they consider the permanent facility away but they're being forced to do is to live under a contract that wrongly interprets ninety six three seven five  and then after they get the contract i guess they can file some action that they haven't done it right now oh i'm sorry please do not think that just because they're sitting down that they are going to get a contract but nobody yet has signed a these facilities right the permanent facilities and they wouldn't have to compensate them so for their own facility it's right so it's there but that's not why they're still in it they are in this because so they don't have a problem with th like back to the prospectus and correct the prospectus to include a proper interpretation of ninety six three seventy five they would be able to change their bit in such a way that would be a material change so that yes i agree that they don't have a problem if i understand right they don't have a problem because they're going to be able to say what we keep and what we don't keep and they can keep all of their tra call it is it was and they complained about well what i'm trying to explain is they would like to go back and redo the bidding process so that they can change their bid in conformance with a proper interpretation of ninety six three seventy five now how can they do that what would make a big change do it would change because a proper interpretation of ninety six three seventy five would say that all of the permanent facilities of the existing concessionaire must be paid for not some not pick and choose all of them based on that assurance all they want the government to pay him for their things and then they'll keep him to at the end of the know at the end of the day with that allows with a lot of the companies including the disappointed betters here  allows them to do with the assurance of ninety six three seventy five years go get their financing because the banks were going to lend them money to to improve these facilities like the bureau wants they have to be able to take the assurance that three that ninety six what the other folks are talking about markley cove yet they are seeking all the policy of seeking the same from complete do what they're seeking a do over on the prospectus to the extent that a proper interpretation of the statute must be included and yes that would require a report sherman so it's so good it's so if your view that they're seeking something different in their position his chain or is it exactly the same is that what positions always been that one of the one of really because of what has happened because the bureau decided to simply move ahead with their work process despite the pendency of the appeal they moved ahead they did all the awards and they basically acted as though the appeal didn't exist  we have now and not dealing with these matters you're bringing to us the statute doesn't anticipate the current situation doesn't know the statute says nothing about when the government requests removal of facilities if they ask that facilities not be removed they got a paper that's what the statute said correct but it says nothing about if they ask you to remove them correct so how can you tell me what's what's inconsistent in the prospectus with the statute because the prospectus specifically says we the bureau get to select and choose which of these that we want we will order people to take the facilities that we don't want off the pres the government saying they won't pay for or something if they absolutely in fact they're doing right now there are millions and millions of dollars well that may be a different lawsuit understood it happens  happens and it may or may not be successful but just a but certainly the circumstance where the government requests for removal is not covered by the statute at all right the statute doesn't address it so we don't have anything to address that the government can't just select and choose the government can't refuse to pay for certain permit improvements that it deems it does not want and the best example of that or all the roads the parking lot of big beams it doesn't want them then it does not take them why should it pay anything he does is doubt even if you read the statute statute specifically says the pacific we say they have to pay for something that they don't take and they don't want it they ask you to remove well it's not in those terms but with the stand that does provide is that that the improvements in the facilities that are placed there by these concessionaires remain their property wolf it remains their property and if the intent of the statute were does that say it remains their property camping what if it can't be removed and again i go back to these to prove that such as roads and parking lot that's the situation this has anticipated one bit has it the statute doesn't say anything court dealt with in great detail you have to assume that you factored that into your ten year contract and got full compensation while it was in plights i think what what what really has happened and  force them to remove these roads used to pay for them and yes in fact they said you know try to take them fill them back in we don't care so i mean here they haven't said they're going to use them there they're telling the property owner at the take their interpreted is anything we ought to be considering at this juncture because it directly affects the prospectus and the procurement if ninety six three seventy five is interpreted as we are going into the court then the prospectus has to incorporate that definition which means that all of this has to be all of these improvements have to be paid for such as the road such as the particularly already done it means that they're removed they've asked you to remove it but we're saying that's contrary that this statute was vague and you should go look at the legislative history the legislative history is quite clear that the statute is not designed to do anything other than protect the property rights of the zone so if it is a vague statute i  as appellant stated the market he has received has was a winner of the solicitation and when its contract expires on may twenty sixth two thousand and nine it will be free to use its property however  chooses and fact it factored the use of that property into its winning bid both rancho month the cello and spanish flats contracts have expired as of the state and they've both filed plans to remove their pro it was fifty years appellant simply have not demonstrated that any of their claims here that pertain to their contracts have anything to do with the solicitation facilities are a bit dilapidated after fifty years right the child care to point that out yes but let's not forget they are free and in fact it and they can get it taken what they can they can be obtained whatever salvage value they choose from the existing permanent property give it a practical matter what's going on and if so they want to be paid by if they'll be proportional they wanted the perspective the government position to be that we're going to pay demanding that they be paid for the road which they're still going to be able to take advantage out that's what it sounds like markley wants because they didn't back at the contract they are and they did factor into their winning bid some of the permanent property that is already there so it sounds like they want to be paid for that property and then have for use of it as well in the existing in the new contract so they seem to be for a lot of their return trying to double that and trying to get paid twice for the same thing so in their contract beds they included what it was their part of what they were offering up where the the road the prospectus it's told any prospective bidders that they were free to to bid on any existing prominent property that and factor that into their bid now with the understanding that any new bidders that weren't current concessionaires would have to pay for any robbery so they got  they are free to take any property they want except in the case where the government and shocks that they should leave some property in the case of the government in shops that they leave that property there to be reimbursed for that property and that's exactly what happen the statute that is at the option of the secretary of the interior may require which clearly community could be argued to say that the statute is clear that it's up to the secretary and he has the option of either requiring that they stay and pay for them or not doing so i've read wholeheartedly i think the statute is clear the only thing the statute to stop as well and any of those permanent facilities columns are free to removed now granted there may not be much salvage value in old asphalt but there may be some salvage value in the plumbing fixtures in any of the illogical fixtures they own and any of the other permanent proven they're free to deconstruct the roads if they want there's nothing preventing them from doing that and the statute certainly does not contemplate payment for abandoned property there's nothing in based on their understanding ninety six three seventy five which was going to protect them in the event that they lost these contracts the whole purpose of the as reflected in the senate report and i urge the court to go look at the senate report that  companies this statute it says specifically that the intent of that statute is to protect their investments so that it would encourage the building of high quality facilities at the lake so they did not build these facilities and do all these improvements based on it with a contractor they did it because they understood ninety six three seventy five was going to protect them at the end of the day and they would receive fair value for what they had put in it did that do you agree with what the government thought in terms what are they asking for now they get to keep their dot what they get their road what they are trying to get is to go back again and see right that they want you they want the government to pay them for the to double dipping allegations completely so no one in the army wanted it back and i do the prospectus they want to answer the original bid that they wanted to enter which would have been based on the guarantees of ninety six three seven but they get the fate  what brings this warning to shit is sharper relief is what's happening with branch for myself if they truly want to go back and have this report here because if they get the guarantees of ninety six three seventy five into the prospectus they will can now use the permit facilities as collateral and they can go to the bank and say look we have an asset that we can borrow substantial funds from that's all of this is based on business plans and keep in mind the reason passes group is not signed this contract yet investment is quite low because they think the statute isn't going to make them pay for anything at the end of the day this couple other points i think you pointed out the court noted these lapid facilities it has to be pointed out that all of these facilities have been valid some of them have it have been valued at zero no one is going to be paying for any kind of you know what is certain is going to be overpaying for any of these facilities it's of so it has been if a particular facility has been voted zero they're not paying for have somebody tell them what really has not been addressed here and what the government wants to talk to you know you want to talk about double dipping but the government wants a windfall it wants all the roads all the parking lots and keep in mind we're talking about a figure sums that were that were put into constructing these things are ocean control terracing everything that makes this lake to the public has been paid for by these individuals at the encouragement of the bureau the bureau now wants to simply take that over for were the roads built before the public was passed in seventy nine or after i think a lot of the there may have been some that were built part of that time but most of them were built afterwards they are not free to just simply go in and start digging things up there are environmental laws that are going to come into play the bureau has already told them that they can't do certain things without getting certain permits or without oversight they are not free to just walk in and start turning things up that's not going to happen so essentially they are stuck at the late with all these assets and the government is simply i think the government just with playing a war of attrition here but the public lot put a limit on the contract