testimony that he had a lack of personal knowledge about the production and testing of the signal flare issue both at p s off and also more importantly at martin electronics which was the vendor who produce specifications no longer work in the same way and that's why the government loses the benefit of their immunity from the production or two from the design of the player if it's the replacements did not work and then p s y actually when the production shut down for almost a year they took the opportunity to design a feeling that they thought would work but it's during that design process claim were excluded and that the dialogue back and forth with respect to a lot of the objections seemed to show that things were admitted and were allowed it was just a question of developing the theory properly the there was a difficulty really determining exactly what the theory was and there was a misunderstanding of basic evidentiary principles and i got i got the feeling that the judge was actually trying to work if prior fraud was a factor in the consideration then trim the answer was no right i think he allowed us to ask one witness that but the critical thing is at that juncture the deposition shows a judge who is bending over backwards to be as overly inclusive as possible mindful of the fact that the p s i i was represented by party representatives and not represented by counsel judge page repeatedly from the contract i think that they got jumping around a little bit on the standard overview you admit that it that they used the wrong standard overview when they were supposed to use it to an overview and default was the failure of what is it for dash two and for dash three is that right ok so tell me what one knows about the problems of manufacturing for those specific devices and in particular and i'm talking about p s i here but i'm also interested in whether two and for dash three components the record is clear on that i can tell you but the but the problem with the lot or a lot of fortune for three or that they have leakers and aside problems that pre dated for two and forty three the only reasonable inference from the record as two for two and for three is if the problem was the specifications demand for a particular what is it sealing disk or something like that and as to that which is the only thing that matters there's only one possible basis for the defective results because manufacturing defects didn't apply to vat and martin didn't apply to that well there's absolutely as found there's no evidence in the record to show that there was any nexus between the allegedly defective feeling this and the manufacturing problems that they had in fact the contracting officer who even though the long the smoke time was increased from one hundred seconds to twenty five seconds still the range of the smoke temperatures were from twenty five to forty one seconds and there's no evidence in the record and this with the burden was on p s i see just this that martin had a greater relaxation of smoke time to back it doesn't make much sense because these are five and a half inch units and the idea of requirements but didn't require a particular just is that right exactly that's absolutely correct your honor that's absolutely correct and t s i when p s i went and did there's a lot of evidence in the record about how it engaged another sub contractor to come up with a different this  and then still had problems with use of the thicker just right in a plane the thicker just but again again this is a situation in which the agency is exceeding the p s i s desire to use these different disks but so long as i can form of the drawings but happened at the hearing with respect to the mark evidence what was requested by p s what for the government's objections what was the testimony what was the what you dictators of evidence to prove it and with regard to the excluded deposition this is like any trial yes deposition testimony can come in under certain circumstances but they didn't even bother to put this gentleman on their trial list and call him as a witness themselves which they could have done they didn't they chose not to and then they want to get his deposition testimony admitted because they don't want to they want to make serious allegations against him without confronting him and court so again all of these allegations of alleged fraud cooper was was on the martin question did you offer some evidence that the adjudicator rejected i mean refused to admit for something like that i think we did you office and i believe there were when you go through the examination of mr bone and also the contract and also mr pierce there were pieces of evidence with martin electronics that you proffer when you look at the standard that they now say the board should have considered and when judge when the boys why isn't why isn't it fair to say that the only thing that matters is what the adjudicator did not what the government and unless you can point to the exclusion of evidence that relied on an incorrect standard i'm not sure how you can traction but that's a fair point