circumstance yes your honor so i agree that technically that the department does issue a new instrument under these circumstances but when the department grants given that the contract that way even under the existing contract literal pointed to ride because the contract is always subject to really news i mean even under the existing contracts those those are subject determination yet are all contracts are subject to terminations i think we have a completely different contract before a new contract exited under g s a schedule contract i think it's every single day i wasn't sure what the task order i know what an option is that's what each one needs to redefine and i know what a contract is like the general schedule contract but i wasn't sure what a task order is feasibly those two contract at issue there was a question whether the protester had standing and the court said yes they have standing because their economic interests are affected by the awarding of the contract and that contract they were talking about was a just a scheduled task or certain task orders which are expressly exempted as not contracts but those are under express statutory provisions and those are different from the one here and they express because these contracts are different from g s a schedule contracts and so i just want to be clear so that knowing this understand there are certain kinds of task orders even if new which wouldn't amount to a contract for which you could bring them in from testing their procurement law  that apply to this new awards the government said we're going to evaluate the past performance and pioneer had exemplary past performance and then they were told but you're still not going to get a contract they changed the fundamental ground that's that's really your complaint is that for them to be extended because the six months about all the options are gone that's contracts they're still being wrapped up closed down work but the contracts are centrally finished and it's going to be a new task work and that's a separate legal instrument and it's a new contract this already and on and so my question is your answer to me seems to be well the government changed its duties but the government changed the ground rules so that these other contractors were the contract and look at the language of the statute to the cases from this court resource conservation explains that in order to be a protest of all something has to be in connection with the procurement that language in that case it was occurred in two thousand and nine at that time under far part eight there was a request for quotes there was an evaluation of all the documentation submitted by the various private collection agencies changed this year on or anything that is staying correct the ground rules here in the initial solicitation that occurred now we're looking at what is in the task orders which was of course also in that initial solicitation the language of  mayor in a performance extension there is a thresholds for performance training you have to achieve but even if you achieve that rating that education will base the decision on a total range of issues completely with then education is discretion that the extensions will coincide with the next round of task orders that are coming up and so the question is whether these task force should be treated as the award of a contract for the purpose of the talk or act in george morris  option terms and then he goes on to explain this extent will be in the form of a new task order only if funds are available only if the contractor accepts whatever terms the government provides provisions in the contract and look at it as a whole it is a logical to think that the parties anticipated and reasonably conclude at the time in two thousand and two thousand and one i mean these contracts were computed initially that they intended for this even eligible but that eligibility isn't the knopf it's necessary but not sufficient to get and the rest of it is very open ended as to what the department can consider that is very different than what you see in where the you have a solicitation and there's terms of have to be applied there has to we've got a contract the g s a scheduling contract and now the department of education all of twenty two of qualified under that contract as eligible much like the people in this extension qualify as eligible to meet certain really the grand canyon because the difference between that and this is that was a modification to an existing contract to add new work and here you wrote this the government generated its time jobs and you decided instead to say it had to to also from this report that there are situations where work is added to a contract that doesn't give rise to a bit of protest and we think this case is much more like eighteen to them like the service solutions another  court and i've seen lots of them including options i've never seen one that includes this language about an extension that would be subject to a new task order is this a provision that is routinely in your experience  contract matters can become protest of all if the court finds that too many things are connection with the performance and we feel that this case falls on the side of the line that is not up for chairman for all the reasons i've stated and while it may be different in some ways than than your typical option for sure it is that it does a road that long line on by for when when this is a contractual mechanism everyone agreed little tells us when you agree in a contract to the terms that we follow the terms in the contract which are very vegan very broad but we follow them and we have cases that you can under the seat which provides you the recourse to attack the decision or challenge it from the government  this is how these extensions would be administered and they were administered in accordance with the contract that was agreed to the mere fact that it said in the form of a new task for children to use that as the limit if you're going to look at whether this was an outside the scope modification that the trial court in eighteen to explain here the service point that what the trial court to do is look at the type of work the quantity and the price of how existing resource conservation so you can decide this case and affirm the judgment without saying anything at all if you can bring that you can bring of a protest before this  solicitation would be that that that process over is opened up to me to other interests for example or other companies that are in this if this was a new contract and i companies being able to compete for the work or not present make a difference was so so in the two thousand and two thousand and nine period there was a request for a close there were submissions of proposals by numerous potential contractors there was an award all of those things were associated with the issuance of a test for her and i think when you look at all the cases judge moore from the trial court those are all cases involving task orders in that context and so the fact the parties agreed up front work issued within the scope of the need for extension and that they were repeatedly called extensions i mean in all capital letters at the top or term extension i might also point out that at pioneer appendix one issued within the discretion of the department of america scores with all maybe a prerequisite necessary but not sufficient the passport repeatedly refers to the exact same federal laws that the department of education looked at the fair debt collection practices act which is what you would expect in a your performance under your most recent like suppose suppose this was clear but this was an extent that actually wasn't even in the word term extension so this is a clear case where the test order ended and the government issued a new solicitation and said i think that could be the case but it's also the case that these provisions were set up as incentives to encourage good performance by a contractor who helped escort her in the first place and so i think it's important not to equate a past performance evaluation in the with the government trying to create incentives within the scope of existing contracting ministration for for high performing contractors to be able to earn additional money or additional contracts or here may earn performance extensions based on the quality of performance during th task order situation as we have here it's not surprising as all all get the task force reflects the content terms and conditions of the schedule under which their issues that's not at all surprising here this is a new contract and on the flip side their position is also that this isn't a  federal it's clear if you look at the case that the g s a orders are contracts and if you look at resource conservation it's a very broad definition of what is a pitcher with a contract and these orders here are patrolmen contracts and then if you look at the pla our competitors have five contracts in front you took a risk in challenging this as a as a new contract and you could have taken this initially before the contract an officer under the terms of the contract with for some reason