that the initial posting on the print button and the process does not include until the contract is executed during that process we maintain our status as a potential bitter and we were deprived of our opportunity i mean it seems like a very broad description of who would have standing those that potential until i understand your position justice however i think that given the fact that  this is this i'm not suggesting that this be created as if you differently created rights but however you are a outdoors previously active was in a unique position as a potential bigger does this kind of work and who is on this kind of work to submit a pitch for this kind of work and would have but for the solicitation that was posted that would essentially place a any potential better in legal jeopardy had they submitted if it so better up to legal jeopardy illegalities and improper use of the through competitive bidding ensures a sufficiency by contrast with this elicitation post or it is literally a backroom deal struck by the state and the vendor at some point in the future on an unknown scope of work that will be mutually determined during those work that is it time is called a master contract that is not intended to and will not be put out to bid to not be lost on this or that the various agencies of the state of illinois have not had a spotless history when it comes to spending tax dollars without any oversight arguably this is the reason for the first place in the states we have a guy for that approach here doesn't assuage any concerns and nor does it satisfy any legal standard simply step seal bid allows for a state actor to first call for technical solutions be an inpatient for bed and then invite the highest rated responder says mr price and offers this is particularly useful useful for technical projects that may present differences in rated proposers to a fair price before war all of these types of procurements where the state seeks to select a specific vendor to perform a specific service for a specific term and for a specific price the is no authority to perform that action so this brings us to the next day to fund the solicitation that's the use of rate cards while federal requirement allows for the use of rate cards in a situation where a number of vendors are selected  on this point in the state has consistently argued in his responses to ari protests and now in the industry that no authority is necessary to employ rate cards as a method of play selection and on this point the state is simply w left what the majority of this requirement is actually about are the follow on statements of work not just the initial statement work for the portal that was in the invitation for ben and it was already awarded it was already contracted to use all of the following statements of work for all of the agencies that will have to be developed their solutions to offer licenses on line in accordance with that or necessary to ensure a fair chance to be awarded a contract and that was impeach it given the facts present here that responding to the solicitation document as written would place a better in legal jeopardy it can hardly be said that as yet undefined public word for which no bids will be solicited and had this right been recognized at the time that antec was decided i truly believe that the court there would have recognized that we would have granted the release submit a proposal in response to the r p and therefore their their injury is just a generalized grievance it's not different from the public generally this is decided contend that it was deprived of an opportunity to participate in a fair bidding process that was the contention that the vendor made me track and amtrak so it's the same contention here we didn't get a chance to participate in the sphere process credit but that's not the case at all what they're really seeking is a market expansion of standing to non bidder and there's nothing in shea that supports that you say is actually quite to the contrary first of all he sure doesn't discuss standing in any way like he's about standing and it's a case where the plaintiff was an unsuccessful bitter and they claimed that they should have been awarded a municipal sewer contract and court found they were entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from proceeding at that time with the successful bi the case involved a disappointed bitter in the case of the sites all involved disappoint bitters and when the case talks about the right to appear bidding process it's talking about it for the purposes of ensuring that the bidder has a chance to be awarded the contract so it's your position that basically it records it that you actually did that they didn't change that in most situations just that's going to be the case they and i think it's worth looking at the allegations of the complaint to the allegations of the complaint are that they claim to interest in having multimillion dollar contracts competitively bid to the public funds are expended traditionally that's a generalized interest that's an abstract interest wanting to see the law are followed here now  day that would be enough and enough to create the having because what they have is a generalized grievance that's not distinct from the public generally that would essentially allow anyone to there is nothing that supports this this market expansion of standing that sick and that it is one of the problems i think that that problem i dealt tales with another problem in bringing a declaratory judgment action decision their complaint is all about how the administrative decision is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion and so on and here the code doesn't to clear to her judgement action which they cannot do here so that is another reason that the actions promptly dismissed they say in their reply brief all right outdoors is pursuing a declaratory judgment to determine if reviewing officials determination meaning c p s decision is correct that's seeking administrative review they can't do that through the means that they've chosen  well considered process for an enterprise solution it was competitively paired seven vendors submitted responses and the state evaluated them and the bench of the selected of banter all of those vendors were on equal footing they all had to make commitments of the same nature there is nothing unfair about the process and there is nothing in the  is a a violation of the human code when they can't quite to a single statute or regulation that was reportedly violated because there is  this was an acceptable means of proceeding in order to meet state meet and indeed a cost effective and efficient way of meeting a state as was determined you know after much abetting consideration they raise an idea here that there's some type of improper private negotiations of price that again that's both mr description there's nothing in the code or the regulations that wasn't piled here they're drawing in a decision called smith and they are taking it very much out of context it's not a case that helps hours is not get noted going to be determined and again there is nothing in the code that would preclude that or the regulations and that makes no sense that is the case here it is a situation where the r p itself had almost no description the project was to build a building and it doesn't involve binding because even though the p bitter had put a price in it it was later able to say well i don't want the price i put in my bid i'm changing my country i see here these competitively bid are the rates the rates are not changing so they're trying to use myth to make this apples and oranges comparison and it doesn't help them show that there is any legal in the we are at the end of the day  so there's no there's no claim because there's no violation of any code vision or any regulations and there is no conflict with any judicial  d there's there's an impact of the regulations you know expressing corporate these concepts of an indefinite quantity of services or payment by hours for hours worked and hourly not make any sense from a sensible responsible for care me standpoint so there is no merit to the contention that that is a problem with our so i think at the end of the regulations which is just another reason why they're kind of making this apples to oranges comparison so we believe that there is no claim to go forward with at the end of the day but we don't even get there because of the procedural obstacles here the lack of standing the lack of a distinctive powerful injury since they did not seek to participate in this process we specifically request in delineate that we are back seeking a therapeutic process that is incorporated into our second count as well as you can declaratory judgment look you set aside this contract a contract award because it infringes on our right bidding process could be argued to still be in the process stage as regards the other statements of work state in the work to through and had not been drafted devised price determined none of that work has been done yet the only aspect of this the ability to price out the remainder of the building to determine how many bathrooms how many bedrooms how many floors what kind of finish is all the rest of it and then you just give him your check in and say you need a price you know you just you just fill that out yourself because that's period full stop they haven't determined the hours you don't get to price without determining both rate and hours price is a function of the two and unless you put those two together if you don't get to the full price going back to standing in smith we do believe it is very very cold here because it concerns essentially a project that was too complex for the government entity to determine and so they decided to turn it over to the vendor to figure out the rest of the end and to give a price when they were done of a government contractor oeuvre government actors would have affected industry participation those interests were going to be directly affected by the impending action the same way that our interests as you mention better and would be directly affected by the