contract before which one what will call the preparation period getting the subcontractors in line making sure the line was in place and then the sixteen month performance period separate that's correct  claims predicated the sanction on was theory that the government misinformed or concealed the fact that contract performance was underway but that is simply and respectfully it's not correct that is from the very  read somewhat confusing at least to me a series of communications many of them oral some of them written as actually not reflecting a misunderstanding about preparatory activity but rather about when the sixteen months service period would begin and that the court thought that it had been told more or less explicitly but in any event the message was conveyed that the sixteen months service period of a already set up and fully prepared circuit would not begin until december first and as a result of that assumption you don't need to worry about stopping anything here whether by t r or much supporting material to make it clear that everybody and now i'm going to say the court understood that preparatory activity covered by the contract was underway that was not what there was until december first and then november first and pepper and the service began and nobody told the court until the court made an inquiry i think that trying to you're right that that was the source of the court mis understanding but the start dates that that the transition from one phase of performance under the contract to another phase of performance was not relevant to any question of law or fact and issue on the merits of the case that  is the adequacy of level three in this case and counsel for the government believed that it had communicated to the court and it was not relevant to the question of the relief the people more than could issue until until the service on the new fancier circuit or the old s d s state it certainly was not be paid under the new circuit and i confess i don't know the answer to the question whether it was being paid under the old circuit but i do know that a rise in had a set of costs of that it was being paid for to prepare for the commencement of the sixty month lease and what the government communicated to judge braden from the very outset from the outset of the case was that the risk of the risk that it did pretend it would be found in this case laid solely with the government that is if the court found a preacher in violation as the court ultimately did that what that would mean was that the government had to government lawyers attempt to answer the question and gave a somewhat fuller state but use the word i think anticipated that as we would anticipate that if we won this protest and eventually won reconstitution that we would get sixty months but not that i don't think the government ever squarely said yes you get the sixty minutes so if service begins really not a big deal well so i think that this is an important point just wrong so think i believe that the reason that counsel for level three said anticipated is because the lease was not actually for a definite term of sixty months it was an estimated term of sixty months and i think that we have a good sense that the estimated month lease term would in fact be be re provided in the event that a percentage violation are found because that is in fact what happened in this case that is the court found a program and violation  but it turned out that horizon again verizon won the bid this time when the contract had the lowest bid and it was issued the contract again for an estimated sixty months even though this was a year later so and i do think that it's important to point out two things first that what was communicated to the court was that the performance of the contract by verisign would not affect the relief that level three could get if it were ultimately successful in the case and second just to take a step back i mean this was a sanction that was imposed pursuant to the court's inherent powers based on ledged violation of the duty of candor to the court so even if the court believes that the parties could have been clear anything was done for bad faith and i do want to point out one sort of i think particularly troublesome element of the court's sanction opinion which was the finding that this that this was done with a specific motive that is that this was done with the motive of preventing level three from being common seated for any work that it would ultimately do you what are you ok point me to where sure of this is on page seventeen of there is a dual notice problem for there's purposes of this question that there was a failure to give notice that inherent authority with its high bad face standard and a failure to give notice that the individual attorney was subject to sanctions with such a notice there might have tracked at a more complete record more exploration but in order for you to get what i think you see which is an outright reversal as opposed to  with without proper notice given you need to i think tell me if i'm wrong but persuade us that the record as we have it simply  definitively that even if adequate notice had been provided and i certainly agree with you that the notice here was inadequate for the two reasons you suggested but even with all i was i was taking those as assumptions for purposes of her dissent as for purposes of the question i understand mean i do agree with the premise that assumption but even if proper notice had been provided there are the facts and the record below simply cannot sustain the high showing that would be required to service before the new contract took effect suppose it turned out that one of the ways that unset day might matter is that level three would keep getting paid under its incumbent arrangement until such time as the new contract the service part of the new contract began why would that the matter in court of federal claims consideration of whether to issue this either a t or a preliminary injunction which i think there was never actually any ruling on the preliminary exactly what it would have been paid for had it got the contract in the first place and so whether or not it was being paid a sort of in the interim under the under a preexisting conjure think is just legally around it's not relevant to the question of the relief that level three could continually communicated to the court thereafter and you know the predicate for this sanction was the fact that the government allegedly concealed from the court the fact of ongoing contract performance when in fact they had obvious to you and a level three and of horizon a clue being in the words of your august submission that some part of performance was under way leave the preparatory part that the judge was confused about that either what  was very focused on whether the service part would be good and that there was every reason to be taking from the government's attorney the proposition that service would not be gin until december first there was a day but of course it might start earlier if the preparatory work goes faster than we thought and then november first comes and i think the transcript indicates that the government attorney said he knew on december on november first that the change had occurred and it was and still he was asked about a week later that that was communicated to the court that's right but again the reason that that was not communicated to the court was because it simply was not relevant to the question that all parties understood to be at the core of the court's concern which is whether or not level three could get relief in the event that  and not only was it not relevant but the parties explained to the court that it was not relevant and the court declines to stay the proceedings and for in fact informed counsel for level three that the government you know was unwilling to stay the contract while the while in protest was resolved and so given that fact you know certainly knowing if we had known then if the government had known then what the government knows now that is that the court believed that the performance of the contract in some sense at least would not begin until actual delivery of the circuit to two dice or to decide at the start of this estimated sixty month lease that that constituted developed but again this was a sanction that was predicated on a finding at least implicit of bad faith and it could only be sustained on a finding that the government here proceeded in bad faith that is either knowingly or consciously with the intent to mislead the court with respect to a certain fact and no matter how you look at it no matter what process are you give to the parties there is no way we believe that the facts of this case can g