so did you ever painted they did not because they were eliminated from the peace for the were eliminated from the competitive range before they could they were given the opportunity to do so they had the opportunity to do it did they not  reconsidering the proposals by the time due to the passage of time there becomes owning had lapsed and because a school building had moved in nearby it was unable to contended that because a limiting banham from the competitive range and went to be open i would double back and say that at the time to be opie did so they had at the time to be impeding considered  saying ok we'll start all over well the problem wait why isn't that gentlemen you've got your work put out of contention and you came in and said oh goodness this isn't supposed to be a single sourced contract supposed to be competitive we've been knocked out and the government says i guess you're right we will reopen why doesn't that cure a possible government mistake before the real thing well it was hard it's our contention process of doing so of doing so and which is what they had requested the extension in order to do and they have found a new facility and entered into an agreement right for a move until two full months after the corrective action was taken yes your honor because of that you wait two months and you do nothing now you know during that two months even if you didn't know a school moved in you know zoning expired on december first of two thousand and thirteen you know that because that was clear it on the face of your zoning so corrective action come you know you're sitting on expired zoning approval at that you knew in order to be able to compete for this contract you had to get reapproved so even if you didn't know there was a school there and you wouldn't therefore be approved why is it ok for you to sit back and do nothing for two months after the corrective action and now be heard to complain about the fact when you finally did something two months later us for an extension and they only gave you two weeks and that's not fair because it's not long enough well your honor wasn't that banham did nothing they were in the process of negotiating other agreements their attempt to make arrangements with other individuals at that time either saying that's not part of the paper record some of the issues below may have gotten slightly conflated because essentially bynum's recitation of the previous perjury meant was essentially just simply to show how the passage of time during the first for experiment and challenge of that particular moment prejudiced panel because of the passage of time and the zoning issue and me to conclude that when they have two months to act then and they didn't move it or seek or corrective action during that two months after seek extension after that during this two month period how can i say it's an abuse of discretion for the district for the for the lower tribunal to decide that two weeks was enough and then to to boot him out of the process after that your problem is abuse of discretion you don't get the novo review over that question you sat and didn't act for two months and they only gave it two weeks if they had only given you two weeks the day they issued the corrective actions to be a really different case even under to be the discretion standard then reduced discretion standard your the issue there is that the b o p s course of time throughout this particular minute and twenty frankly relating to other understand your argument during your rebuttal time and i want to make sure you have a chance your argument is that this record as a whole shows or demonstrates unfair treatment a phantom in this process even if they waited two months and maybe weren't as quick as they could have been that the what's critical in this case is the fact that they were weighed in with the requirements and this was the station permit the agency to eliminate them from the competitive range for you so they were late you mean between you're talking about from the may twenty eighth and you know eleven days that's a late night because i thought that was sort of forgiven by the government i don't really think that you were here today arguing to me that that lateness justifies kicking them out of the correct your honor not relevant to them when you get to whatever it is you think warranted speaking  honour's pointed out that zoning expired in december the beginning of december twenty third team they were left after the conflict competition about a month and a half later january twenty second twenty four change so they knew their zoning had expired and they have continued to pursue their efforts to stay in the contract it did nothing to obtain proper zoning here but is your complaint that they should have been acting between december first two thousand and thirteen and january during that time the government or it kicked them out kicked out of the contract not during that time seeking to renew zoning or extend that it was the right terminology is yet there aren't that really your argument that during that small window between december first  and they did nothing they they didn't exhibit the necessary diligence in fact it was the agency that reached out to ban and about a month and a half later on march eleventh saying you know we have your current zoning we told you that's what we were going to consider it's deficient and then on march fourteenth they issued discussion notices saying you know your resume is sufficient to provide valid proof of your zoning and not only that that your zoning doesn't exhibit that you can cover all offenders of violence and not violent because of the school or is that violent and nonviolent no their initial proposal was just to counter nonviolent and that was a problem and so after the agency issued the discussion notice in the middle of march that given two weeks to respond then i'm then at that point this is march twenty sixth so exception create new floor plans performance layout hundred twenty days of build diligence i plant and they also noted that they were negotiating for a new site location with several seven different potential properties so they didn't inform the agency that they were and they're responsible or to bam the solicitation clearly states if you're going to do a site change you have to do it within sixty days of your initial goal there obviously long past that date there even past if you were to consider january twenty second the day they were like back in which is language in and bam is your ass so they agreeing with ed lavendera that it was a loser eight or absolutely that it was the situation it's not that it was a loser it's what they were asking to do would take months and the agency has the discretion under the school situation to short time here which probably means he can't possibly satisfy and there why we will be able to move on and eliminate him from the competitive ranks well but what if a reasonable person is looking in  suddenly pam said ok well are there any buyers december thirtieth first it's going to take us thirty days to get an answer for you application the government said we'll give you two weeks when that feel like maybe an abuse of discretion potentially i maybe they all got answered as we went along but judge well if you ask a question to the very first question the argument and the answer is the record does not reveal that banham ever provided proof that they had zoning where they could whatever right i don't think that would be true because they were operating and existing they had our newscycle injury when they requested them to update as i ever came in and said we had this thing from the v a the board you're occupying the property the second letter the one that they provided in response to a discussion though this made specific reference to the fact that they were authorized to continue operation at the halfway house at that that i suppose you could say that about a number of the things your mind and i guess back to the point what you also could conclude is that in this case the requirement of the swiss station was for these offer wars and not just to provide a group of zoning but to maintain it including through the life of the contract and i think that's the point that you were describing earlier that when you look at this you realize that band who felt offended by the treatment they received in the initial response began a protest in the summer took it first to the agency took it to the g a o didn't even file its protest to the  claims until such time as it knew that its that its special exception had expired it accepted with a voluntary dismissal of that initial protest the corrective requested was an extension to respond to the discussion notice they never really requested an extension with respect to a new to middle they they requested and were granted a two week extension to respond to the discussion though th discussion notice which it said to them we noticed that your proof of zoning late as it was originally says that you cannot accept violent offenders and you must have begun your use on december the first in response to that they said we're going to have to do all of this stuff but they never requested an extension to do that they were granted a two week extension to respond to the discussion those which what they requested and so you have taken longer than i expected but i believe that that when you look at the circumstances here you must conclude there was no disparate treatment there were disparate proposals but there is nothing here that indicates that judge clevenger to i may have misconstrued your question earlier about disparate treatment and i would like to point to pages fourteen fifteen of my of our brief where we did address that issue where the b o asked also works two months after it had already thrown manam out of the competitive range for current zoning documentation and we believe that that i asked him that question and that it believes that in such a circumstance in order to obtain a new facility apply for zoning and get zoning into in a span of two weeks it's simply impossible whether the b o p s knowledge is that it knew that if you asked what the two weeks to obtain done or was i response as your will said i believe it was for you knowing what you know so tell me it was to address the issues in the in the discussion notice which would include