agency's actions and also the lower courts finding that the agency satisfied the injunction based merely upon an appearance of compliance these are errors of will and abuse of discretion my client bar will be is requesting that this concluded to the extent that he relied on jurisdiction he was wrong that wouldn't help him i think it was around one minute don't you see if he also reached the merits you need to win on the second question right but also because i found an appearance of compliance or literal compliance so there are two questions we find there two hours and i believe there are independent grounds around or either one i believe you could or send back to lower court with respect to the second question yes he he the appearance of compliance and not finding that the actions actually had a rational basis inherent in any order or injunction is that the subsequent actions directed to be taken not apply the regulations and the order but have a rational basis  present contractors from other small businesses that would otherwise subcontract out a large portion of maybe all of the dredging work to a large dredging company it would get the benefit of all the money coming under the contract for that work so this is a very industry and the small businesses have to invest a lot of money to buy these dredging equipment so they're wanted to have extra protections for the small businesses small present companies when there is a set aside for small businesses they want to make sure that the company that gets the  the contract for the works benefit from the contract so they could begin vested all this money they want to be able to get the money for their investment and it's and yes the regulations in the federal position regulations clear that the exceptions should be applied when the principal service is stretching and put another way in the regulation specifically when dredging accounts for the greatest percentage of the value of the contract with  do the same thing that already did the first time just review that process to make sure that process was rational and had a rational basis and was based on practice permission because based on our review of that document it was clear that it wasn't we presented that information to lower court with lower court unfortunately it refused saying that it lacked restriction to take a look at the substance of their actions and merely said well they didn't read it terminations so therefore they complied with it but it didn't look at the merits to see ok did they really comply with the regulations are timeliness requirements that the administrate of exhaustion requirements would still require them to go to the office of hearing in appeals or to make an argument before the court or federal claims that for some reason it would have been futile to have attempted to have exhausted those administrative remedies but i think it's hearing in appeals you are not actually guaranteed relief for your current solicitation under nineteen point three zero three eight they specifically contemplate that if the hive decision is received by the contracting officer before the date  were never actually guaranteed any any type of remedy but the point is that the court and to the extent that they claimed they would have had standing issues they could have said they could have submitted have been on the second solicitation you know they are not solicitation which was where that initial independent government estimate was performed the native code issue was not protest at that point the agency awarded it to coastal then they are all being protest award and ultimately find a way to court if you like if the award is predicated on what you regard as error there's there's judicial review available in this protest setting contract that has been awarded work started on the contract in march of twenty fifteen it will finish in april of two thousand and sixteen it is fifty seven percent of the performance time of them complete were in louisiana so they work through the winter if they were awarded contract the objected to the trial court's orders to the extent that they thought they that then there are many ways that they objected to the language in the trial court's order that merely ordered the government to file a when the court actually issued that order as the court as the court clearly determined the government complied with the order it for forms the court didn't take the government's word that it was going to just perform it that it was just going to perform another standard the government initially just admitted a declaration and the court said you know i need to look at this in the court it's clearly said that it looked at it and it turman that the government in force and then the government's compliance with the order sufficient i think it's notable that arabi hasn't cited a single case where a higher court is that you should have held the government in contempt and you didn't this is a highly discretionary area where the trial court the trial court very clearly said  in the initial order and in the redetermination that the agency literally complied with their order and so here at the end i think it's also important  into more substantively the merits of the process it is a different question between whether the government complied with the order and whether the government's evaluation was arbitrary and capricious and another case that made that distinction which is cited in the mission critical problems are all these making and given that they didn't even attempt to file another bid process didn't raise these arguments to the court and given the fact that they didn't even hear  and the court looked at the merits of the action based on the injunction because that's exactly what the court did the first time they looked at the process and now would step in and they said do the process over again agency and with all the desk and ok they did another process just do the same thing  injunction to close it and it said i hereby directs the a cheat sheet to do a redetermination and then injunction is simply for them to do research terminations and i do not intend following the redetermination to compliance with the injunction that he granted which is that he said they complied and you would have been right for sure if that had been the instruction given wouldn't it be the same to do that go back and say ok now that they've done every determination perjur