court just a couple of minutes and then discuss the reasons that the court should be reversed in this particular case progressive was a woman own business small business they had one  issue and make arguments that for a couple of reasons the kingdom were case really had nothing to do with our particular issue that kingdom where cases only decided that that they rule of two would have to apply to all contract and not just until the v a met it contracting rule and decided that the rule of two applied to federal suppl case what other reason did you have for not were not notified well again because this didn't this didn't affect the decision in this particular case but the with the issue with king aware has been that the court did not mention the kingdom or case until the october thirty one opinion neither did the v a because it wasn't really necessary to either one of us the case then what you're saying is that every time there is a situation where the better known businesses come in at some point during the progression that the v a can just simply that's what this case is about the will sixty be relief from judgment was that the court sent the opinion back with instructions to act consistently with the opinion is we don't believe that re been met the the awards have been made progressive had one of the big protest then what the judge should have done is to go back and say all right you need to go back to the time of the that the original wrongs were begun and you should reevaluate the proposals from that point and  obtaining the contract if the v a had acted correctly so to permit the v a to engage in these outrageous and egregious errors and then just turn around the country to progress and the court clearly obviously saw that she could not do that said that she could not do that but so you didn't make an argument for it should be evaluated but i don't think that she had the authority to do it under these circumstances that this is a situation where there has been a wrong that has been done and the judge in looking at this sorry why did you not protest the regime because the a progressive was no longer in the competitive range and there are all kinds of cases on standing that would have created  that helps the side that is helped by the and is the one that proceeds to put it before the court in this instance can help the government in a way because then they didn't get the money they were seeking i just don't understand as interest in terms of what the impact was i don't understand you saying the government had no obligation to bring before the court that their rights were arguably affected by the decision in kenya where the answer is of course they were right all the government would have been thirteen the market research did involve the application of the rule of two back in twenty thirteen there were not at least two veteran small business in the market place within that very year there were two veteran old small businesses only remedy that it had in its basket under the circumstances of this case when given it was for the the contractor to raise a need for any kind of chilled injunction this court is recognize and accept and as well as parcel forty nine c which progressive relies upon that it is that that v a conduct that is lawful is not something that the court should interfere with here it was lawful for the v a to apply the rule of two i'm sorry in a scenario where the trial court doesn't do that that is not somehow an unlawful we manned which is what progressive characterizes it as i don't have the discretion to give in particularly it didn't have specific instructions from progressive about that they began to raise that there and in that in doing so they relied upon kingdom where it is worth pointing out your honor that they on appeal have taken a different position about kingdom where honor to the leave to the language because it is it is it is clear that at that point and conceivably before then that they were on notice of the fact that they should have raised this before and looking at page twenty eight four three through twenty four five of their of the admin of the record in which which is their initial who'll fifty nine he will extend the motion they stay at the bottom of twenty eight four three that as the court noted in its opinion pursuant to section eight one two seventy of the veterans health care information technology act of two thousand and six i e the veterans benefit that the v a is required to restrict competition for agency contracts to service disable small businesses and veteran own businesses when the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns are our concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers so they are express lee before the your honor it didn't analyze the sixty one issue because it as it stated in the opinion there was no argument advanced by progressive in support of sixty being one they only advance contractor given its concerns about the potential impact given that it was not a veteran on small business that's for sure but that's a little way of saying that it just seems to me that created created the problem with it is creating a problem it is the government's internal policy in memory and that is what they are relying on to say we must go back now have to this way again over again and we can't do anything else and it's it's that policy memory and m which does not have the force of law which progressive did not know about and it was an internal policy memorandum so we have no reason to really know that the government is taking this position this very strong position with respect to that this is  perhaps earlier maybe that's a new challenge that you necessarily have to bring in some case with the good news situation and if i understand your honor i think that what you're saying is if we had if there was another case not not with i don't think that we would have had standing to file a protest after the solicitation and the euro and i think that back directions no i don't believe there is anything to clearing you from doing that and in fact you know again when you see this thirty seven page opinion it didn't appear from that that we would remedy right but they we kept trying to bring things up and the court cut us off without being able to be heard in these various hearings just entered orders that change the dates  this and that and trying to keep up with what the judge was wanting to do in this case was in and of itself challenging and then and then she got to the finally to the point where november twenty three to be able to raise the things that we wanted to raise and it was obvious in the game in what we were trying to do in the case and making the argument ahead that kingdom that progressive should not be we review a prayer for relief that was never the the court recognized that it had no authority to actually award receive the contract what it did recognize and what it had done was to vacate the award remain and to the contracting officer for proceedings consistent with that opinion and they did not do anything that was consistent with that opinion they just turned around and said ok we're starting over again and after two years progressive is too bad so sad you're out of here that's too bad we just decided that we're going to so we're going to do it this way and that is that is exactly what rule sixty b is for it's for those unusual situations such as we have here where the outcome in this case is simply wrong it's just simply wrong and i think that this court recognizes that and so all we're looking for is to have the vehicle to bring it back to the court and say this didn't go the way it should have gone this is a now this is an impossible outcome it shouldn't it's an outcome that should never have happened and we're going to fix this finally i think