the government characterizes this case as a mere factual disagree that what the trial court did was make factual determinations and that here on appeal transatlantic is simply arguing a different interpretation of the facts in the record the facts material to our claim the solicitation as a minimum requirement said that frequency service shall be no less frequent then every fourteen days from each po the successful offer or skyler submitted a proposal and in this proposal it said we will perform this contract using two that's not one or the other but both interchange say interchangeably i didn't see that and wouldn't use the word interchangeable but it said we will use both vessels and its submitted schedules for each vessel a schedule for the to when it could switch vessels when it would become the backup vessel when the primary vessel was to use the agency's words when the primary vessel was unavailable  the offer would have to provide forty five days of advance notice of any proposed schedule so why isn't it reasonable for the government to expect that if for some reason they were going to propose like if the spar was going to have to be taken out of commission to be worked on as happens periodically with these ships they would have to give the government forty five days advance notice of their intention to substitute in colombia for this bar that would be true in any case  our proposal included only one vessel and everyone recognizes that the nature of vessels and and sea transportation is such that there will be times when a vessel is unavailable vessels need to be taken out of service the notice requirement is a normal and reasonable requirement that takes place during the performance of the contract but the fact that that requirement exist and that's not what the claims court found and i have to give clear air of deference to them and it seems as though there is some evidence in the proposal that the columbia was intended to be a backup and so under in light of all that evidence i don't see how you can weep over the clear error hurdle well use of the term back up the first of all the claims court never found it certainly repeated the the language of the proposal that it would be used as a backup vessel but it never found that this meant it would only be used in cases of emergency or unanticipated delay the the agency recognized that the offer or in fact used to spar for other business and i simply don't see that the use of the term back up or alternative in any way justifies a finding as to how use from time to time and that you say makes the solicitation non flying well not the mere fact that they added an additional vessel but the fact that the schedule for the ender edition of best alt demonstrates that when they do substitute the additional vessel for the spark they will not not may not but will not be able to satisfy the fourteen day departure frequency requirement that vessel on its next voyage will depart get most sixteen days after the last departure rather than fourteen days so what happens when your vessel is yet out of commission when our vessel is out of commission we assuming we know it's going to be out of commission we give the government notice we charter in or use another vessel that we own to perform the contract on a timely basis common practice in the into something different other than the fact that that shonar be cleared this in their response well it's different because their proposal says when we do this we will not comply now in the performance of this contract by any contractor there may be instances in which they will not comply but the question here is whether the proposal satisfied the requirements of the solicitation not whether the performance satisfy the requirements of the contract and that's that's the whole case is did  satisfy rather tip the proposal satisfy the requirements of the station and on its face it clearly did not the solicitation spoke to a schedule not numbers shipped from that correct yes sixteen day i transient well i'm not sure i understand the question your honor but there is no there is no limitation in the in the solicitation that would prohibit an offer or from offering to perform with two vessels and and the solicitation required that the offer or submit schedule or schedules that demonstrated it would comply with the fourteen day requirement so skyl submitted a proposal for using two vessels submitted to schedules as required and the schedules themselves demonstrated that when they make the switch substitute the bar the self propelled vessel they will not meet the fourteen day requirement and that seems to me to be a classic case of a proposal on its face showing that it will not satisfy the requirements of the solicitation the  the court and the government both refer to the fact that these were called just sample schedules and and they shouldn't be taken so seriously but the schedules that were required were really the only basis that the government had to evaluate whether a an offer or would satisfy the the frequency of service requirement we've already addressed the notice requirement which which we believe has to do with performance not with solicitation and and offer and and the government also refers to cases suggesting the court will give deference when the question addressed by the lower court of the agency involves technical expertise or a technical matter but in this case the frequency of service requirement requires whether whether it compl please the court fourteen days is fourteen days it's the only way that we get to a sixteen day schedule using true fourteen day schedules is if we break apart the schedules contrary to what is found in the proposals taking a second look at that it takes one of the best was the barge seven days approximately to go out one time obey a five day journey back the original port of embarkation is to get sixteen days it was entirely rational reasonable for the agency not to do that and for them to treat the backup vessel as trusts that moreover the government does have protection because there is a forty five gain notice requirement within within the within the solicitation that provides for the entry of the schedules in advance which is for a number of scheduling purposes but it allows the government at all times to make certain that vehicles are complying with the fourteen day requirement if you fourteen trips with time event then that's the one or or it seems to me that weather allowances you know if there slippage that occurs due to weather conditions the government makes allowances for that in any government contract there are ways that if something occurs that's one forseen that ultimately if you can otherwise deal with those situations in government contract and not worry about ultimate terminated for default in a case like that but there are reports and a requirement is clearly part of the forms work statement and we do not disagree with either a cases the government might enter into discussions with an offer of say look i it says fourteen days you said sixteen do you understand that we need fourteen days you could go back and there were discussions in this case but in this case discussions and focus on the schedule because the i would only add that while there were separate schedules and counsel talked about some some breaking up of schedule so i want to make clear that it is undisputed that when the barges substituted for the self propelled vessel it will when ever it reaches kuantan and it will depart sixteen days after the last departure and i don't know what councilmen by breaking up the schedules or or whether trance calm viewed the schedules in a strange way the fact is as recognized by the trial court trance come never even recognize this problem when one vessel is substituted for the other it simply analyzed the schedule separately and we agree that each schedule when view separately shows the departures will be every fourteen days it's only when the barge is substituted for the spot or that the sixteen day problem will arise and and  own schedules demonstrate that when this happens the interval will be sixteen days i don't believe the frequency with which it might happen is at all determinative of this issue s represented that it would happen and one can attribute various meanings to the words primary and backup but it would happen and when it happens it will be sixteen