the data that was announced the regulations provide folkenflik ness and compliance with exact deadlines they do but but what's important here is that the nature of the data that was in it rate before striking a competitive range and we saw the list you know the names in the numbers are in the brief does the contracting officer have to do a price reasonableness and cost religion  that safer saverin your competitive range is based on the fact that the grossed up number and we were not supposed to talk about the numbers because they're private just say your number was was x and you were within a range of later night o r people say show we're in the competitive race but it seems to me that that alone wouldn't be enough because if your numbers are all fake if well us done was put in a gross the number will perform the contract for this they couldn't put you in the competitive range right well no and i think i think the competitors are following with me because i mean if at all you did was to say we'll be happy to perform the job for seventy million dollars and it turned out the seventy million was in a zone between sixty and eighty of all the other people just having said you perform for that some couldn't possibly see if they put you in the competitive rate people would say it was error because they don't have any idea of how those numbers are build up they don't know whether it's reasonable or whatever right i would disagree with the kind of range is it based on to the far between three and six is based on on the continent for determining which of the pros most highly rated and that not goes directly to the the best nights around and what i'm trying to get at here is that to do price reasonable us are going to cost realism cost realism and you take a look at what your costs are and you're asking are they realistic and the information that you didn't supply on the coins on the lock line items were the backup information for particular sours if you will right so let's assume that in your real proposal the stuff that didn't come in you were to have paid the last one of those units a ninety eight percent of the salary for the whole unit and you were going to underpay or body else the contracting over say that's not reasonable in order to decide whether or not your costs are reasonable on especially when you're building up employee costs you have to look and see what those employee costs are right and that would isn't that correct that is correct and your proposal without that backup information and i would i would disagree that the arayan did provide the the total amount that iran was proposing for each labor position this was not just simply a lump sum proposal and it was  going in the wrong direction i think what you really want to talk about is stand because we're not going to get to roll out the agency was behaving rationally if you don't have standing right well his hands and you say you did you can see that you don't have standing or you don't want are you standing on substantial chance of prevailing when the contract you want the week standard correct and that's and that's simply because and what is your competitive injury that is here under weeks that is redre the injury is a ryan's disqualification from competition before the army even evaluate this proposal the army never never went far enough to decide whether ryan's proposal was going to be one of the most highly rated proposals and warranted discussion on this piece of the argument that your brief treats the decision by judge sweeney below as if he ruled that the army was required required to reject your proposal where in the opinion does it say that it just wanted to not say it was required but but but the way that you now has followed the opinion stated that that that arayans or mission precluded agency was required to turn you now to the trial court concluded that that arayan was not injured at all from the disqualifications proposal normally putting that aside i mean if a if an if a company smith a proposal to sort of wait and see and your point i think is that because the agency had the discretion not to reject her proposal because the way the the way the the request comes up is to say we we may reject you if you're not complete maybe it's hard to believe for example if the request of a bozo called and said well your proposal has to be in triplicate and you only submitted two copies it's hard to believe that an army would throw y end you had some pretextual arguments i believe you argued that you were being rejected for discriminatory reasons right so if it turned out to be true  missing subcontractor data and you were starting getting them and then clevenger asked asked you about it and of eventually you said well we're not saying that the army but supposing you supposing you filed the entire thing the entire proposal seven days late army be justified in rejecting it absolutely there's no there's no question in it and and and and  were rejected at that time is that correct or not correct they say that that's my understanding from the record and i don't i'm not privy to who was who was rejected or not they said they said and i'm reading from the government's radar and also falsely claimed the army afforded the offer us who who who who didn't mess up right what you're asking us to do is to apply the week's standard standing to your case where you admit that the factual a little different needs in weeks  our court having the substantial chance of winning on the contract was to create a standing barrier that is higher than their it was very very right so where the army rejected orion for being noncompliant in april but april eighth two thousand and eleven it was only later in the process after i had done the initial compliance or view that it actually decided to conduct discussions and do a competitive the agency arayan filed the protest challenging agency announced on april eighth that it would perform the initial compliance review on april eleventh two thousand and eleven arayan protests as the decision challenging  right where they would require them to reject yes your honor i don't require as my will under the terms of the solicitation that the agency had established they were required they were important because the whole argument here is that from the other side is the agency had the discretion that it wanted to to keep a running in the game had they wished they could have kept right in the game and they're saying that we were arbitrarily stringing you know what can you point to that shows that the agency was was required to throw it out because it was incomplete because the language also as you may be rejected if you don't  case the agency could there with insufficient information to perform analysis that the agency is required to perform under the for the federal acquisition regulation fifteen point four zero four dash one z how do we know that it says that for a cost contract the each element of the offer or cost breakout data to evaluate whether it's realistic and whether they have an adequate understanding of their requirements and here they clearly could not look at each element because they didn't know each  element they didn't know what the general administrative rate was they didn't know what the different holidays that are i'm going to pay or or any offer or unless they provide that information and they would have had to have made a wry and hadn't even tried to argue how they could have backed into that and certainly iran doesn't have standing under weeks because it was not injured by anything that the agency did it was eliminated from this competitions due to its own errors which it has there's even there's no question about it that would happen if iran could prove that the see there of the view that you're wrong they're of the view that they're contracting officer if you're she had wanted to could have before him the various costing price test without having all that backup data that's their view you disagree with that i disagree and i also there's it's important to know that there's no to use in this case that they didn't provide the information and that it was written why we understand that what i'm trying to get at is a situation when i don't tell you what i'm worried about i'm worried about a situation where someone puts in a proposal and the government rejects it and the government rejection for what we would all agree is a impermissible reason like race discrimination or something like that under judge sweeney's analyses and or your group's analysis rob under your allegation that they could have been put in the competitive range at the same time you tell me that there's no way they could be put in a competitive range i don't understand your view of me has been said knives clearly in our brief but the test judge sweeney applied to under the substantial chance test was whether they would have a chance to compete if the process became competitive and judge sweeney articulated it so that it wouldn't be an onerous requirement for example a song was excluded from the competitive range under her  your belief that that that isn't backing a mandatory part and i think you're on dangerous ground because it seems to me that what you're saying is that we should issue an opinion that we may reject it you're saying that they have to reject and that they can't ask for further data you want to issue an opinion to that effect i think and looking at the standing and curry it's different than provide twenty percent reward was admitted but their argument is that the agency was not required to throw them into the agency had discretion to throw them out and you haven't convinced me as to why the agency was required to reject because of the incompleteness as opposed to exercising its discretion and their standing argument is where the agency has discretion to do something and we think they have jurisdictional facts and here the united states showed and iran didn't disagree that they submitted an incomplete proposal and the government was not able to further a valuate orion and so given that they couldn't establish jurisdictional facts that they were an interested fail to provide or to or ensure that seeming partners provided the replier pricing information further for the subcontractors that just provided there and consistencies we know that they were the also stated that your proposal at three eighteen your proposal to provide require cost price information reloading partners we know that were not in the final your price proposal cannot be evaluated for price real reasonableness and cost real is and that was in the letter dated april eighth two thousand and eleven that page that three eighteen in the  administrative records there was a lengthy hearing and certainly there's more than ample basis in the record for i mean the government mr bull and you have a little on realistic that doesn't preclude an award under the best ice cream that that simply means that the government would either adjust those prices up to a to a figure that think that the government has determined is a realistic minimum