what the actual test was on a certain type of impact and you're saying she didn't read the text of the underlying documents she never she never read any of the actual test  kind of figure out what she did read what she didn't read can we agree that she read the solicitation she might have actually written it she read the nist report she read technical adviser grass those assessment of the nist report and then she wrote t letters explaining why your client was being excluded from further evaluation and competition so you seem to be saying if i'm following you and all that that wasn't enough that she had to also have read the she relied on technical experts people at nist people at the i s o people at the international aviation organization mr grasso i don't see anything in the case law that says a contracting officer is not allowed to rely on technical people for technical matters as your argument that she had to have sufficient mastery of the testing protocols and you have to have at least a familiarity with what valuation factors she has to make a decision what is the evidence that she didn't know what to look at by way of tests and test results i understood that  you he read the nist test reports he read grassroots analysis of them she did an analysis he wrote you two letters explaining her rationale that's that suggest a certain amount of knowledge a certain amount of judgment obviously in your view not enough so i'm trying to figure out what's the delta what was it that she didn't know or didn't think of her own mental process that you think the law required that she not grasso not this not anybody she had to and you know how we're going to ever learn this and i mean if you can we rule where you want to rule it means doesn't it that every contracting officers deposition is going to have to be taken if there's any suggestion of independent judgment being raised your honor we understand that the standard is that for has discretion a presumption against supplementing the instruction ministry where in this case it was a follow up to a previous case where the the lower and did not realize the deposition that certain aspects of the solicitations evaluation criteria were not followed indicates one of the three point problems of lack of independent judgment lack of issues i don't understand how you how you could it may be that she didn't know every voltage of every test that the standards referenced in the solicitation called for but that doesn't show that she didn't know what was going same thing as being generally unaware of evaluation criteria for example one of the other contractors is all to fail a fifteen and you had the second one because you won something on the first one in a second chance and you failed that because now you're arguing with well the c e o didn't do her job right what you're arguing is that there  anything it was all grass or thinking and therefore the letter was then as everybody else because it's really the only grass those brain that's at work here not hers grew to impress matter of fact  variances between the testing protocols referred to in the solicitation compared to the actual actual performance of tests by nist there is a very this is rather specifically l m wouldn't that be a problem wouldn't it wouldn't it be such a departure from what the competitors were put on notice they should be prepared to to meet as to  grounds for relief and would make any difference how well miss performed those tests or what a top rate outfit missed is or how unbiased they were because it was blind tested and so forth if they did performed by nest of know i've i thought i saw some reference to her wanting to be reassured that the state department had verified