of federal claims pointed out i mean obviously this is a contract for a very very very strong amount of money relative to what we see this is a contractor who performing similar work at least prior to this why is it not sufficient for the government to a very light on the representation you know that side and obviously they knew more about this person than they would about any contractor coming in for the coal because they had substantial experience with that person why isn't that fair game necessary in order to perform as contract my kind of leave that can be performed for that low and that that would be part of the problem in getting somebody to perform this work but isn't that up to the government to decide i mean the government wants this work done if it had questions about whether or not and again i think their answer is that they rely generally on their experience with this contractor which i don't think you're disputing is something we can consider either the government has questions or it doesn't but i don't think anybody can disagree what you're saying to near equate but the question is who is it up to that isn't it up to the contracting officer if they don't feel that they have enough information upon which to make a reasonable decision to go back and ask for that explanation but the fact that they didn't suggests that they thought they had sufficient information so what are we supposed to do with that your honor that the contracting officer did find that they had sufficient information  not only was technically acceptable but that they provided some provide a detailed plan and how they would perform what they did and so they're simply wrong the government categories comes up in the evaluations that the two government employees provided just before the award so those two evaluations indicate that they were looking for an explanation of the personnel and indicated that they had provided these ahead so the basis is invalid from the beginning architectural consulting group as i said before the contractor they do have experience doing this kind of  five in that list of things of ways that the better could provide detail on how they would be able to perform architectural consulting room in their experience doesn't show that they can perform this kind of work whereas veterans electrics did show that they do perform this kind of work right there are some other other arguments that both the governments and veterans electric have made in this case and i think that the issue of whether a city could perform is probably the one that would carry the day the issue of the next row is probative to the issue of whether he said you would be able to perform this kind of work so again the next code is if you did not  productive whether they would be able to do this kind of work whether the contracting officer should have been able to look at that bit and say yes this person even though they did so are you pointing to any technical violations they could carry the day or are you pointing to a more subjective it's objective they're contacting officer should've been able to look at is he just bit and tell whether or not they could perform the work and absolutely no way to do that there's no way to tell that they could perform work that would involve changing out lights were installing lights only that they have overseen people doing that at some point so to the extent that it's objective or subjective would call that objective but that's all they would be required to do under this contract they don't have to establish that they can do what they are allowed to hire subcontractors right there and they did not say whether they were going to do that and in fact the record shows that they were not going to do that there's correspondence in the appendix that show that after the fact a c g hired a couple of to prove that they are technically qualified to perform the work and that section expressly provides at least five different ways and says for example exactly for example five different ways a city or any other better could have done so electrical general contracting work get it done for projects hundreds of times larger in other locations and it's apt this particular cemetery which is exactly what was called for in example number one here veteran selectric argue staff or whether they were going to subcontract out any any electrical work or the particular like work described in the statement work here is one of contract ministration there is no requirement in the solicitation and venters electorate has never pointed to anything in the solicitation that would have required a city to have before bidding a certain number of electricians on their staff they do make one that's kind of an exaggeration of what he said it doesn't require a dozen i think required them to have a certain number he saying that there was no indication about whether or not they had any step to do it or they were going to subcontract it most certainly but i think that the extensive past experience in a secure provided demonstrates that they were that they said you was well experienced in provin doing this type of work and much like the earth's climate for small businesses if a certain amount of the contract has to be awarded or performed by small business provided that  equipment and required licenses basically clearly was not newly entering into any construction activity and this judge smith bloke any requirement that the electrical work be performed by personnel who are state license there was a requirement that they provide some detail the explanation that's right from the source that if so whether it's a narrative or whether it's using the idea of their experience to provide that detailed explanation either one would suffice their experience does not provide that detail the licensing issues i guess we're not arguing felons electorate is not arguing that those are required to be produced as part of the bid were arguing that if you were to look at the bid and try to determine whether or not he said she was qualified to do this work or whether they were responsive to the solicitation those two things work against the c g because neither of them show that they are qualified to perform electrical work