just goes down down the street this would be additional work across additional manpower which was fine of course and that was part of the substance of the previous meeting and that was formalized in the document that the town of normal called and labeled variance and apples but such that it must be reject if it were to choose to default or not do it it's the town thinks it's supposed to do and there might be future litigation right but that's the benefit the benefit is substance of it in number one whether that actually changed the scope project and work were not raising that issue so are are the issues on appeal should be pertain to language should be done number one so we should disregard th peers or position and this is not the only example of the first example that in the aggregate all these things suggest that the town of normals motivation was to were the convict anybody other than row because of increasing competition ro did not include that it had been removed in our own judgment for the purpose of actively concealing that opinion from the town council they didn't know about it wasn't discussed and it's because it was inconsistent with staff recommendation that awful project another and in the final issue let's see what is  the manner in which that issue or positions of the court parties that there were some one hundred twenty driveways possibly as many as twenty of these driveways according to the county near might need some adjustment as you go by the resurfacing consider as well but i think there's a serious question is whether or not the invitation to it was officially amended so that the media and that's became part of the invitation bid the invitation to bid was joint exhibit number five and the joint exhibit listed on page two the specific documents that must be returned with  it and nowhere on there does it say prevented meeting minutes nowhere does it say at the end must return every document that must be returned with the bid and with it in a box at the top of the amends the invitation to bed or the scope of the work and i didn't occur in this case so i think it was just a matter of routine by the by the staff person in charge of this particular  i'd also point out to the court that there are no illinois cases civically on point all the cases cited by the allen in this case had to do with submission of sub contractor well i don't know the funny source with walsh i don't know particularly why that was there but that was that was the wording of dorothy's choice to to mandate that requirement we don't have addie again the fact tractors failed to comply with a minority labor goal and in that case the requirement was a requirement of law part of the chicago plan so again found by the court we don't think that apple could walk i don't think apple received first of all i don't think apple received any kind and that word manage process  this administration rule indicates that the written minutes of meeting friends shall be binding so it's our position that that's with regard to the  bid situation or the allocation of unfair contracts conduct towards road after the bid was open i would simply say that  immediately filed a protest with i got and i died in a written letter which is part of the record rejected or returned the protest and said they had no authority to decide to protest that this was a matter for the local of warding agency and that the town of normal should determine whether or not rose protest was valid and in response to that information to the council town council and the mayor and rowe appeared at the council meeting and there was considerable discussion regarding the protest rose representative was protests and awarded the contract to apple i don't think that there are that that can be considered evidence of unfair dealing row add an opportunity present case and argue whatever it cared to argue does not show the type of unfair dealing or favoritism that would justify setting aside the trial court's decision we don't think that there was a clear abuse of authority by the crow or there  just briefly addressing some of the points raised by the council first the issue of whether the invitation to bid was was formally amended the normal issued document amended the new ones the email transmitted the document which was a dent in number so we're not concerned with you there's no question that the email requested that parties acknowledge that they received it we're not saying that that was a requirement of the offer so the e mail frankly in our judgment is relevant to the to the central issue which is what was the effect of the actual event so i'm still i'm a return you've only done one of those two things that's an accurate statement well right or with or without the formality of calling something in it then whenever that i think if that is incorporated into the contract so when they attend in acceptance terms there don't need any extra material guys which you've got to take care of these guys i think there was a discussion and explanation discourse between parties on what the previous judge i understand your question and the difference here is that normal