evaluation plan contemplated an evaluation team reaching a consensus on this team approach the only document that we have to show what the evaluation team this was a spreadsheet and that's wh and dominating it doesn't mean the fact that that's the only document doesn't mean that they didn't do the team approach i'm only down to the misfit of record so i don't know what goes beyond that but what i do know is that seemingly one person nominated overall story that's not what they saw i mean the course the lower court found in their agency said we did this the way we were supposed to do that flows in through the contracting officers exercise judgment whereby work information that calls into question whether or not the source lecture about religion and was followed might raise a flag as to whether or not the ultimate decision was i don't understand what information calls into question whether the source electroplate was followed or not all your point to is that it is a spreadsheet but the the court and the agency said that spreadsheet is not indicative of the it's my understanding under the jam for decision that the contracting officer is allowed to rely on reports and information from those alone but where there is information that calls out in  all we have is a master spreadsheet and i agree with that with the lower court that it was a series of unsigned documents but to get from a to b to c the only thing that in the record that can show whether this was a feared was the spread sheet and sho overwhelming influence by one person and so from our perspective while those are testimony they followed the proper procedure nothing aware of your done to decorate the record in a manner that would now says well you well among other things and putting aside our argument with respect to rationality of the decision makers are also allowed to view a four course as the lineage of what goes before the ultimate decision maker which here would be the contract in the us what about what about your argument about the these items that the government says are criteria you say are sub factors you rely on a for provision saying that unless they say otherwise the factors and factors that supposed to be clearly noted whether or not one is more important the other allows government contractors to properly respond with their or for their close up to the government know that you were even going to make this argument i mean this seems like an entirely separate argument and the argument you made about the various aspects of the evaluations you went to the maritime beach technical thing up that this is wrong and this is not wrong in the court of federal claims agree with you on saddam and then it now you're making a completely different legal argument that it should have been laid entirely differently but we don't know that wasn't in the record the government didn't respond they could have supplemented the record if there is any question about what happened  out is it possible for us to review that as a matter of pure law when it's based upon what actually happened here and it was never raised below or given the what i understand to be the exceptions to this waiver rule a complete record so i also think interactive comes into play but more importantly honors the how can you say we're dealing with a complete record when we don't i mean this issue wasn't that a later that all there may have been some supplementation necessary to address it i mean we've already announced is still predicated on what the court did was just simply telling strengths and weaknesses without framing them into this subject or at the time of the award of the contracting officer is left with a grossly would have been a decision for the contracting office to big whether or not the twenty percent increase in price was worth the going to a different contractor which as  the color contrary to size of contention that the government not only comply fully with the terms of the solicitation but it also complied in this case evaluation document which she was required to sign there is nothing in the source election planned or the solicitation itself that requires each and every individual about the waiter to generate its own proposals by the term of this solicitation itself not by the terms of the source election plan in this case however they filed the agency follow the source election plan in its entirety and i think that agency set forth only three factors to be evaluated none of the factors contained some factors every solicitation contains an explanation to offer love locker room we would only have one case here from a court  factors than they were not properly recession isn't that correct that would be correct because there are words i want to go away no not because they weren't given equal weight because they were giving no specific way that are in the sense i not to the explanation to the offerers on how a factor is going to be evaluated all that these knowing elements that are listed under the technical risk evaluation approach assume it was no job to be done no your honor what i'm saying is that there is no indication in this record in any of the evaluation documents that a wait for a specific wait was giving to the instructions that were provided to the structions on what areas the technical proposal should cover we have these and just about every proposal and explanation to our force so i'm to the extent that and how the technical proposal was going to be evaluated they had ample time to get guidance there was even a question and answer period any questions about how these nine factors were going to be weighed by anybody prior to the  should have a degree of deference in their decision making that's important in federal contracting porton to have these processes in place so that contracts can you name however when there is a violation of law and seemingly departures from the source if you look at the things you've got listed there and you compare back to page twelve it seems like they're missing something in the strengths column there were so as i understand you made up the chart by the way  and the difference between the chart on thirteen versus the chart on twenty six was on twenty six is where i've shown that even though you've even though there was a compilation of multiple strengths for once up after i transferred that i'm just going to ask you about it day the the numerical italian based on appendix one forty eight we had trying to significant strengths weaknesses and there was i think a few neutrals when you compile all the strengths for category one equal weight that against the others that's where that