for the number of acronyms and misplaced they were removed from the that this database in our view of the world began prematurely because they were never one of the procedural it's their procedural due process but the v a should have connection with the solicitation because you were improperly excluded from the list and they've now created a new solicitation as a result of the cancellation which excludes you being considered as a veteran own business  even though they made a mistake all of a sudden as a result of that mistake you can even be considered for the contract as a veteran on business right that is correct for now was our position in the lower court  confused you mean after they cancelled this elation solicitation and they've now issued a new solicitation for this one thing is nuts now it was not in their state you must be set aside and a certain issue in our view of the world that's contravenes rule seventeen the reason that that protester you say we can't consider what happened here no no i'm not course i'm not i'm not suggesting that at all i'm because if they'd merely cancel the procurement and have another which allowed you in other better known businesses to compete for the contract it's hard to see that you would have a complete here so there's a necessary fact here from the fact that the new of us be set aside i don't think that would have eliminated any harm because your court this court has had a lot to say about re competing solicitations after a bit of opening when the prices have become have been aired because of the new prejudice that  cords the original offer but that put that to one side i think they had if they had cancel the solicitation and had a new solicitation which allowed you to compete with the veterans preference that would have been permissible  that was an accurate statement our our position from which we begin is that the contracting office or the judge matters more a court decision related to the july two thousand two thousand and seventeen period you had not asked for t r of you didn't ask for a preliminary injunction even when you filed your complaint it was wasn't until you had mended it and so during this time the v a was acting within the structure of its regulations and the like to government can cancel any time you want for any legal reason our basis is that the reason for cancelling was illegal and that was that there were no qualified veterans own businesses at the time of submission and that was what we because the v a failed to issue its notice requirement under its own regulations its notice for post cancellation had to be a fall in its own regulations and issued guidance contracting rip another supposed cancellation which  thirty days to respond to the proposed cancellation during which time he she would have remained in the database pursuant to the beares own regulations then the basis for the contracting officers cancellation wouldn't exist you really want us to do with this cancelled source of tafe right now it is we have no clear representation from the government as to the status of this roofing contract if if were right in veterans contracting group was illegally removed and it was eligible for competition on the on july twenty first when it's mid july twenty eighth when it's a minute it's a proposal and therefore it should have been you wait are you asking us so or to the contractor just find that the cancellation of the solicitation was arbitrary and capricious and therefore order that the solicit application of that parliamentary injunction back to the date of removal and our view our legal view of the world as if it was legal to remove them in the first place and to really restore them to their to their rightful place if they  clarification the court never held that it was illegal for the v a to remove that and contracting from the database the v a proceeded under thirty eight section three point four to you finding i mean that they've got good quarter for claims well that they were wrongfully omitted from the database you're not appealing them so we have to assume that that's correct right but it's important here that they have never sought to enjoying the open in the no that's a different question they were improperly excluded from the date of s and that's not being contested here right that's so what you're saying is because they were improperly excluded from the database it was ok for us to cancel a contract because they were in the database that seems wrong yes but the terms of the solicitation expressly provided and this veteran contracting would have been aware of that offer perspective bitters must be verified as a been certified in that case at the time of offer submission have been your wrongful conduct that kept them out of the database and yet they had to challenge that conduct prior to the time that bids were due in order to stop the v a from ultimately put it that latches would do what he said it's a it's a matter of the contract officers required to comply with both regulations and the terms the contract the terms of the contract expressly provided that in order to be in order to qualify you need to be in the database at the time you are submitted they were not in the i m f as of your wrongful conduct they weren't in the database at that and you're trying to take advantage of that and say well maybe we won't hold but the fact is they were in the database and that's what judge larry said i but doesn't make any sense to me and judge alito did provide them with some form of relief just not the dramatic drastic remedy of an injunction in this case because they had not sought us to enjoin the opening its because they had sought to enjoin the cancellation until after the cancellation occurred we provided notice to the court that we were in the process of cancelling a solicitation no injunction was forthcoming the v a simply filed it following its normal regular processes especially in the context of an invitation for that invitation is an extremely significant date when i was cordes where responsiveness to an offer is determined at the time that bids are open and that's not something that we get the ability to waive that's the law and so if they were not responsive pursuant to the terms of i mean we can't go with the presumption that the agencies conduct will be arbitrary that their removal from the database was arbitrary there's express regulation throughout this requires that room throughout this proceeding up to the actual cancellation da did you concede that this was arbitrary no we did not so how could the contracting officer have not excluded from this it opening erfurt once they open the beds and saw that they weren't i don't know the debate if i don't see any way that they could not have otherwise unless we were in the circumstance where the in the court had issued its junction where should someone ruling on  database prior to the completion of cancellation or prior to the opening of beds that's closer to the situation in miles construction case that court does discuss that case is not binding on this court it's another similar case involving regulations understand what you're saying that the contracting officer alternately acted reasonably well at one time people thought he was acting reasonably but is it turned out he wasn't acting reasonable and they're just it is a an arbitrary encroaches action by the as the court held by another section of a that was simply complying with its regulations and in complying with the regulations the court imposed a duty to a to an invitation for biz determined time a bit open for if they'd if there are problems with the term that might give rise to the situations you know their primary she wants with the fact that the contract specified they need to be in the database they're not in the held that injunction was inappropriate here that the contracting officer did act reasonably that's different from say i've not aware though the case that also supports the notion that you could go back in time when you've sat on your rights and them the contracting officer it's been repeatedly stated that the union these cases unlimited record review cases the court considers what was before the decision maker at the time the decision made is at the time in the contract an officer and then the approving undo a cancellation that was appropriate under that existing legal authority that's correct now in the next place which we're not really going that until we are of the government has erroneous to argue that a challenge to a cancellation is becomes moot when that cancellation occurs in that's effectively what they're challenging so that challenge the cancellation not mean there are cases here is the contracting officer's cancelation right yes wrong we are i mean that's the case it was presented and that's we apply the a p a standard and we have all right whether the contracting officer acted database in furtherance denying it of procedurally processed right there was another part of judgment ruling what you never asked for any kind of temporary restraining order to stop the cancellation or stop the opening of bids so once the contracting officer cancel the contract and that let's assume that the decision is is reasonable and arbitrary and capricious then what kind of relief can you get i mean you're asking us to overall capricious and i understand your general weary and i agree with you it seems somewhat unfair but i don't understand the legal route that you're telling us how we get there in a week when the contract was reasonably cancelled under the for regulation he was reasonably well first i don't agree with that i don't i don't agree that it was reasonably cancelled if the nations for the cancellation which ones that what you expected the contract an officer to do once he opened that it adds and found that you weren't in the database he couldn't you know a lot of really restore you to the database he can look at the bids that were in the database he determined that the two eligibility determination that was before the court to make but isn't it true he didn't get to make the eligibility determination that was made by a different part of the day all he could do was look at the database i don't think that's accurate i don't think that the only thing t contracting officer could do was simply blindly look at the data but sure a number of reasons a person might not have been in a database the amount of looked up the wrong dunce number it could have the database itself could have been down the contracting officer isn't required to put blinders on just as it relates to the other factors that are that are at play and as relates to you and i've gone way over my time so i can well you can finish as so mike my point is the contracting officer did not in our view of the world have to or was obligated to operate in a vacuum and going beyond that i think it was on the reasonable your view that it was unreasonable for that contract officer operate as if you were in a vacuum and on unknowing of what else was going on around him to include the fact that the c g has had contested the