judgment that this was in fact a commercial item is northwest technical provided through a subcontractor essentially budgeting engineers for the hanford project on a temporary basis and that standard for commercial item is that the information  hourly rates they say there's an exception for hourly services and specialized services there is very very is not an exception for our lives services and in fact if they do not after making that claim at the beginning of the brief do not decide it again it would be the basis for overturning and of fact all had made the determination between these parties that these were commercial items it does so in their contract and when it was negotiated and were commercial and that cost price and now it's just mind to man under these circumstances that vessel was obligated to do a better market analysis that it should have gotten the information from other places but that because this was a commercial i cost or price in data that doesn't mean you can't do cost price analysis that you cannot demand cost of pricing data in order to do it from from the individual that you are doing the contracting with and that's the i'm having taken that position there is at least a question of fact as to whether it was appropriate under these circumstances for them to demand this information and i want to make quite clear that  pricing analysis but they simply did not demand that this information be obtained from northwest technical are any number of factors other subcontracts now it is true mr craven asked for this information and represented t record a summary judgment shares that it was not going to be provided to anyone who didn't need to see it that he was going to use this to help northwest technical stablish its basis for an extension of this contract and the other question is the wide ranging nature of the evidence presented and there wasn't a list of disputed material facts that the district court and was there  in case we have questions about what might have happened in the trial court but looking at the documents plaintiff northwest technical services statement of facts in opposition argument made that in fact there was no foundation for these facts based on the fact that they that rather than have another seventy five page document from this is french setting out all these facts again as she filed it to page declaration technical and this is french should not be faulted for following the local rules assessment of our rule about how they were supposed to do this they were supposed to start out their facts and do  is some complex issue of federal acquisition a lot in fact this appeal is really two simple things one the most fundamental issue of summary judgment which is that when a moving party filed is some support for that but beyond that both the law and you know everything here and as i stand before you today i am prepared to demonstrate claim and you have to look at the claims that are being made by the plaintiffs claimed by claim all that junk that they threw out in that seventy nine page cross referenced pile did not create any material genuine issue of material fact as to the specific claims being service kind track and whether data can be supplied because if it were determined that they're not required to supply data and that country then as she points out there may well be an issue of declaration that says she didn't supply the material voluntarily it's fact in their statement of facts on and on the year two sixteen they simply state that mr craven was provided with access to confidential financial records he asked for it and he was given it now there may be an issue there could directly be a misrepresentation claim or something like that but the issue of whether or not the material was provided voluntarily there no there is no factual statement anywhere by mr strange saying i didn't want to give them this information and i was forced to do so but i really don't think that issue was material to anything your honor because if i me we start at the top  and this issue this this house of cards that has been created with respect to the commercial item exception has no foundation to sit on because the pundit mental reason why northwest technical resources has no breach of contract claim here is that that bill had no obligation whatsoever to extend this contract they had the right under special conditions but no obligation to do so they indicated  desire to do so they indicated the framework through which they would pursue no negotiations to do so but they did not confer on n t r any right or obligation to extend the contract under any circumstances i submit your honor that at the end of the day that could simply have come to northwest technical resources after all these negotiations and since then we have elected not to extend the contract  honor that while i disagree that any of that happened the difference between the cases that talk about violation of the duty of good faith and fair huling in negotiations are because they are with respect to negotiation  price with respect to items that are unquestionably covered by an existing contract so germany change the order or or borrow the price of a specific item that's already been agreed to be right or spend that if the non compete agreement is in forcible against some third party who knew who did not hire these people back full didn't hire these people they went to work for kelly and that call didn't have anything to do with them going to tell me other than to tell suggestion the lawsuit is that that deal was leveraging this little company when in fact what was happening in the negotiations is n p r was attempting to leverage to put battle between a rock and art place like by withholding the service thousand that these were nine commercial services and we told n p r in the fed in the january two thousand request for proposal that they would have to they would have to demonstrate that an exception applies before we would consider them to be anything other than any not a commercial item ok so this is the end january q or whatever the fact that stands out into january two thousand within the letter that we sent that letter to n p r in january two thousand them we want to negotiate an extension we're going to give you a temporary extension through to the end of march so that we have ample time to negotiate you're going to have to submit cost and pricing data unless an exception of clive's and and then your hon you go too far fifty two to fifteen twenty which was addressed below and it tells you what the offer can  for any commercial item exception the officer the author or excuse me shall submit at a minimum information on prices which the same item or similar items have been previously stalled in the commercial market that is adequate evaluating the reasonableness of the price of the acquisition the burden is on the offer or to submit market information to show what the commercial market pays for fees for these services and that goes back to the to satisfy the contracting officer that it's a commercial item then the fars provided you do not go to the next step and see cost of that first step was never done here and in fact actual made the negotiations for commercial artifice they did not provide any of the information that was required under the you know it you're saying your notice if you want an exception you provided them they didn't provide instead they give you commercial item was in one short note in a letter dated six page letter dated march twenty eighth which was two days before the flood and all they said was only said was we're entitle to an exception i would simply call your attention to the issue of the standard of review that this determination that this was a commercial light general condition five of the contract specifically lays out that that it will not be disturbed and was the very first time that they expressly said we want to construct pricing data five days later we said you are not entitled to it and the whole point of the misrepresentations that were made earlier about who the information was going to be given