would simply like to add today that these moments are usually bittersweet for me because we're celebrating kind of the culmination of our clerks year or two with us and so it's with i'm thrilled to have had the pleasure of working with de who's just been a tremendous asset to our chamber he possesses not only the smarts but also the integrity i think to become true to be a tremendous advocate we've also had the joy of getting to know his wife and son while he's been with us in chambers and the only good part of the news from not from me losing him is that he'll remain in washington d into any materials that were redacted out of that decision and leave it at that but done going to try to i think i can discuss this case without going into any confidential sensitive information if there is a question i could probably refer you back to the record p girl prisons utilized certain of a ration factors to pick the best contractor which included a review of the past performance which was the most important they reviewed your technical man's proposal which was a secondary all speculation once you get into the game but you know we both have to get to a game first where certain guidelines and certain rules that that there are imposed there's the how you going to they wade who plays in the game once again goes on and that's a little different scenario i mean we just can't fifteen leagues see that we should have been given a higher score for this and that careful of our technical manager polls are now in the on past performance the past performance very clearly says that to your most recent present past performance ablation shall be considered and this particular case it is very clear that the bill p consider past performance since information didn't back two or three years earlier it is of the o t required to to consider the most recent past befor interpretation of the maximum order provision is that which states that account that the big be ok is not obligated to see that the contract not obligated to honor any amount in excess of eighteen thousand to fifty  that's the way the parties understand it but beyond that just in terms of matter of interpretation and what's reasonable you have remember that the chairman involves provision of the silty that can only house so many inmates in the purpose of the maximum work provision is revived notice to offer  from two hundred at one point to four hundred five hundred back down to fifty and there's nobody and you don't know under banners theory what the maximum number of inmates that any particular offer has to be able to accommodate the till well in two thirds three fifty is what does that mean in the context of how big the silly must be how many to make per day or beds the the off work must be able comedy now bill he was very aware of this limitation it was in fact  per day but that again doesn't make any sense in terms of how to interpret this maxim or provision for say so because facilities by the nature happen at some point have to balance and there's a limit to how much you can how any human on any particular day and again if you accept their theory that there's no cap even if they're right that they should not reach for station to interpret a test well within their facility the one that they proposed and one that they priced based their price upon did not meet does not meet their theory does not survive their own flawed theory because again you can hypothesize that the o p s demand will go to sixty or seventy however again there will still be that one that they proposed only one that's relevant to this hundred under their theory there's no cap on the number of residents per day that an offer must be accommodated so even if you if you double the size think and hope over fifty to one hundred four or triple it doesn't matter under the theory it fairly clear is clear that the agency has wide discretion in terms of what past performance references it's going to consider and certainly make a lot more sense to consider an entire year's worth of information as opposed to individual bits so again that is not i would note that our site as a matter of fact is substantially larger than the facility that banham proposed and without getting into protected material if you look at the referenced in the record to the van i'm site it's in the join appendix at ten thousand four fifty six there's a square footage attributed to their site and then compare that to the distance i also with the joint appendix at page ten thousand seven hundred two you not there relevant at all you're honoring the reason that it's not a relevant is because the solicitation what it actually says and speaks to is total estimated inmate days it is an estimate the b l t issued a solicitation and they're doing their best to try and tell the bitters look this is what we anticipate and the bidders have to come up with site which is what my client did and frankly that's what venom did but they come up with and they can be huge and it doesn't matter if knowing our facility is subject to a zoning restriction and that was never hidden but i can say that we've been performing at the site since it's since september of twenty ten and we are in compliance with the zoning laws we are performing as we sit here today there are inmates house as to dismiss facility in savannah you have to take what the government tells you with respect to estimated inmate days you have to locate a facility and you have to build  propose to the government and that's exactly what we did it is a requirements type contract these are estimates the bidders have to come up with a physical facility and that's what we did if there are so much what happens if let's assume the given day  noted there is a also a home confinement requirement and it's anticipated in the solicitation that twenty percent of the inmate days will be on home confinement so those don't count against restriction and if there if there were a requirement that that be o p had then we would have to presumably have that that resident at another facility because we were not in violation of the zoning laws and we told the government about this upfront so there are means by which the b o p s can assign residents to different facilities i'm in my negative time i would just say that i would also point out that the source election decision in the record at page eleven thousand to ninety to ninety six deals with all of these issues is thorough detailed and well supported and i would submit that the trial court correctly relied upon thank certain time they made a decision yet they want to get up and they want to say that since september two thousand and ten you know the level of inmates hasn't exceeded the if it while it's outside a record at something that's really not here again and again we're in the  so they could they could be assigned a different facility let's not a requirement this particular solicitation of this contract you can't go housing people at a different facility some place we talk about the facility proposed and as far as the bes is to go to her income as he did his contract for a number of years it's stellar ratings on a thing why would you downgrade them ok when they have a lower price but you're downgrading them through this past performance scenario they're trying to go through doesn't make sense a whole thing doesn't