the agency abused just discretion in making an award at a very inflated place price after wasting eleven months and making the award only one actual offers  requirement when you have plenty of time to conduct discussions you particularly with the price difference here the agency simply waited very similar to ally technology the monster communications case he is there for to it like the one difference there as conduct discussions were conducted there the initials offer of a monster was a violation of the ended questions and clearly you could say it was not eligible for the war now though as the court found there was a a large of course doesn't use a contractor which is one of the reason why the price is low are they and they were always for probably fifty years performed all of these functions on the just ticks and technical and and establish that it was not reasonable for the to not conduct discussions when they had the time and when the valuations were clearly an equal and the place to which was so dramatic let's l and the selection so selection documents required that a deficiency to be substantial and not minor a minor deficiency didn't result in being on it and satisfactory i think protester navy identified seven deficiencies fifteen weaknesses in only one strength can you give us an example where we think this would be used as an example i it's our position that with this language in the solicitation it is the right of the contract an officer to decide whether to hold discussions or not there is no obligation to do  i believe so but to leave or be with them no i've not aware of a case that says that but alternatively if there is discretion it would have to be a six other deficiencies or just the one well here's a long story if there isn't a den of fide deficiency that would be sufficient under the language in this list haitian not to hold discussions there'd be no again that would be this is a very deferential standard to the agency and if the onus is on the officer or to submit a compliant proposal but again i don't think it rises to the level of abuse of discretion which is a very high standard but in any event in this case it was not close at all again seven deficiencies fifteen weaknesses the navy characterized as six proposal as technically and satisfactory and it would take gave virtual or a total rewrite of the proposal to achieve a satisfactory reading contracting officers but will only be conducted with those officers determined to have a reasonable chance for war certainly with that many problems in its proposed was not a reasonable chance now with the  was not eligible for an award it was just technically not acceptable so they really did they they did not ignore the price they looked at it they found that essex did offer the lowest price but it was so low and given the number of deficiencies and weaknesses they questioned whether essex really understood the requirements but they also determined that the awardee agent e c offered a fair and reasonable price in its proposal have  now with respect to discussions essex is flatly wrong they ignore the plain language in the solicitation their discussions were simply not required and we have these two provisions in section m but also incorporated far provision fifty two point two one five one which states the government intends to evaluate proposals and or to contract out discussions so there is simply no requirement now the issue of the eleven month time period to award the contract there is nothing in the solicitation that required the navy to make award sooner than it did well i think they took eleven months without discussions maybe they would have taken longer with discussion if there was back and forth and permitting the officers to revise proposals but the point is discussions were not required and there was no time limit that the agency established for itself to make an award during this period the davy did communicate with off wars and asked them to extend their proposals they took the time they needed to evaluate proposals with respect to prejudice this is a known issue there was this eleven month period but it affected all off wars equally not just desks they can't point to anything  given that the navy rightfully concluded that essex was not eligible for an award it had a deeply flawed proposal it was proper to ignore it its low price they just never got to that point it really doesn't make sense to evaluate price on a technical proposal that you found find acceptable there's no error there now regarding axiom that was clearly appropriate to exclude those declarations first if you look at them what they contain are mr polaski is personal opinion as to the navy's evaluation in say there is never an obligation to conduct discussions that there is under some circumstances it may be an abuse of discretion not to conduct discussions if we if or first of all i would just point out i don't think the court said that it read it was discussions were never required i don't believe they that judge pretty good actually said that well this is the section which  examining because before the trial court what plaintiff was arguing was that there was a discrepancy between the two clauses that made a language does that reflect intent and what chase is that you interpret judge kids having resolved in that sentence that we're focusing on the question of whether there is a contractual obligation or a an obligation in this institution to conduct discussions not whether there is could possibly be an abuse of discretion in a setting in which no actual obligation to conduct discussions is that right i think that's right because was so it was basically basically looking at that and deciding what what did the plain language say that that's really the context of this discussion very well and we hear from  concluded for her attachment rings and stead of her required eight and this is a major discrepancy of the question is not price its function and to a purpose of lifting and tying down to unit which would be an aircraft and ships that's what it says in the specification paragraph three point four seven eight and that also tas in with functional requirements and other discussions that there's no opportunity even the hinges he couldn't even bring them in if it wanted to that you argue oh yes and the key point is it's an admitted failure for prejudice on the contracting offer serious to include within the scope of discussions somebody who as you say it really hadn't really noncompliance elicitation i e they were missing four rings i'm saying not require first time because it is the agency's intention to award without discussions and attention that can be  i think perhaps if you come up with some situation where contracting personnel were being paid off not to hold discussions that would clearly be in the few sips discretion but it would have to be something way way out there briefly very briefly i just want to emphasize one one point i made earlier and i didn't supply the citations to the record i said the solicitation and source election documents require there to be major deficiencies in