defendants here broadly represented their eligibility and it's just the government will award them over twenty million dollars in contracts that but for the defendants fraud they never could have obtained this record committed to principle errors in dismissing materiality here it was an explicit condition of the government's agreement the contract it went to the essence of the bargain and the government have gone after both stability and criminally firms that have misrepresented their status complaint clearly a s that the defendant misrepresentations or material in this case contained allegations the defendant knew of that materiality and knew that they were making false statements to the government just calibrate yes my main question the co and that she was she was in charge of presenting the paperwork to mr anderson for him to sign paperwork that mr anderson didn't otherwise have access to and indeed he didn't even have access to the building mr anderson or story excuse me miss goldy or other requirements of whether the claims against her are specific you know well just to start out with respect and knowledge of course under the f d a actual knowledge is one type of knowledge but there's also deliberating difference because eligibility for the said contract the complaint also alleges that miss goldy was submitting invoices for pain under these contracts and each of these invoices a that they were done in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the contract don't find and correct me where i'm missing something where the complaint alleges even a single instance in this or any other case where the where the government has stopped payments or cancelled really concerned about why doesn't that demonstrate that you haven't pleaded materiality so cool important point there now st escobar identified the government's actions in the face of actual knowledge of this and those sectors are also not exhausted so i think it's important to honor that you know the government's actions in the face of actual knowledge of fraud is just is just one factor among many and that leads into my nd point which is that if this following escobar have recognized that so that's the th circuit opinion in prater you're out of the complaint contains no allegation about the government's actions with respect to other violators and yet six work because there are other allegations presence of materiality and that wasn't a into there are other factors at play both legal and practical with just terminating a contract and stopping payment but the complaint st certainly alleges that it would be have been the curial the contracting officers decision and that would have a natural tendency glinting their decisions so one year i think yes your question the complaint here does contain allegations that go to that point but nd even if it didn't given the other indicia of materiality here that wouldn't be a reason to dismiss t i was struck by justice thomas focus on the specific representations about the goods or services provided and i wondered if you could tell me about the goods or services provided here with the goes into the actual specifics of what the actual project was the belief there were some projects when the construction of government buildings but my my my question is it appears to me from the contract that the construction work was done that there was no quality issue that the the and tell me if i'm wrong and that the government didn't object to christ and therefore the only thing that was incorrect here in your view and fraudulent the government's view was that the certification with regard to the status of the contractor was inaccurate am i am i correct in that or it was there possibly some price implication based on its participation in the set aside program which maybe didn't have a full competitive bidding process you know i again i'm looking for what i mean i understand that if you say this is fraud and inducement they wouldn't have to contracted with this company absent the certification but i'm also looking because many cases in which you have cited it seemed to me that there was an impact of the certification on the quality of goods or price of the goods that were delivered and i did not see that in your allegations here could could you help me understand whether it's certification just by itself that you claim was essential and therefore a basis for a false claims act actions such as you brought or did it have other implications for the goods and services that were delivered your to the bottom line is that the government didn't get what it wanted because the defendant fraud which is that congress has well we authorized federal agencies to set aside contracts for service disabled veteran doing small business firms in order to provide those firms with experience an opportunity that they might not otherwise attain and the score was so important to congress that it fired that a certain percentage of all government contracts ha that you know and in other cases it might be that the the actual you know price of the good or service affected versus here is something that's more qualitative but there are fraudulent adjustment cases that recognize that those things can also go to the benefit of the bargain and here where the government has specified something that is important to it so much so that the government cannot give these contracts to a form that doesn't meet these requirements affirm that represent that this represents that if it induces the government to award it grant renewals and the court recognize that because that had to do yeah but in and feldman that had to do with the quality of the services that were delivered and with the faculty that were supervising the grant or not whether the beyond representing strock contracting and mr strock thank you and judges for many years before and after escobar the government attempted to expand the scope and reach of the false claims and this case is no different in here the government asked you to essentially remove any materiality now has but as we know from escobar in what the supreme court stated and what this court stated in bishop the wells fargo that should not be done there are limits problems that the government has in this st minute complaint the essence of the bargain in this case was the construction contract and in answer to your question judge carney all the buildings were provided up to par and that's why the government paid on every single one of the payment applications minute by fico and there were no problems because the government continued to do change orders later on and that indicates the work was sufficient and it's a different case for development as a result of that the no allegation in the st met a complaint that payment is conditional compliance with those regulations and that's something that's critically important separate case from cases cited in the government's brief like more stellar mailing where s t a viability cannot just reach everywhere it has to be limited and i think the government action in these cases really paints a picture of one of the things that we want to attack in our understand as was the reality that the government put forward in notice can be used to take notice of these facts we believe it's appropriate to consider some of the authorities that we brought forward because as the government quoted various flight your reports inside of st amended complaint we believe that it's important to your reports and made allegations about what the government was doing the counter authorities that we've brought forward are integral to that st of many complaint and that's something that you can consider in the district court can consider on a motion to dismiss under six these are integral because they paint a picture of reality and i think it's important because one of the things that the government tried to do here is say we held every single firm accountable we canceled every contract bottlings burns were debark so in a situation where a car company lies about being asked how can that not be material judge what i would say to that is that while it may be material in some ways it does not end the announces i think what the government has those factors because the payment here is important it's something that goes right there shows that the government was not following through on what it believed was really important if they truly believed that the goal was a sham entity it wouldn't  allowed it to reapply they would have cancel the contract but they said but inside the allegations in the complaint all they talk about is what the government made you or might have done and judged that's not enough in must be black and white it must be explicit and that's where materiality analysis in this why would he fabricate why would he lie about the coke being a nest as he thought the government wouldn't care one way or the other well think with regard to knowledge because it's also important to take a look at things that that that would put mr strock or sci on notice about those things i realize the allegations in the complaint stated mr strock believe this or did this there's not a lot of information about who submitted these bits and there's not specific allegations about that or other things that showed knowledge in this situation the government's knowledge reliance it is just on simply that well we helped a sperm count of twelve thousand and seventeen and some some basics which is seven years after contract formation which is seven years after most of these contracts are completed that doesn't show me which even if it's under an actual adultery grams or reckless disregard for the for the for the actuality of truth and that's what's important using force and actually the government points do they have in years after and that doesn't demonstrate that the defendants in this case and now if i correct sir in understanding that when a contractor participates in the set aside program like this  the competition for the jobs is reduced then there are just there are fewer qualifying entities and and the ordinary it procurement you know competitive bidding process is  avoided and therefore can be higher and so the government potentially in addition to suffering the wrong of not getting what it what congress desired in terms of the set aside it also can have a price impact is that correct judge you're corrected that in a set aside issue that the bidding is limited to firms i don't believe that it would be accurate to state that as a result of having limited bidding there's impact on pricing because again the contracting officers who receive these bids are looking at them and while there's a service to be delivered to the government in a building they're not going to accept the bid if it goes out of  budget beyond what is allocated for funding for that particular project so i don't believe it has an impact on price i know that you could raise that issue when the government is talking and i think it's important this is not a pricing issue like that marston or case because contract pursuant to the direction of lease druck and can carter who are both owners of the company and i think there's a couple things that are that's wrong with this argument so st the allegations in the complaint are that ms goalby submitted  invoices but in different times in the government principle and reply brief it alleges that she certified nikos compliance and that she certified because that is and i think that's a very important distinction in the way that i think about it is that when i submit a brief and when i submitted a brief in this case i signed that read it was my brief i'm responsible for what's in there i'm responsible for the legal arguments that i'm making but i don't have the foggiest idea of how to go about the missing agrees to this court or any other is which is why i rely on my assistant or a printer but that doesn't make them responsible for it that doesn't make them constable for making sure that what i've said is accurate and then my legal arguments are sound that's not their job they're not responsible for that they're not paid for  that that's of much of the government has alleged against ms golding that she submitted bids at the direction of her bosses the owners of biko and that is a far cry from having her personally certify anything about b o the nd argument that the government relies on mainly to satisfy ninety is made upon information and building upon information and belief we struck and can card or cause them to have goldy submit these they have been  respectfully i don't think it is sixpence that in our presentation this morning i had to accuse ms goldie of helping to cover up mr anderson's lack of involvement in the company by presenting paperwork to him i don't see how an office including the submission in two thousand a to the v a to have a recognized as an act and i think that is that basically saying that basically trying to cast suspicion on miss goldy when the government doesn't actually know if she did anything it was performed and within the terms and conditions of the contract it didn't say anything about control and that's really what this case is about the government is claiming that mr anderson didn't control and therefore it was a legitimate  speak but there is no evidence that that is goldie who according to the government an office manager knew what those regulations were not allowed to be a lawyer should not alleged someone who has experience in the government contracting industries should not even alleged to have experience in contract generally so she's the mitten invoice thing that we've performed and it's in accordance with the terms of the contract that doesn't put her on notice that it all has nothing to do  control there there's no representation that invoice regarding control and again your honor coming back to to my assistant submitting a breach it doesn't mean that she's going to be familiar with all the legal arguments that are in my brief to extremely good don't get me the standards to get the some other points that were raised and perhaps to go back to the essence of the bargain question if the government simply wanted to construct a government building your honor it would have gone through the normal contracting process through which the government has to solicit bids fair and open opportunity for all comers but instead the government utilize a specific process to set a that's that's a fight contract for service to save a better in those small businesses and that's to provide contracting opportunities and requirement to participate in the program and the th circuit there found that material also in the cited in escobar itself your honour's the court there rejected the argument that something had to be an explicit condition of payment in order to be real and that implied certification case because the supreme court noted that that would arbitrarily limit s t a liability to someone who mis represented their eligibility even participate in a government program in the st place and that's of course exactly what we have here the complaint alleges that this was material to the government the defendants knew that it was material and indeed their own role in trying to make it appear that they thought despite these requirements demonstrates their knowledge of materiality i'm happy to answer any other questions that the court has otherwise