going back to my hypothetical or informational question ok why does not what i was asking about differ from what happened could you have a very fundamentally different situation you're not saying you new people that's fundamentally different fundamentally different contract what we have here is they came out for a new substation with the same old requirement there was no need to bring in laid off in your hypothetical there was a need because the original solicitation the government well the original solicitation or the original which the agency was unhappy with the responses to the initial solicitation and they read it shows to read it on new terms well or even the same terms if they were hoping that they get losing large over our heads right now i realize this is not a contract in place today but it sort of reinforces the actual aspect in my mind of what maybe they were going through with time regarding being cautious with  caseload goes on to say that in that instance where they now say oh well in the hole we have the money to fund those or contract line items that they cannot go out on the street for a new fashion or the same is so there was no would there but i know that they had argued in that case that they had a properly but geo disagreed with them and out in our paper that the record shows that roman had a better combination of chemical merit and low price than any of the fourteen other helicopters cancellation is not critical to whether or not it was a good if the agency had made a proper determination and we don't agree that is the cancel and then comment came out the next day and critical factor in making a price technical trade off and i'm reading on the r f p is not the spread between the technical scores which were put together by human beings but the significance of the difference the computer can't judge the significance of the difference no human being judged the significance of the difference what is necessary in a tough analysis years for a human being to say i have a  high priced offer or who has a very good technical score and a probably has a high price is it worth spending the taxpayers money to award t your question about after yes as soon as the data came out of the computer it was reviewed by three different entities contracting officer and the s s a and that's document seventy three one just provided if you look at the upper left hand and the data that appears there you can see the weighting that was done in this chart the lower rating is if there was under percent and remember each helicopter can only serve one clinton so that if one helicopter has the best rating for five different clearance part of this opposition model is to assure that that helicopter lan in this case where again they just compare themselves to the winner and that's affleck and therefore it's clear there's no prejudice one point i want to make in their reply brief we gave a hypothetical we demonstrated two helicopters that eleven it still may when they did it would it really impossible to do so second of all kroger actually picked up an advantage because those helicopters that were no longer available didn't have to compete with o matter who the agency decided that for companies that they wanted to have one helicopter in were for for in case there were some problems that they would not