in the contract you offer a range of products we have a contract in two thousand and ten we apply for a new contract in two thousand and fourteen some of the same products some different products that offer reasonable this without getting c s p's and the relevant document which is at the appendix six zero three the government said not to be shared outside the government but g s a has told us this if you can if you look at the confusion the government moves internally we don't have to supply the c s p's there is an alternative they've never communicated that to my client ok but backing up to my question only because it pertains to jurisdiction  contract right ok ok but to the extent that you are appealing are you appealing i thought you were the c f c s determination that it lacked jurisdiction over the r f m much x yes so let's go back to my question that to the extent that you are appealing claims related to the c f c s determination it didn't have jurisdiction why would request to modify an existing contract be a new procurement under the well like a number of these cases recently in cook could in the coastal products case where we decided that task order are in fact new contracts and therefore are big protest ball because they fall into the law but what we also said expressly and coastal is modifications to existing contracts have long been held by our law not to be new procurements and therefore don't follow your big protest law so you've got to convince me that somehow your r f m despite its title is not a request for modification which we have traditionally held does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims her big protest you can still do a see  still another vehicle for you to appeal that it's just not this vehicle so tell me from a factual matter why should i somehow depart from our precedent which says modifications to existing contracts don't after request the c s p information from its suppliers and if so where is that in the record it's not in the record because we were not aware that the government never said hey if you show us care indicated it would submit requests to its him suppliers could ascertain their willingness to supply their c s p information which is a one point five that claims that twenty one that chairman and told hey if you go ask them and they say no we won't we won't press ahead with this requirement when the court said that and you said well we'll ask you didn't submit anything afterwards to show didn't receive but they don't say that they offered to waive the requirement if a certain threshold information was provided you know your feeling is that had they said they w you ask your suppliers if the provide she a speech and if the answer is no well do something else absolutely but if pursue that option but literally during the course of the sherman the underlying preacherman remember we submit the offer in at that point we go to the court we have over the dialogue with the government in a blue break one of the points you raise is that the if there was an anonymous letter to the absence spect say they were never never told that if they if the supplier the basic supplier didn't want to tell what its profit was so whatever it was it might have followed from the requested information that that would have met the print from your brief i had the impression that what was being requested was some of the threshold manufacturers profit and loss statements raw material costs and so on which is not generally made to the v a look if they try as hard as they can to get this information and they really convince you that it was just impossible and you verify that it was simply impossible there and get to see what you can find and bring the information the way the counselors described the waiver authority the g s a told v a that it's an option you don't really have to go get the information you can just get a note from the manufacturer saying no we don't want to and that's good enough well that's that's that would be the standard the regulation for right and that's not a reasonable understanding over when you might be able to get a waiver the information we're talking about is product by product and there are hundreds of different products on the schedule i'll let you've made sort of two different arguments here and let me see if i understand both of them are you saying number one the regulation requires the information to be put produced and while we may have been informed that we have waiver authority we don't have to tell all of the contractors that is that your position is one of your positions that you are not obligated to provide that information to contractors it's not in the regulations it's something by email someone told you that you could  really making all three of them some trying to figure out what your argument is are you wait are human number one is we don't we may not actually legally have waiver authority argument number two is even if we have waiver authority we don't have to tell everybody that that's not part of what's required because it's not expressed in the regulation and then argument number three is you said well we did tell them at least go out and try that imply that there is some authority to do something if they try and are unable to get the information and that sort of seems to be a fallback argument if you decide if court if you decide there's waiver sorry and if you decide we had to inform them that we sort of kind of did because we told them go out and try and get the information which they're unsuccessful maybe there's something that could be done so i'm trying to figure out precisely where your argument lies and you can make arguments in the alternative that's never a bad thing to do but i just need to know precisely what the government's position actually the government saying we watch you get this information object an officer and ask you're saying no we won't do it we refused to do it we're manufactured we don't have to do it we're not going to do it and there's a long history of enforce the this information disclosure requirement the strip mr perry arm i'm pronouncing the right part for a party i find this case confusing let me tell you why  you're referenced the record and yesterday you filed a motion to supplement which i printed out and i reviewed it and still at least one document of the oh i g september tenth two thousand fourteen report is listed in the joint appendix table of contents appendices table of contents and it's not in there and it's not in the supplement arm the joint appendix doesn't include multiple documents that pages contain the quoted language so i thought geez well this supplemental fix that it doesn't well you know it sort of it's sort of hard to do this for five to do just adding a one and if it doesn't then that's my responsibility and i and i apologize to the core i don't know why but anything any piece number higher than forty five hundred what you sell and what's really happening is that in fact what was going on that the question which has been resolved if i've carried said this is what we pay the producers of the drugs and this is what it cautiously put it in the smaller bottles and to resell and then the contracting officer looks at that and says you're making too much money on this contract and therefore we're not going to renew it competitor so what in fact was the government after it must have been very clear at one stage when i've care was not a manufacturer of of the the raw drug or even if even they didn't make the pills they bought in bulk and they repackaged they used the official label they complied with everything that they needed to know for prescribing i think that honestly your honor the biggest picture if you really want to stay with the case all of our congress has been unhappy with the v a doesn't think that they get good prices some point in time somebody is said you were supposed to be and it says that if you are reseller without significant sales to the general public that narrow class that you have to provide this extra information including the manufacturing  you don't need it you have other ways of doing your press comparison you don't have to have that we don't want to give it you are our manufacturers don't want to give it to you you can't have it and what the contracting officer said is it's a manufacturer that was their main argument before today and all i'm saying is that there are provisions within the solicitation forty eight fifty three that make clear that even a regulated entity been objecting to because they didn't provide the manufacturing information no i i don't think they grieve that they're not they they still claim that they are exempt from the reseller requirement because they claim to be a manufacturer i think they're got government saying that was an option beyond providing supply or c s p information clearly as you read to me the court said that they've determined there was there's been no showing that we share with my client the doctor that we discussed at the six o three says clearly not an option to be shared outside the government it wasn't shared with after the g s r which governs the f program makes it clear that c s p data is one me to do pricing analysis there are other means as you noted compare prices of the same product there is but you said there was nothing to compare with this is that right you know both are the products we are offering on the contract there are other offers providing the same products so we maintain determining price reason on this this is a problem here they shouldn't and logical argument or not isn't at all the point right the point is does the government have the authority to make this request to feel and were you correct say you don't have to comply with it because you are a manufacturer and don't fall in to the narrow category of resellers that are required to comply with us so isn't that the question the question isn't do we think it makes sense for them to require that well the question is your argument was we don't have to comply because we are a new factor and we have to evaluate that argument is that work there is no one path to doing price analysis c s p's are not a requirement the g s are five thirty eight to seventy to seventy one says otherwise she has a confirmed at the v a the v a acknowledged that it's not the only way of doing it that's the reality but if you tell me in your in your primary argument that  information cannot be obtained and you said it was never asked for it right or did you ask me did we ever do it i said it's not in the record that way because we were never given the option to do it so well your opposing counsel says there are plenty of requests for your supplier c s b information in the record which is true there are there are but there is no statement saying pretty if you provided a statement that they declined to provide it we will pursue another option they never shared that with us leaders that's the problem and again what are the ground rules of the picture we want to contract we don't want to debate you know but why do they have to share that with you this is the part i don't understand why they have to tell you there might be other options because it's not that they're automatically other options the email from g s a or whoever the government services to send it to them said you could waive under certain circumstances such as their manufacturer suppliers are unwilling to provide the information but you provided no evidence along those lines to suggest that you needed or were entitle to such a waiver you responded not that we can't get the information or we need a waiver or i'm sure you responded we don't have to give you this information not in general but because we are a manufacturer you're all i can say is we were given a mandatory direction provide this information has and what's wrong with that because it's not what the rules say the g s are says that's not we say you know the rules say no no the rule actually says that you're saying the e mail that was supplied to the government the v a which indicated they had the ability to waive t argument now for you or i know it's why you're in the trap all these other things you're saying are are just statements in the ether that that actually aren't relevant to the only issue decided and argue the bill before us the government with one option