yes thank you your honor may please the court the central question of this case is contract interpretation which this court refused to know this elicitation stated a fifteen month delivery schedule for completion of that question first irreparable harm as a legal matter results from the loss of a fair opportunity to compete for a contract the court below found that treadwell remains in the same position whether or well that they had that hamilton had proposed that the agency had reviewed its schedule for production units that trip that question was placed squarely to the agency during and after debriefing immediately after the awar in the course of those eight months trouble did not know that it had been had until the agency issued a change to the contract which relieved hamilton of the exact requirement  proposed to me and they had evaluated them as being able to meet the challenge of the court of federal claims consideration of the balance of the hardships and public interest in the book yes yes i do your  are made in a footnote so while she made the findings you didn't challenge them in your blueberry that's what ever they flow directly they flow directly from an er steps removed from the error of law that underlies this case the error of law that underlies this case of life or part test yes it is a four part test your honor and the government has not cited any case where only the final two factors were sufficient to support a preliminary injunction more over those factors there are three steps removed from the error of law that's at the heart of the issue of this case the court blows an error of law led it to conclude that treadwell has no the documents in this could be appendix and other documents in this case as expeditiously as possible i believe we required one seven day extension to complete the appendix and in hindsight your honor i would have been well served to seek an emergency to file an emergency motion for you your honor in terms of where this this is a developmental contract this isn't a contract or the entire contract is going to be over in the time yes or no requirement will be fulfilled that portion of the contract will be completed treadwell will have lost the opportunity to perform that work earn profit from it lost the opportunity to compete this case is no different than any other post where the protest in which the accurately pointed out in not filing an emergency motion for expedite for expediting this action does not mean that that preliminary relief will not have a meaningful impact on this contract to my knowledge production units have not as those cases to which i've cited you i believe the logic and reasoning of those cases is highly relevant so the answer is yes  i'm also on the topic i want to revisit the topic of the balance of hardships in the public interest in the balance of the hardships the court below found treadwell some just explain to me your argument on the merits i don't understand it all it seems like you suggest that the government delivered fifteen months from here therefore after they wanted it whenever they were to get that right but that doesn't mean it was fifteen months from the date of the contract is fifteen months from the date of the order right but you have to be able to build it it is incredibly far fetched to think that the government is going to order the testing in the production unit on the first day that's why there's a testing you know to determine whether it meets the requirements first rather that's precisely how this contract has been handled the proposal has to show the ability to meet that requirement within the that amount of time if it doesn't show if this was a months after first article requirement there's language for that the agency used months after first article approval language at any of this very same solicitation at appendix three sixty one if that was what it's about its intent that is what it should have stated in the solicitation if they were had some hidden intend that they were not going to issue it on the first day then that was improper basis on which to make your determination you think there's somewhere in the solicitation that says the agency was going to issue its order for the first production unit on the first day no your honor but if they did order it on the first day then you had to meet that requirement but that's completely illogical that they would or on the first day that's the whole point of clauses that it's a lie i think you're saying that this farkas the possibility is here and they didn't show that they the that sixty including the first step but it's to get to the extent that you get to the state your honor suggest that this was an illogical or improper solicitation that they shouldn't be able to issued on the first day i think that's the government  national resource defense council this is five five five us seven pages twenty three to twenty four two thousand and eight supreme court decision that is not cited in our brief but it does show that a plaintiff seeking the extraordinary remedy of a production units prior to first article approval and i also want to call this court's attention he particular regulation that is cited in passing our brief but it is not quoted forty eight c f r nine dot three zero eight dash one says quote if it is necessary to authorize the contractor the purchase materials or to commence production before first article approval the contracting officer shall use the first article approval clause with  alternate to the navy rejected that request making crystal clear that work on production units was not intended to be required prior to first article approval and i believe that what your honor is referring to is never the last that this still should be however it works and you're right the navy did did not there's nothing in the record to suggest that the navy specifically responded to that statement but but but that's simply not how government  is is whether the trial court correctly i made a factual finding as to the harm the treadwell was likely to suffer and the second point i would make is that treadwell has submitted no evidence at any point in this litigation in the past year year and a half  some sort of evidence beyond attorney argument but to respond more directly to your point i think when when this was briefed first for the trial court and then also several months ago before this court i i don't know that the parties anticipated that this that this this litigation could potentially continue as long as it has been and still to this point production units have not been delivered they're scheduled to be delivered in november of tw received a modified delivery order in the modified copy of the contract in december and the energy that is actually the belied by the record the record shows that on september eighth  production units would be delivered before the first article was approved so as of september eighth there was conclusive proof to tredwell that the basis it's articulating in the case that it filed on march of the following year was framed very clearly for it so it sat on its rights in a very significant way for those for those seven months the other the only other point i'd like to make is that  the impact of that the lie which treadwell tries to minimize here today actually has a rolling effect on the national interest and the balance of hardship factors because if this i'd like to very briefly speak to the merits of a schedule in which simultaneous orders are placed on day one of the contract does not mean that the contractor has to build the production unit before they build the first arc both requirements of simply need to be met and in this case the navy had a requirement for production units within fifteen months it essentially admits that when it states that it had to obligate funding for those production units and that is wh issue delivery quarter one delivery order one requires delivery of production units by or before a date certain it also requires delivery of the first article by or before that same date certain that is not perhaps  standard way of conducting the particulate but that is what the agency actually did issue delivery order one in exactly that way and it did it to secure funding to the agency and because it had announced that it had a requirement for production units within fifteen months from date of order which could be the first date which could be the date the contract was awarded it was entitle to to issue that order and it in fact did so and that was what it solicited ok can i just ask you a general it's hurting me but the practical result is that use that knowledge and the time and we take very little time it takes some time to write our decision and in the interim the many cases being state that's a nice but seems to sort of have not been the appropriate choice of avenues to pursue your honor the reason we took this appeal is because the trial court issued a very detailed legal finding it was incorrect and that is at the heart of this is decision a final decision on a permanent injunction and then appeal if you thought that that was what she was going to issue was the final decision that may have been a better way to proceed