comply with the regulation by conducting discussions corrective action was therefore rationally related to cure me defect the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review to the agency's corrective action that allowed the court seem to embrace this narrowly targeted to the l c d written by the same judge then there are other judges that maybe criticize that test or don't necessarily embrace it is that that's fair characterization of what we believe that is fair you are the trial court is  certainly not in unison on what the correct standard is there is the trial court in our case has embraced the narrowly tailored narrowly targeted standard it's been criticized outright by judge kapl your honor it from this courts because this from this court that address corrective action typically came up in the context of reviewing a g a o decision and for examples are the raytheon decision and honeywell in which the court just asked was the g a on par or consistent with what this court has said that it has to be rational and the problem that we have with the lang and we're not asking the court to you know to nit pick the language that the trial court used we believe this is very important because in order for there to be usable standards of review that there has to be fidelity to the language because it's used to use a sports analogy the standards of review as in soccer it effects major in history on material mistakes versus clerical errors that we don't believe that there is a dispute or going back up we disagree so in the army's corrective action if the trial court and i believe what the polies are arguing is that while this was an acknowledgment that the legal death of the clarifications as legally defined that the army was acknowledging that that that was sufficient and we disagree with the trial court's characterization of what the army was saying this was a lowest price technically acceptable in which the often wars just had to they had to submit their suite of commute computer products and you know they check the boxes complying or not the trial court is to do that they have to changed in certain instances they have to change the types of computer equipment that they offer and this goes to a real they're making a revision of their proposal and in that instance that falls out of the the army in this case also limit the corrective action to the proposals that you were only allowed to remedy the actions we think defects are present does a result of the confusion they didn't allow them to make whole new proposals correct yes right that's the intent your honor so there is there is a dispute that so that if in the record the army's corrective action memo at page seven zero two one of the record and then we provided an example of the evaluation notice at seven zero nine seven the army intent was that offer awards which only revise their proposal to the extent it corrected a deficiency however we acknowledge that and the a polies of point this out that there is language that seemed to suggest the seem to crack the door for a wholesale wholesale proposal revisions whether or not they're connected to a deficiency and so what we point out in a reply brief and what there is there's a passage of the oral argument  pursuant to a regulation and then the defects were discovered after the prices were released so what the army did in attempts to for fairness says when they decided to take corrective action they released anonymously all all price matter well in this case if your honor of unishe awardees they were not the lowest priced offer wars so if if the offer wars who were not initially technically acceptable they get a chance to revise their project to revise their proposals the initial ortiz may likely be pushed out of the conversation and you used the word i'm not missing anything else i was trying to figure out what you meant by not anonymous is when they did release all of the numbers that each person gave in the proposal did they strip the name of understand trying to use that as a result we understand the argument to be that the initial warty is now that there prices have been released as your honor pointed out the in the revised process that those that didn't win may not they didn't but they know what the target is as you as you said your honor but in this and they were not and we understand that that would make the initial warty unhappy but the balance that has because the initial warty the initial ward was not conduct only was not properly done your honor and treasure let me ask you a question the complaint here is that there are quote discussions being held that shouldn't be was to allow was to limit discussions in a way that would allow offers to only address or deficiencies this and this was this was identified in the government's reply brief i want to know this is an area where i would dispute that even that is the proper remedy here by the by limiting offerers to only revising proposals to address crisis to address to fix deficiencies in the technical proposal and to fix prices for only those deficiencies i think of the work is greater or less what you have thought based on the proposal but it's a discussion inform your playing days and you have the right to argue that they ought to be able to change that number as well to consume discussion informed in their thinking that they could change so it so just as a practical example they could change those prices for those handful of errors the small number of errors that they had in their proposal whereas other companies now with the benefit of knowing all of the prices that offers have have submitted will have a greater ability to affect their price thereby so that so for example my my client might be able to address lower prices in a handful of years areas decrease the price by small amounts another client may have may have had thirty or four more errors in fact there are some cases where they have over twenty errors would have a greater ability to reduce that dealing with commercial off the shelf of items once i once offers are informed as to what the deficiency was it's an easy fix we go with the loss of rights contract i'm sorry ron if that's true why didn't the government go with the lowest price country so there we have to reach the narrow targeting with your position my position is that the narrow targeting standard actually is designed as even judge jacobs recognized in the information systems case it's designed to calibrated to the facts and that's exactly what the standard on which we all agree says the standard on which we all agree says that the corrective action must be reasonable under the circumstances and appropriate to remedy the impropriet language it's true but i would say this judge while the it comes from some court of claims cases not because there is some rogue faction of judges in fact judge wheeler has used the other standard that i just articulated as well it has to do with with what defect is been remedied and that's why if we're going to look at the standard and we can do that our prescribe rational basis tes that some courts have used is language that even judge wheeler in this case you missed in the context of that broader standard that i articulated and on which mr ashman agrees which is was the corrective action reasonable under the square it again by reference to the cases that use that standard use it in the context of the particular defect that is being targeted when you have for example in the sierra nevada case a defect that permeated the entire evaluation process the sierra nevada judge to decided that narrative targeting that that that concept wasn't appropriate because of the breaths and penetration of the defect but but again if you would like me to say i abandon narrow air or on the pro or i would agree that it's a formulation that may lead to error on the part of the trial court if the narrow targeting test is applied against the kind of sierra nevada defects that i identified but here i think what the trial court is hunted with were the circumstances judge moore that you identified which is this is this is a coastal war protest which means that all of the prices have been disclosed  you will see in the appendix of h p i says over and over again we made minor clerical errors these are easily resolved in a matter of moments through clarifications but i can i can offer i think more than that which is judge moore you asked m discussions to the defects resulting from the confusion and mr ashton said that's the intent now it's also true as mr ashton pointed out that the discussion letter that came out in the seven thousand range takes a much broader approach it doesn't say only resolve the deficiencies resulting from the errors in the ambiguous spreadsheet it says result those efficiencies if you change anything else at your peril and by the way give us your best prices untethered to any of the changes that they're actually making either this court concludes that the remedy the trial thought offered is too broad and concludes that discussions in a limited sense  appropriate because of that while the reason that you point out if there are things that can't simply be resolved through clarification but need some kind of negotiation which is what a discussion is i think a lot of the clerical errors that the judge pointed to below are all in the nature of clarifications but if you conclude that limited discussions are appropriate for those discussions should be limited in exactly the way the judge moore said which is that they should be limited to the defects resulting from the confusion and that gets back to the standard reasonable under the circumstances you heard mr baker argue for something much broader mr baker argued for full scale the corrective action the army said we're going to conduct discussions ok yes and that was challenged in the court of federal putting successfully what are the discussions that the court of federal claims was certain about and that you were concerned about they would be the discussions that are not related to the defects resulting from the confusion and just to use judge moore's formulation again there were our complaint would be if you reopen discussions to all of those bidders and you permit them to fix all of those defects not just the defects resulting from the confusing spreadsheet the equipment but the corrective action you've proposed quite frankly is one that as a taxpayer i'm favorably inclined towards and with think you would want the army to operate in this way because the corrective action that they've proposed while i aimed at eliminating the defects resulting from the confusion that reintroduces the fair playing field it would not be fair for discussions as they are currently scripted now how did you would have gotten every error how do you read the and what mr ashton said where it was actually to two different things and that's where the get this i think mr ashton's response to judge moore was that's the intent to judge moore's question about defects resulting from the confusion we are fine with that but what mr ashton said in his brief and next is broader what he said was to the extent that the discussion is correct a deficiency down you've got a concession you  want i want to clarify that it's the narrow we're concession the concession in the brief was not that concession and there is a huge gap for the reason that you heard from mr baker there is if i could finish there's a huge gap between saying defects like to thank the government for its concession we agree the reason i'm not comfortable doing that is because mr baker certainly doesn't agree i mean and the government's concession if i said that the corrective action proposed to us which we understand to be limited to permitting discussions related to the impunity and the spread sheet  precisely because that's the point where the circumstances and the impropriety come when our prices have been disclosed if you want to level this playing field level and don't tilt it right there no for the  there was the failure to conduct discussions was an independent defect in and of itself there's a regulation that call for discussions of the facts of this case the agency didn't follow it to correct for that defect of not conducting discussions the agency discussions to conduct discussions the rule is they have to be meaningful to be meaningful the agency has to give an offer or is an opportunity to correct all of the deficiencies and significant yes or no we did what we were trying to clarify is in the discussion letters the army walks through each offer or is deficiency in significant weakness it tells the off for war you should only revise your proposal to correct these deficiencies and weaknesses however there mate because it has an estimated price of over five over one hundred million dollars so in those circumstances that the far said agency you should conduct discussions doesn't mean it does not your honor so what are you conduct discussions and in this case in the trial court agreed that the record did not support the agency's good decision not to conduct discussions than it should have ha think you can have a certain types of solicitations there are sort of ongoing discussions during the cure but here you had off the shelf items and that's what kind of took you out of i think the requirement to have discussions automatically well that the way the regulation or regulation doesn't make that distinction you're out of the only distinction of regulation is the price threshold and the price threshold was met in this case so the expectation even the discussions have to the point is the discussions have to meet for an equal to be meaningful the offer has to have an opportunity to correct all of their deficiencies and weaknesses and in this case that means those deficiencies that even went beyond just the solicitation ambiguit ward without conducting discussions with off the rollers and i read that as saying ok even though we're in this time money range given the nature of the items to be particular as opposed to w not building a new jet airplane we're not to have discussions because in a jet airplane there are discussions all during that became process what the complaint here is that once there were problems disclosed ambiguity the hard line issue there should have the discussions then right he yes yes your honor our so the solicitation of the first patient did state is our intention not to conduct discussions you know however this to conduct discussions there was still the discussion and when you read the solicitation in accordance with the regulation that discretion have there has to be a reasonable basis not to conduct discussions let's are just  for two fifteen point three zero six your honor and that regulation says it sets the price threshold of one hundred million dollars and it says contracting officer should conduct discussions follow the procedures  fifteen point three zero six c and d and those are the procedures that govern conducting discussions and that enforcement fifteen point three zero six d says when you conduct discussions they have to be meaningful you have to point out the significant weaknesses