i'm sure the courts hard aware of this four of which submitted and we are careful to use the terms we are really identical in our briefings but the only distinctions in those proposals that are relates to other technical proposal have to do with the flower names of the contracts of the contractors that which were given i think for the purpose of anonymity they were to use primrose and other things to identify themselves verses or verses  originally when we saw it again as we briefed our st suspicion was some evidence of collusion but what seems to have borne out in the administrative record that it was simply a function of the four offerers hiring the same proposal writer historically have been office design group in this instance was singled out language that was nearly identical to awardees was was not given points and the offers the awards were given points and  not just partial points in most of those instances they were given six points and what i want when i'm going to coin that you know there's an old saying we taught in law school that that facts make for bad well this may be an instance where the law has made for and not at all but the laws made for some  the government cites to a number of times as briefing says that in order for the court to nd guess or to rule on the issue of disparate treatment the proposals have to be nearly identical actually identical which which makes a clear question isn't whether the winning proposals are nearly identical it's whether that winning the proposals that was d are are disparate from yours and are nearly identical and the government and the court of federal claims believe they weren't nearly that isn't that correct and didn't the court of federal claims go through and fairly excruciating d detail why on each section where you got no points or lower  instance and in the reason we find the differences with the court pointed out respectfully reduced were differences without a distinction show him where this understanding contractually that this is a blanket purchase agreement and an indefinite date indefinite quantity contract with no specifics as relates to the the the actual furniture to be designed and delivered any level of specificity with which office design group or any other offer could have submitted proposals would have been guessing at best and the best proof of that your honor is if you look at the individual isn't that true in a lot of these contracts what they're doing is saying and describing their ability to meet future requirements and they government gives you a solicit a proposal and solicitation and says describe to us in an appropriate level details and how you're going to do it in this case they found you didn't describe an appropriate levels of details and the other people did except that you're in this instance they found the opposite in the specific were officers our group was afforded specifics to submit a proposal how would you handle this particular problem officers are in group did so and got actually got an excellent mark for that portion of their performance so where they were officers our group was given a specific example of how they were going to satisfy the a medal i think we're talking about the portions where that was graded satisfactory when you look to that point side when you look to that point citation in the proposals and actually doesn't say what the government says it does it in fact in the end the an example of that because the trial court acknowledged that there were some deficiencies there but that that they were enough to demonstrate disparate treatment which you need to show us because you got twelve out of sixty six or something like that where the government or six points so there was two points and three different sections of the proposal of this of the rubric and so in an instance where they were given zero points for their competitors were given two points through the avail we only need to understand we only needed to get to thirty nine to get the quote unquote passing grade again part of the part of what we've morgan in our briefings is that you have i mean you are arguing in very large generalities do you have a specific point through all of that stuff and disagree with you and say the d a s reasoning here is not arbitrary that support of us central evidence and your honor again to the degree that that is a is a legal conclusion which we find which we argue it particular about your staff's qualification and in your honor again i believe that the lower court was applying and a level of deference to the veteran's administration that doesn't belong in this particular case because that level of deference at the court is it true that your play and  very much about stuff qualifications you know that supported by the substantial evidence you know that is not is actually untrue in fact are you telling a briefing officers our group pointed out the number of years that the individuals held the level of education that individuals held you say that the stakes for example the staffing plan yes that that's a technical provision that requires the subjective analysis your honor again when i was a lack of specificity as a relates to the individual which is again it didn't talk about their experience enough it did not talk you talked about the lack of detail as a relate to right or does it does it say in that checklist say one of the other offers was deficient in the solution is to lower their score not raise zeiger school and our position is it that enter ignores the disparity of the treatment so again picking in the aggregate the  and that they didn't get points and the other people gave dead if they deficient answers and got plates were the answers identical your honor the answers were not identical and what was the which is where they address their staff they have a section called qualified staff which states that the project managers have at least ten years experience but the interior designers have the ten years experience and that inflation's supervisors have at least five years experience seem significantly different they have a very generic core of i think about years of experience that does that i think even really discuss health care the other to do what it is to have you know not just years of experience but specific examples of the types of health care experience that's correct your honor and you know i could also explain in run through some of the differences or deficiencies regarding the furniture insulation which i know that  only reason that pellet guns council reasons you shouldn't for identical oceans is to point out what is to contracting officer are supposed to learn from the proposals which is whether or not the officers had the capacity to do the job that they're being hired to do and if  and was to contract you know if you're supposed to in this instance assume for example that all four of those offer room satisfy the staffing plan in exactly the same way with the exact same level of experience or with the more they were going to sonic they were going to take care permanent two points in each of those two instances for the exact same answer and that same situation was so they cleaned four points for their staffing plan and officers are grouped lean zero