I'm surprised no one has brought this up. I did not include this in the former IDOT contract thread as this is a new 'twist' in the story. Note how it involves aspects of some former discussions of locomotive power and speed, and the formulae appropriate to make calculations.
From Railway Age (as e-mailed to me this morning):
Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs). The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘awards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.” Following is a condensed version of EMD’s protest, as submitted to IDOT. “The Procurement specifications require that the locomotive offered by each offeror be able to operate at a sustained speed of 125 mph under loaded conditions as specified. This is a material requirement listed as a ‘pass/fail’ criterion in the Procurement.“Siemens has offered a locomotive that cannot achieve and sustain 125 mph, making its proposal non-compliant with the Procurement specifications. In its proposal, the Siemens locomotive is shown to be only 4,200 BHP (brake horsepower)-rated. It is not possible for a locomotive to achieve, let alone sustain, 125 mph with merely 4,200 BHP in the train configurations specified in the Procurement, despite the ‘BOOST’ feature provided in Siemens’s design. The ‘BOOST’ feature appears to elevate the locomotive’s BHP to 4,400 for ‘a controlled period of time,’ which allows its locomotive ‘to achieve a higher acceleration or top speed.’ In the context of ‘higher acceleration or top speed,’ the ‘top speed’ on the Siemens locomotive would be something less than 125 mph because it lacks sufficient horsepower. “Determining the ability of a locomotive to achieve and sustain 125 mph is done empirically through a relatively straightforward and objective calculation. In this case, such calculation concludes that a minimum of 4,530.5 BHP would be required under the specified load conditions and rolling resistance formula (Davis) in a best-case scenario (assuming, for instance, level tangent track and system efficiencies). Because the EMD locomotive offered is 4,700 BHP, it provides sufficient power to achieve 125 mph and it can maintain this speed through minor curves and grades. The Siemens locomotive cannot achieve this speed even on level tangent track. Though the Procurement documents do not specify a minimum horsepower requirement, speed and horsepower are directly related under the laws of physics, and speed is absolutely derived from horsepower. “IDOT’s technical evaluation team would have concluded the Siemens locomotive to be underpowered if this calculation were made. To be fair, the Siemens locomotive can achieve 125 mph, but only while operating downhill. To contemplate such operational limits in real-life service would be unrealistic, not likely acceptable to the public, and could not have possibly been IDOT’s intent. “Siemens changed the Procurement’s strictly specified rolling resistance formula and used variations of the Sauthoff formula instead of the required Davis formula. It is industry-wide knowledge that the application of the Sauthoff formula yields more favorable results as opposed to using the Davis formula. This action, which might be Siemens’s most egregious departure from the PRIIA and IDOT requirements, may be a disingenuous act to show compliance with required performance and suggests a blatant disregard for the Procurement’s specifications. “Siemens used flawed and incorrect assumptions in acceleration performance simulation. Here again, Siemens displays its non-compliance and creates its own operating conditions and rolling resistance formula for the acceleration simulation. Despite the performance simulation requirements described in the PRIIA Specifications . . . Siemens patently disregards this requirement and ran the simulation using the Sauthoff formula with no HEP load. This is not a valid simulation in either respect and again demonstrates Siemens’s attempt to circumvent the Procurement requirements in two material respects: HEP load and rolling resistance. In its attempt to appear compliant, Siemens proceeds to state that the ‘Davis formula is used . . . for the simulations at TTCI.’ Siemens knew well that on each completed loop of the TTCI test track, its locomotive will achieve 125 mph at least once while traveling downhill even using the more restrictive Davis formula. Thus, a statement saying that the Davis equation was used per the specification in the TTCI simulations . . . gives the appearance of complying with the specifications while not being compliant at all. Siemens used the Davis formula where its underpowered locomotive would not be seen as such (reaching the top speed once going downhill) but changed the formula to accommodate itself where weaknesses in its locomotive’s performance would be obvious, as in the acceleration performance using the Davis formula. . . . The fact is that if Siemens had followed the proper formula and included HEP as required by the Procurement specifications, its locomotive could neither achieve nor sustain 125 mph. “In requiring a higher constant speed, nothing can substitute for horsepower. Criteria for train rolling resistance were clearly specified in the PRIIA Specification, affording no latitude for alternative assumptions in any calculations. Thus, the results would have been consistent for any offeror. Comparing the horsepower offered with the performance required of the locomotive would have yielded clear results. . . . [T]he highest speed that the Siemens locomotive can achieve and sustain is 121 mph under ideal conditions, assuming no grades or curves. The “BOOST” mode offered by Siemens cannot even be considered because it permits a higher BHP for ‘a controlled period of time’ and merely for the purpose of achieving ‘a higher acceleration or top speed,’ but not both, as described by Siemens itself in its proposal. But even if that feature can operate continuously for an extended period of time, the Siemens locomotive still cannot sustain 125 mph as required by the Procurement specifications because the requisite horsepower simply is not available. Indeed, the sustainable speed is likely to be several miles per hour lower than 121 mph in real world conditions. Even at an achievable (but not sustainable) speed of 121 mph, the Siemens locomotive still fails to achieve the strict specification that IDOT stressed as being a material component of the specification and mandatory in this Procurement. “As the agency providing oversight of the Procurement, it was IDOT’s responsibility to ensure that those reviewing the performance section of the proposals would calculate (logically early on in the process) whether a proposed locomotive could reach, let alone sustain, 125 mph based simply on the horsepower offered. This would have served to distinguish ‘pass’ from ‘fail’ proposals immediately through a straightforward mathematical calculation. However, it is not clear whether these calculations were made. If they were made, IDOT would have concluded that the Siemens locomotive could not possibly reach and sustain 125 mph given its horsepower; indeed, if the calculations were made, the results appeared to have been ignored. Failing to examine the horsepower aspect as it relates to the ability of the locomotive to meet IDOT’s requirements has led to the selection of a factually non-compliant locomotive. Siemens’s proposed locomotive simply does not comply with the achievable or sustainable speed requirement of the specification which is both paramount for real world performance and compulsory for award of the contract according to IDOT’s own requirements. “Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD. Fewer cylinders means lower life-cycle costs. It also means the engine support systems (such as the emissions after-treatment and cooling systems) and the alternator and propulsion system components can be smaller. Smaller components are less costly to manufacture and lighter in weight, and consequently, the total cost of ownership are [dramatically] reduced for the locomotive. As a result, Siemens is able to offer a locomotive which weighs at least 11,000 pounds less than EMD's locomotive. But it can only do so because the engine and support components are not sized to meet the material requirements of the Procurement—to achieve and sustain 125 mph. “The unfair advantage given to Siemens severely disadvantaged EMD. If all offerors had been afforded the ability to arbitrarily reduce the performance of their proposed locomotive, or apply other means to obtain more favorable results such as disregarding HEP load or using the Sauthoff formula, thereby allowing offerors to propose a locomotive with lower sustained speed (believing it to be acceptable to IDOT), other product configurations could have been submitted. A lower performing locomotive requires less power, and consequently, a lower price could be offered. Such differences shape the determination of the Procurement’s award. Most important, scoring in other categories also could have been profoundly different. “EMD prides itself in its ability to find the right solution for its customers. If EMD had known that offerors may provide a solution with lower performance criteria, EMD may have provided a different solution that would have met the JPEs’ needs and with reduced pricing. However, EMD was unconscionably deprived of this opportunity. No communication was made to EMD (and other offerors) providing specifications for a lower-performing locomotive. Knowing only those specifications provided in the Procurement and trusting the integrity of the procurement process, EMD strictly adhered to the Procurement documents and offered a compliant locomotive in all areas of the specifications, as well as meeting all ‘pass/fail’ items. As a result of EMD’s strict compliance with the Procurement documents, EMD’s proposal was automatically placed at a distinct handicap in price and scoring in contrast to the non-compliant locomotive offered by Siemens, thus requiring that the relief sought by EMD be granted to ensure fairness and preservation of the Procurement’s integrity. “EMD requests that IDOT immediately stay the proposed award to Siemens . . . confirm the statements in this protest, and subsequently cancel this Procurement. EMD further requests that a new procurement be issued as soon as possible and that IDOT adheres to all requirements for locomotive performance in its evaluation."
Looks like IDOT messed up big time. Fortunately EMD has the money and talent to hold them to their own requirements. Bring lots of popcorn.
Mac
i am so looking forward to a good "o my god" sequill when the goverment is hammwered by there own requirements. please pass lotsa popcorn goodie goodie!!!
As Mac said, this is nowhere close to being over. Not only a big mistake for IDOT, but also for Siemens.
I'm impressed with what the EMD VP of sales wrote - usually something from a generic VP of sales would be barely warmed over male bovine solid waste matter, but what he wrote made a lot of sense.
- Erik
erikem I'm impressed with what the EMD VP of sales wrote - usually something from a generic VP of sales would be barely warmed over male bovine solid waste matter, but what he wrote made a lot of sense. - Erik It was probably written by EMD's legal department from note provided by engineering with the sales department looking over their shoulder. That's why it took two month's to produce it.
Davis Formula, Sauthoff formula, has anyone recently measured a passenger consist for its power requirements? You would think that with dynamometer cars or instrumenting the locomotive you could find out what the resistance really is, not the resistance of journal bearings and a consist of mixed freight cars, but actual passenger equipment?
And at 125 MPH, I imagine that air resistance becomes a factor -- it goes with the cube of speeds, so you are talking a factor of 4 increase. And I also imagine details of the consist, whether there is a step change between the locomotive and the cars, whether you are talking about a single-level car with the underfloor appliances unstreamlines or a California Car type bilevel with more aerodynamic shielding, makes a difference.
And what about headwinds? Crosswinds? How much margin does the spec have to accelerate the 125 MPH -- if you "balance" at 125 per on level track, you will slow down with a slight grade, take forever to accelerate to 125, and so on?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicAnd at 125 MPH, I imagine that air resistance becomes a factor -- it goes with the cube of speeds, so you are talking a factor of 4 increase. And I also imagine details of the consist, whether there is a step change between the locomotive and the cars, whether you are talking about a single-level car with the underfloor appliances unstreamlines or a California Car type bilevel with more aerodynamic shielding, makes a difference.
Yep. That's why HSR's of various designed are so aerodynamic: above rail, between cars and undercarriage alike. And on track with speeds over 150 mph, loose ballast is not used.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
there are two ways you can over come the resistance of a boby to remain at rest, brute force or finess? it is not wind resisitance that slows a re-entering space ship but the resistance of the air being compressed in front of the heat shield. both are the result of displacement of energy.
Way to go goes out to EMDs legal department !!
rbandr there are two ways you can over come the resistance of a body to remain at rest, brute force or finesse?
there are two ways you can over come the resistance of a body to remain at rest, brute force or finesse?
You're talking about something entirely different: the ability to accelerate a body to high speed. Inertia factors into this, but that's an intrinsic property of the body's mass. The 'brute force vs. streamlining' issue concerns increasing resistance at higher speeds.
It's interesting to note the speed range at which longitudinal (nose and tail) streamlining begins to be significant ... and the degree to which it affects the acceleration rate of something as long, heavy, and relatively thin in section as a train. Interestingly enough, streamlining is likely to be critical to Siemens' case, as it would likely account for a difference between "121" theoretical mph and the "125 mph" repeatedly trotted out in the spec.
it is not wind resistance that slows a re-entering space ship but the resistance of the air being compressed in front of the heat shield.
Well, you just said the same thing in two different ways, one of which is only partly correct. The component of head-end air resistance that is 'overcome' by locomotive streamlining is largely compressional, too, and it shows up as heat -- just not dramatic heat.
Much of the quartering wind resistance can be thought of as 'compressional', too -- rather than 'drag' or 'frictional' forces (neither of which, when you think about them, really apply to gases as they would to llquids in shear...)
The key difference in the spaceship deceleration is the transition to shockwave generation that comes with supersonic velocity. Little of what occurs above that point is directly comparable to locomotive streamlining conditions. When we get hypersonic HSR, a mobile plasma spike may produce dramatically lower forward resistance... but that isn't going to help you at a piddling 220 mph...
both are the result of displacement of energy.
Please clarify this statement, preferably with the exact mathematical expression you're meaning to illustrate. Are you sure you don't mean some aspect of 'displacement of mass'?
I believe EMD is 100% correct. There is no way DOT and Siemens can wiggle out of this. If I were Siemens management, I would very quickly get a design team together to redesign the locomorive to truly meet the specifications. One practical way might be to find the space for a separate head-end power plant, allowing the main prime mover to devote all power to moving the train.
Dave,
If Siemens did as you suggest they would be admitting that their original proposal was nonresponsive, which makes EMD's position all the stronger. They need to rely on The Chicago Way.
The deadline for submitting proposals is long pass so IDOT with this new information would have to toss out the Siemens plan. If IDOT now IDIOT, should have everybody submit new proposals either to the same rules or new rules that allow lower horsepower of which the other bidders should then be rework their proposals to cut their costs. If they allow rebidding at the original specifications, Siemens could substitute a MTU engine or even a CAT C175 engine. After all they only have to go to the nearest CAT dealer and order 35.
PNWRMNM Dave, If Siemens did as you suggest they would be admitting that their original proposal was nonresponsive, which makes EMD's position all the stronger. They need to rely on The Chicago Way. Mac
If you mean stone-walling, I doubt it will work in this case. Ditto payoffs or anything else. EMD has a good case, has access to the USA public, and is certain to win in any court fight.
Seimans can admit a mistake and keep the contract or the contract will be rebid. It might be rebid in any case.
Doesn't Seimens use Cummings prime movers? Adding a separate HEP unit should thus be easier than going to another supplier.
Crank and Dave,
I agree, the response period must be long past. It would have to be for IDOT to award it to anyone.
Assuming EMD's claims are correct, then Siemans' offer was non-responsive and must be eliminated. If EMD was the only other responder, then the contract would go to EMD. Game over.
I am 99% confident that EMD would still have a valid claim if IDOT went back and rewrote the specifications to fit Siemans' offer. Will IDOT do that? Your guess is as good as mine.
Two questions. First, how is EMD getting 4,700HP out of this engine? Aren't their most powerful freight units with a 710, the SD70ACes, only 4,300HP?
Second, read this excerpt:
Overmod “Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD."
“Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD."
20% of a V-16 would be 3.2 cylinders, so that can't be right. Is Siemens using a V-12? If so, Siemens could just switch to an MTU V-16 and get the necessary HP, right?
displacement of energy is when ur company gets the contract illegally?
rbandr displacement of energy is when ur company gets the contract illegally?
No more so that when your hovercraft is full of eels and you want your tram to proceed to an estuary.
(Hey, it makes as much sense, and is a literary reference to boot! ;-})
Seriously -- this is not so much "illegal" as exploiting the technicalities of the contract as written. Personally I think 4 mph top-end speed 'deficit' might be worth the cost differential per locomotive. (Even if I had more faith that the Cat people weren't going to start tinkering with EMD passenger-locomotive design...) But if the issue is nonconformance to legal conditions, which does appear to be at least substantiable... well, you can start poppin' now...
u know how much me love kookies and popcorn wid dis movies. yum yum?
COOOO-KIEEEEE!!!
Seriously, though: The cylinder disparity is indeed "20%", between the QSK95 with 16 cylinders and the Caterpillar C175-20. For reference, here is the Cummins release on the QSK95 package from late last year.
The EMD proposal would have been the F 125 Spirit locomotive, as peddled to Metrolink, which uses the 20-cylinder Cat engine to make 4700 hp. Here is the Progress release on that locomotive design. (For anyone who is interested, here is a piece on the design of the C175 series engine.)
This would make any discussion of "710 engines" more than a little superfluous... and I have to confess that for full 125-mph service I wouldn't trust a 20-cylinder Cat as far as I could throw it just on Progress' word, especially if they propose to cycle it regularly up to the 1800 rpm that engine sees in 60Hz gensets just to make 'rated horsepower' during acceleration. Move over, Paxman Valenta!
... It does lead me to wonder, though, what the price (and weight) difference for a Siemens locomotive with the QSK120 instead of the QSK95 would involve... it couldn't possibly involve more than a million dollars per unit, could it? That may be why the EMD release seems to be going on so much about the 'unfair' 11,000-lb weight differential instead of the cost involved...
For EMD to win, they'll have to get the court to understand the physics.
Good luck with that!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
For EMD to win, they're going to have to get the court to accept that a 4mph disparity is sufficient to outweigh the other factors used by IDOT to make their decision ... in a situation where operation either at 121 or 125 mph won't be much of a reality for years. So it comes down to an exquisitely 'legal' exercise, either in strict interpretation of contract terms or 'intent of the framers' on the purpose of the 125mph contract spec.
Last I looked all the prospective IDOT corridor projects were still at 110 mph... can someone provide a link to where the higher sustained speed would be required? And if the '125 mph' is essentially political window-dressing, we return to whether Siemens getting to that speed downhill with a tailwind might not be 'adequate'... again considering that big savings in first cost, etc.
Overmod,
I disagree. All EMD has to prove is that the Seimans product does not meet the specifications.
Whether or not the specifications make sense is a whole other issue. If IDOT had looked at both bids, said, 'Oh my", and rebid the project at 120 MPH, while not perhaps entirely legal, EMD would have had the opportunity to redesign their offering and perhaps come in at a lower price.
It will be lots of fun to watch IDOT to defend itself on the basis of "we really did not mean what we said" or "we picked 125 MPH because we thought it sounded good" which is how I read your proposed defense.
I think Trains should assign Fred Frailey to the case for a feature article.
PNWRMNMIt will be lots of fun to watch IDOT to defend itself on the basis of "we really did not mean what we said" or "we picked 125 MPH because we thought it sounded good" which is how I read your proposed defense.
I think you misunderstand my point. There is no question that IDOT has an uphill battle to prove their '125 mph' condition has been met; there is also no question that for the amount of money involved, they're probably going to find whatever loopholes, ambiguities, etc. they can.
I have not read the 'fine print' in the original material, so I do not know if the actual terms involve reaching a physical 125 mph or satisfying a given formulaic convention. EMD has already noted, perhaps tellingly, that Siemens carefully worded their statements about using the Davis formula at TTCI, even though they used a more 'lenient' spec in their proposal and other material, for some reason. That would seem to indicate some importance given to that particular formula in the contractual arrangements.
I do strongly sympathize with EMD if, in fact, the contract has been given to Siemens when objective specifications were not met. I sympathize less strongly if this is a matter of interpretation, even if it is a matter of fact that the rated output hp of the Siemens locomotive is insufficient by 'generally-accepted engineering principles', as it were. But I think the decision will hinge mainly on legal, contract-interpretation principles, not an external demonstration of the sort that sometimes claims a bumblebee can't fly because mathematics proves it.
Unless, that is, the Court accepts such an argument when EMD makes it,,, and EMD will make it VERY persuasively. If it weren't for that Cat engine I would be rooting for them. As it is, I think they have right and truth on their side... as far as that goes in Illinois... ;-}
Overmod I do strongly sympathize with EMD if, in fact, the contract has been given to Siemens when objective specifications were not met. I sympathize less strongly if this is a matter of interpretation, even if it is a matter of fact that the rated output hp of the Siemens locomotive is insufficient by 'generally-accepted engineering principles', as it were. But I think the decision will hinge mainly on legal, contract-interpretation principles, not an external demonstration of the sort that sometimes claims a bumblebee can't fly because mathematics proves it.
I think we really agree.
As I understood you original post, IDOT's specification required 125 MPH with a "standard " consist of so many cars weighing so many tons. Proof that power was sufficient to attain the specified speed was to be by Davis formula calculation.
EMD's claim is that Siemans used a different formula that shows its offering capable of meeting the speed requirement BUT they did not used the formula that the specifications required. When evaluated by the required Davis formula, the Siemans offering fails. The math is straight forward and can be put on two placards for as detailed an explanation as the judge desires.
We (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemans offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
If I am Seimans I could argue that I have lots of experience with passenger trains in Europe, or whereever, and they all use this other formula.
If I am IDOT the best I could do is keep my mouth shut because I am either inept, stupid, or corrupt.
I would far rather have EMD's case than Siemans or IDOT's.
PNWRMNM ... (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemens offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
... (EMD) designed to the specification that IDOT wrote, and when our offering is evaluated by the required Davis formula, it passes. The Siemens offfering does not meet the specifications and must be disqualified. Remember, the context is government contracting where you either meet the specification or you do not.
As noted, this hinges on the Davis formula being an explicit test stated clearly in the specifications, and the speed involved being 'steady' 125 mph (not the 'boosted' rating, and not an average of up- and downgrade running). Do we have access to a copy of the specifications that can be put up here (no longer confidential since the contract was let?) or at least the relevant portions that show what compliance entails?
If I am Siemans I could argue that I have lots of experience with passenger trains in Europe, or whereever, and they all use this other formula.
That's not going to work well here. Siemens already has the 'smoking gun' of having referenced the Davis formula in their TTCI planning (I suspect with the idea that if they reach 125mph at any point on the loop, they can claim that a 'Davis formula' calculation from observed data yields... compliance with the paper specifications. I still get upset when somebody brings up the Australian variable keel from the America's Cup in '83. Gaming the specifications is an even older game than Grant Swing.
I would far rather have EMD's case than Siemens or IDOT's.
That is certainly true... but I suspect the outcome of this little scenario is not going to be 'disqualification of Siemens and award to EMD' -- it's going to be something like what just happened in California: they throw out the results, write all-new (and more sensible and relevant-to-Illinois-practice, one would hope) specs, and then re-issue the specification. There's a million-plus incentive per unit to ease what's required... even a little. And I expect that to have a great deal of effect on how IDOT and the other Illinois entities involved handle this situation. They may have been stupid, but they are also experts in gaming reality after the fact...
(I presume EMD by this point has a proposal together for a Spirit with a C175-16 in it, to match the approximate Siemens numbers 'just in case' the outcome isn't just reviewing and reversing the bid acceptance... ;-} )
wow !! the court can not tell thre difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
rbandr wow !! the court can not tell the difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
wow !! the court can not tell the difference between truth and justice. me thinks science maybe a stretch for the courts.
What part of "Illinois" did you not recognize was implicit in the discussions?
Seriously: science will be less of a stretch, depending on how much money is behind the science that is expected to prevail... ;-}
... and how much is directly relevant to hard clauses in the specifications...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.