from the facts of this particular case and i would like to first address what we perceive to be the most important issue we're finding by the war that confirmed by the navy location will be now how does the border how did the navy continue that that was done at the pru proposal the government testified or at least  other instructions that were least some indication by the contracting officer as to what the precise location of the project was yesterday and we will challenge that because there were no wri six of the board's opinion if you have it there page twenty your appendix toward the top of the page is question number line that i think that's what so that answered the specific question about the variance between the cross hacked section of the general development nap and the site for the map correct yet with respect to that area yes for this it it certainly does and indicated that only the crosshatch area was part of the project no absolute i wouldn't want to infer that that was what the government was saying about that because yes seemed to me as i read this it seemed to me evidence that they were saying oh no that larger area that is on the site for our the map is not included we mean it to be limited t has let me put you go to the specific points or maybe this would come up in one of the specific points but it is certainly true if the appellant points out that be my english under the location know in order to have some flexibility can i am crew jonah gratian or reagan and use properties at the site so long as it doesn't interfere with expansion of the army site recreation area or the presumably they they designed a new route to service building three and three that's correct which was not inconsistent with what they were told they could do that is to say as long as the base has access to building three of three nations you will build a different road and presumably this this space that is off the access road looks like a little parking lot you have the access road that goes in violation of what they were told they could do where was he told they do is to say as long as the base has access to building three and three because the navy never changed what the boundary of the product is structured product works in say question was saying can we go into that area which is on the other side of holloway drive from the crosshatched area isn't that part of the question this is dealing with a large area that is not crosshatch but is within the project limits as defined by the r v site for correct i agree or undertook a so so at the end when the government comes back and says yes as long as if you look at the each site you'll see that you could go down to the left you could come to the to the to the grass you could go to the east or you could go to the north you go to the south street there and you go in and you find yourself in a parking lot that's next to three o four probably what i should have brought her to initially the fact that this is an unreasonable interpretation because first of all not only is it infringing on the access for it's also a prison in the base commanders force that's what building in the southeast and that it's infringing on the south of hollywood drive and the swimming pool which were specifically set or made now as a as a bitter all the assets that the that the navy gave were consistent with what they insisted on is to me the general development when asked and this is the question one that when they asked if they could go south of holloway drive the answer clearly came back no you cannot and defile if i can i understand everything up to that question that was asked question number one i understand your position which is they consistently took the positions of the g d m gave the contractor information all the information contractor needed to know about the scope of the project and the r v site for whatever his map was not the definition of the project limits but once question number one is asked now it seems to me if your position is well that v d m still controls i think you have a hard time maintaining that position because it seems to me and you tell me if i'm wrong in reading this way that that question explicitly waves with respect to s e amount of territory the g d him is the only place that this project could work and the terms of the waiver seem to be that as long as you don't interfere with something in the area they can bury a south holloway drive and as long as you maintain access to three of the three in the question my question to you is given that that looks like a waiver a is it and b what's what is it that the government can come back and say  waiver didn't extend to the as far as the contractor thought to question one of your honor no it's not a waiver and second response is what was in our great which is that this question regard is the line there is the project has really within the existing service road and the service to the be ok it was in it so why would that be extending beyon question number one in the response but let me test my understandings of it with this question given the response that the government gave to the question with respect to land that outside the crosshatched area of the g p m and that is what the question appears to have been directed to would it have been permissible for the contractor to have used a portion of that area i guess it's let's call it the area around  building it's three zero three three zero four in the tennis court it's over toward the tennis court it's within the dashed line called the project room but outside the crosshatch area but did ok you have that get it all right in a shoe the tennis court over there is a three ninety two that ok there's a kind of chunk of land that is to the right of the access road to the parking lot for a building through  c that we now suppose is the contractor had wanted to go in there and and use some of that for some purposes is the navy in fact giving the contractor permission to do that as long as it doesn't disrupt that mean as long as the existing access is not interrupted or destroyed exactly question but also the fact that when when that mistake was discovered in other words that two interpretations were discovered the reason it was discovered was because they were planning on moving that access road and i would be if you create problems with the so you maintain the existing road and service road to be ok you three and you need to get additional sites on the eastern side on the other side is that correct i believe that's