four different numbering deals here and yes some disagreement seems to freeze perhaps perhaps not among whether or not the statute of limitations question it's your view is or is it not that one of only one of and pages and pages of fact finding here that satisfy me and may still be relevant if not even dispositive of the contract might suck i don't know what the board does with that if we reverse or vacate of whatever the ultimate ultimately get to that but for example in brain when you're first talking of the concept is characterized as the contract discourage or strongly discourage the yes for me there's a lot of distance between just a because it leaves with the board said about this section three distinguished possession of firearms by private security firms for possession by of inclusive individuals if that is the case and that's the way that we approached th protection was squarely within the case from the moment we filed the first appeal back in two thousand and eight the parties both understood that discovery was comprehensive covered the issue and then when we got to trial  c not a ruling that there was both a breach and a permissible remedy for the breach which is exercised by good p r so as i read this this issue is not before us in this thousand and three to two thousand and six the force protection provided by the government for contract seven was not commensurate with the threat or with the protection provided to deity civilians that language commensurate with the threat or with the protection provided  side tracked exactly to the language of the contract right and so the judge at the board here is finding that the government failed to meet that obligation under the contract that's a breach well that would certainly be an unhelpful finding if it were nine fortunately for the troops that depend on k b r asked and some contractors for the life support other logistical support services k b r asked and it's so contractors did not adopt the attitude now suggested by the government as their only remedy on the on the terms of the conference as your honor pointed out there was it was clear if you read if you on just a question of reading age twenty one the various arming government told him as their witness he was the he was a lawyer for centcom who spent time working on these very issues during the during the relevant time period and as the board found he testified that there was that contract prohibitions against personally look for that kind for that kind of use that would be the kind of use i would say is contemplated by age twenty one but that is exactly what you're saying there's a difference between our telling them they should all have a purpose that that is a different thing and it is a private security company that is in business for to make profit on the protection of others is a different sense than an individual employee carrying a gun for board made that very distinction in footnote one off page two and then as the you know back to the fundamental problem that happened here the when the k b r the government found itself in the middle of an insurgency that had not been the parties by the contract provisions to which they agreed and i think you can see from the board's decision the regulators in country were playing catch up with what was happening on the field you had thirty thousand p s fees and country and the c p a the coalition provisional authority is trying the decision in april of two thousand and twelve where the car where the party was litigated the question of contract interpretation the government relied on c p a order number three and said the case this was another of this licensing requirement was another provision that we should have complied with the government a basin that a trial that their position was a cheapie order number three down because you know this could be true but that's like saying that well it's a loss of the district of columbia mind you in addition to any contract you may have with me but the question really is is this provision really an amendment in effect to the contract and what the government is saying and i'd like your response  same is that private security firms may be licensed by the government but that doesn't have anything to do with whether under your particular contract you can hire private security to get some kind of lease under the contract and but what i think this demonstrates is that when the regulators got to addressing the issue they understood there was a difference between retaining a private security company that's addressing paragraph two and once a five security firm is licensed they're licensed to carry firearms that would be every voice there's one piece of paper there's a license to the private security company that covers the employee's paragraph and that's that which that concept the contract getting a piece of paper to say i can go out and hire a k b r got to hire a private security company that concept is nowhere in the contract the concept that maybe in the contract is paragraph three individuals may be authorized to possess firearms for personal use by obtaining authorization from the ministry of interior that's an individual piece of paper that could be lots of pieces of paper at most the authorities the governments rely on the contractual stories h one n one the regular army regulation things to be changed that it's the government's claim against us the government claims we improperly use and built for private security it's their claim against us they're the ones the change that wanted to change the status quo back in two thousand and seven the fact they were able to engage in self help do change in our view that there's was always a governor's plane that remains the government's claim and then in january twenty third team the government treated it as its own plane covered the entire fifty five million dollars and the board one j thirty six  are right that is correct and that is true i see that my time you bring in somebody who is going to be a super army contractor that's going to be ok it just doesn't make sense if individuals can i carry weapons in the contract says you cannot have employees to carry weapons you certainly can't get around that by saying