on the use of the word project a lot well i think that you can rely upon the definition of the word project and if you look at merriam webster's definition also the oxford dictionary definition that was pointed out by the court it refers to the entire undertaking and it also refers specifically to the design in plans of the project encompasses you know the workers the plans the agreement the lease at the time that amendment number one was added the project as it then existed provided that  sentences the government undertook a wholesale rewriting of the entire agreement when you look at by interpret ing amendment number one as indicating that the security specific security requirements are there for each of the rooms now in the physical security for the whole of the cell the in the project if that's what the government decided to do but it has to be clear and unambiguous and how it goes about that and we disagree with the trial court's conclusion where it says that you know look if you look at the tables they don't have anything to do with the interagency security standards in fact there's substantial overlap and the requirements that were put in those tapes with respect constitutes fifty one pages of standards delineating where what the exact details are for the construction of the windows the doorways  last loads are the loads for the floors and the roof and if we interpret amendment number one to apply the interagency security criteria to the entire building then we're rendering that section six almost meaningless and undertaking a serious rewriting of the agreement a member number one is a two sentence amendment and if you look at the actions of the veterans administration in handling this project it is entirely consistent with our position that there is a late name to get ready and the project because it took over eighteen months before anybody at the veterans administration rates the issue of the interagency security standards applying on a building wide basis and when they did that were to claim framework for the resolution of this matter we agree with what the trial court concluded that section four point two point seven is latently ambiguous at a bare minimum throughout the section there's to on a per space basis that says the lesser shall provide the following security measures for the features for the spaces or area as listed below the section then notes in the middle says the government will designate a security level from level one to level fo for each space requirement and then later provides the contracting officer will provide the security level designation again as part of the space requirement and then consistent with that the section provides a table that delineate seven with particular spaces and the security requirements for who has language doesn't write about you know a single building over seventy thousand square feet will be a level three security and it talks about  to put us on notice there's no record evidence that those physical security standards the interagency security standards were in fact even available on that website and it turned out in fact that they were  not available for the public they had to be specifically requested if you look at the appendix at the correspondence between the parties rightly claim to look at them until after the contract had been injured  we had requested that we didn't request them until the v a brought the issue up eighteen months into the project after the v a had reviewed our design had proceeded along without any you know we've been going along without any reference to the interagency security standards whatsoever and then the v a raised the issue and then we go and attempt to access these documents and find out that in fact they're now you've been available we don't even know at this point what these documents are exactly when your clients sign of a contract and was directed to review the website it could have done it at that moment right it could  have and you don't know when that website with you know the general public at that time there's no record evidence and in the record at all as to whether or not it was available what we found out when we did attempt to  obtain it was that it was not in fact assessable to the public and i note that in the appendix when we requested copies of the documents we went to two places went to  agency security commission and then we eventually and they said you know no you're going to have to go to the the resident engineer and have him request it when we finally got those exactly applied to this project and that was demonstrated by you know the actions of the resident engineer here's an individual who has been with the project for years he works for the v and even he doesn't know that the interagency security standards apply he didn't bring it up until march twenty ten then he brings it up and then reverses him self and says now don't worry about that let's take a look at some separate v a design standards and then finally inch of y twenty ten he indicates no you need to follow the interagency security standards and i'll note that that came over two amendment number one doesn't resolve the ultimate late number guity in this agreement and that is whether or not these security standards apply to the entire building or to specific spaces and that we comply with the interagency security standards the building of the entire building was constructed using those security requirements and that's why we're here today because it in essence  it was added i believed to the agreement as a whole it's the agreement constitutes the solicitation then are designed plans and then i believe there were some clarifications that were added that included this amendment and you know as i mentioned as we mentioned the bridge there's nothing in this amendment calling out saying that we are going to be changing the security standards from  were there was an ambiguity because the v a was looking at the that clearly looking at that section very differently alternately and concluding that security requirements apply on the per building basis the only objection is now or is when you get a new for each new your honor that's not true actually to the extent that my colleague was referring to eighteen months without mention of this problem actually the v a brought the fact that the contractor has not complied with the c standards to premier's attention in connection with the first design development submittal so this was brought to the contractors a true intention immediately divorced from any bill with instructions to terminate through security position that no the i enter agency security standards committee standards did not apply what constituted extra contract work that they should not have provided for in their original bit and so they are seeking the difference in cost to then at having to provide what they view to be extra security but according to the plain terms of the contract is absolutely core contract work i'd like to clarify some of the comments that were made i have a question for you on using on  time that it made its initial in corey certainly it requires the intervention of the resident engineer as a government official to get the standards for them when you refer to the website you're handsome as the were you referring to the website gets referred to in section subsection of we're going to bring seven point one yes your honor the contract specifically provides that a copy of the government security standards is available to be done o c a dot gov and that's the that's the website that we know this contractor did not did not access i just so that there's no confusion in the timeline i'd like to address this and then that one was not added to the agreement amendment one was in amendment to the solicitation it was issued on june tenth two thousand and eight awarded this contract of the least attached and made a part here of is the word to use in the least so amendment number one was fully operative to address the clarification that was needed and to the underlying section four point two point seven the contract as a whole takes the core of the underlying language of four point two point seven which the court recognized appendix ninety three refers to both facilities and agency space requirements also refers to a single use building receiving a single level physical security requirement amendment number one simply circles back and clarifies that the project requires level two security and i think that where are to the extent that we start talking about potential ambiguities here i mean the contractors interpretation it bears noting in this case even if the court were to construe any of this is ambiguous which we don't think it is in light of the contract as a whole the contractor is still trying to push an interpretation that says that the project doesn't get any i a c standards physical security in the face of clear and contract language that says just the opposite and so even with the relying on the language think the bottom line is that one can't construe the project as really meaning a subset or a small set of subject sets of the project you've got to take give that word it's ward mary meaning and also construed in light of the contract as a whole is the sentencing in the  but in terms of the website link itself i just want to clarify something i mean i think that and my colleague mentioned that there were u r l's on the standards that were different those i don't see those in the record so i'm not sure win caution that the government security standards were available and external website should have looked at that website and also when the contractors presented with the men that number one that advisors that i see standards apply to the project it would certainly certainly i think that the point we'd like to end with is that even if my clients that have access to interagency security standards and had the benefit of that even if you interpret amendment number one as applying those at least in part to the agreement it again it doesn't resolve the ambiguity that we alternately have here as to whether or not the security standards apply on a per space basis and i think that you have to look back to four point two point seven because there was reference to the level three being selected as the security level at the end of four point two point seven but that comes after several sentences as to where it says that the government will designate the level for each space requirement and so that you have to read those two together that ultimately what's happening there is that the government's making its selection for the space requirements and as we mentioned which is level three which was level three to apply to those particular spaces delineated in the agreement in the project and to the project which we maintain as references the lease agreement and the plans and just in your