briefs i'm not clear what regulation services are understand there's variability in the power demands when was the here was not providing was not the power provider that was somebody else after and is what do they have they have generators that kick in when there is a particularly high need for power is that is that what providing regulation service decision the court settle claims at page ga thirty six where the court is sort of framing the issue it says the contract could be breached if a cost based methodology was not utilized by w a methodology and it or information pertinent to formulating a cost based methodology and either didn't act on that or it didn't disclose it in the negotiations and so forth that that would be a breach of the obligation  court's expert then in the court's expert report at the joint appendix four thirty expert says however despite the voluminous information presented to me by the parties i have not received all of the d show that the only evidence that the only contention the bad faith that they misrepresented the market based methodology has been cost based they misrepresented that methodology and they refused to negotiate it going to get at it you see that by the answer my question is was the testimony that your proposals during the negotiations didn't include any costs for capacity or wear and tear is that correct that is correct and if you take away any bad faith in the negotiations i realize you say that's not correct but if you remove any bad faith in the negotiations in other words if you say the government didn't act in bad lack of good faith with respect to them and it's really is is only one of the three tests later we have to go to meet them all you've got to meet all three my point is i understand that you say that was bad faith i'm just trying to claims says in light of the fact that w a p a did not produce or introduce w a p a cost data to establish whether it's regulatory services to northstar out were cost and to expert testimony confirm wapa did not establish a rate of regulatory services that was cost base so you're saying the court a federal claims there is saying the government didn't act in bad faith and breach the contract because it didn't produce fast paced data and didn't a stablish a cost base rate this or and but nowhere is that doesn't there have to be though a finding that there wasn't facts idea was we'll try to negotiate a cost based methodology for the following year ok for the following period and what the court if it a claim seems to be saying is the government breached that because it didn't present any cost  data and it didn't use a cost based methodology but if in fact it couldn't or couldn't come up with it in good faith does that doesn't have to be some finding here that evidence was intentionally withheld or that there was dat fact i mean that's that's expert testimony after the fact and the government had an expert that came in said x the other side had an expert that came in and said why assuming they all testified honestly to the best of their expertise that doesn't mean that during the period of the contract the government or northstar was acting in bad shape this was a tough cookie you know nobody this was uncharted territory it looked to me like a case where the parties you know they breach issue nobody challenges the court's findings and there's no finding in there as far as i can tell that the government intentionally withheld something or didn't come forward was material that it had or base great to be in are you saying then that the the government would reach this contract simply by not producing a cost based methodology independent of any showing a bad day ye or the government could reach this agreement is to negotiate in bad faith and there's not a finding here that either northstar or the government negotiated in bad faith in the effort to try and arrive because based methodology mean this isn't i mean i don't see here what i mean i i kept looking for the critical finding that the government acted in bad faith by withholding information or not presenting information that had or so forth and follow up on what judge charlie's discussing the police could there was no specific finding a bad faith in connection with the section of the opinion dealing with the breach so then if we look to the section dealing with duress the court refers to the three rumps rumsfeld factors the third of which is circumstances where the results of another parties to worth of actions and she makes reference to the fact that a course of action requires a showing of a breach of contract without a good faith beliefs etc etc and then when it comes to this in the discussion in the opinion on that factor which is item c on page forty eight of her opinion simply says that the amendment not cost based it doesn't say it was the result bad faith negotiations were that where the government failed to come forth with a cost based proposal enacted in bad faith simply says it wasn't cost based so again even in the duress section where there is a passing reference to good faith there is no finding that the government acted in bad faith so aren't we left with the total absence of any finding anywhere in the opinion even looking at the opinion in its entirety on that on that critical point and it's no bad face no breach