was delivering relocatable buildings due to bases in afghanistan for us you argue that the delivery orders and the amendments were not integrated contracts yes rather show me in the record where the in the record when we made the argument to the board yes and i do not specifically recall exactly how we presented that argument in the lower court on the motion and responsible for summary judgment but i do believe that we pointed out that the contract was the controlling document and therefore the labor order or task was couldn't therefore be fully integrated and separate contracts they were issued out of environment that it was a very challenging environment in afghanistan there were a lot of records that neither party was able to provide how might have been helpful to know what was in the notice of intent which specially with also apparently we don't know anything about it two other parties that were also hoping to engage in this commerce with the government we do know as the but out of record i mean that i didn't seen in the record about whether they were disposed of that issue was it was your offer or your client's offer of a five percent discount ah eight deviation from the idea i think you it certainly would have been a deviation from the contemplated that that was something that they had the right to do they did it and hindsight should they have done it differently certainly that should have been something that they made as an amendment to offering discounts as well were they not we don't know with certainty whether that was true or not what we know is that reliant was not awarded all of the use that purposes of the appeal they are immaterial and serving you agree to a whole lot of unit or exchanges which i think you would agree are appropriate because that changes in the idea so i think it is well there were the first things manufactured in turkey that was the original idea was that was the original idea your honor the difficulty became is that after manufacturing had been going on for almost a year  there was a conflict in the the approvals that my client hand they received approval for first article testing which is something we tried for three days back in february on  consolidated claims that are not part of this appeal the first article testing granted our client's approval for the units they produced they produced that had laminate mord but then a captain at one of the locations said that wasn't good enough despite first article testing which put them in a real conundrum and so they decided that we we can't get around the captain to get this done so we're going to have to start manufacturing units with gravel and we can only do that if we move to afghanistan which is one of the reasons that they were able to gain the efficiencies that they intended  containers and you think of one shipping container but a building in this instance was about one hundred shipping containers pretty sizable structure and so to have to move those from turkey to afghanistan alone was a arduous and expensive task but then also to find the materials within afghanistan to be able to outfit those units once they were delivered and the manpower with the skill to do it was also very challenging so it as judge bradley said at the end of the trial in the other matter the other appeal he understood why my client was upset with the way the government has please the court the s b c a correctly concluded that the i q contract and delivery orders at issue in this case were not in the us that the government's interpretation of those documents is correct and that reliance interpretation is not reasonable  the army's interpretation is consistent with and harmonizes all of the terms of both the umbrella idea q contract as well as the delivery orders that were placed there on which reflects the party's intent an understanding of the contract because of the considered because it's pearl evidence but in fact in this case it's not through parole and it's part of the contract is the delivery orders themselves that display that course of conduct and display that the parties usually understood the contract through section each one to set up a paradigm where delivery would have pricing was going to be negotiated among the three holders of these multiple award id i q contract and the price competition would be maintained as the four requires and as the contracting system sets up a preference for price and competition would be maintained at the delivery order level as well as in the initial award of umbrella contracts it's out of curiosity what's the change from particle board to dry wall because of  resolve of potential impact on the exterior of the economy i don't think the answer that's reflected the record i don't know what your honor but the changes that were made as were seen through the documents in this case in the course of conduct that that reflect with no reservation of rights and in a way that maintained a deviation of price from the delivery route of pricing to the idea q umbrella contract pricing but remove all reference to a five percent discount much less any reference to a contingency for manufacturing efficiency which didn't appear even in the original delivery worse so any argument that even if there were an argument that deliberate or pricing in the initial delivery orders was contingent because of language that was in the mail conveying those bids and he such contingency was clearly overtaken and waived by a mutual agreement to deliver order modifications which continued to maintain pricing that was lower than the idea q marella contract and that price wasn't listed in the notes or was price listed in the price would be offered by the offer or his bidding on the delivery were so that the notice would go out and acknowledge that the notices in this case are not on the record but the notice would go out asking for the offer was to provide a price as well as to detail other technical factors that actually respect the offer or for the price that was stated in the idea if you could or more in fact well it couldn't be a floor because that would render him permissible and irrelevant to the conduct of the parties in negotiating lower prices so it harmonizing all of the documents that make up this or not is an after the fact right well to see why a feeling makes the most sense maybe preference your question but the parties modified the pricing structure in the idea queue umbrella contract several times at least twice with modification one of modifications seven that up you haven't made it well it is i think that the argument that we've made about section h one and its effect maintaining price competition as well as the argument that we've made in terms of examining the language of the contre made it your bra sets out the preference for multiple award idea x you contrary for exactly this reason to maintain price competition over the the length of the duration of the idea that you contract and so that whole where is it a survival five that says you can consider price your honor it regulatory standpoint on the contracting officer in effect to it in the terms of the contract here and so reading the contract in the context of all of its documents or if you have you have a situation or under the regulation you must consider right  delivery orders of course only comes into play if there's a conflict between them and under the government's interpretation or even the alternate interpretations that your honor has suggested there is no conflict as there's only a conflict if the pricing in the have prices that were less than all of that behavior that cause hope and it would essentially be meaningless it would be on our deeply prohibited by the contract and so all of this course of conduct as reflected in contract documents that then became part of the contract would be rendered meaningless by this interpretation and that's why the board correctly found that interpretation to be unreasonable in light of the contract read as a whole well there only actually semitic on that would be something in the lat make a comment about the english language you can sit down and that is when i was at cambridge i asked one of the officers of my college if could you do something for me and he said you mean what i and i said is there a difference and he said if we were to take the government's argument to be valid why didn't the government agree to them in the delivery you want to use two through four to reflect the fixed price that were set forth in the audio accu contract unless of course the five percent discount why would they have done that if they were negotiating prices on each of the delivery speculative it's it's convenient for the government to make that argument now and onsite that the but i think the actions of the parties illustrate that both parties had a different further and playing reading of the contract supports reliance interpretation the idea accu contract terms including pricing prevail over conflicting pricing terms in the delivery orders that were going clause does not contain any exception or qualifications related to pricing the court below referred to the id i q prices as a ceiling that there's no basis in law for recognize those things as we look at these things and i'm tired but the people on the ground and no complaint was raised at delivery or who won when the number started shipping the there were a lot of issues surrounding that because the government had a budget constraint that required that the prices be changed in order to fit within the budget so it was a significant discussion  we believe this rationale for fails because it improperly assumes that the delivery orders were integrated fully integrated contracts there's no statement in the three words that this is your last s