one thing that seems to be most clearly missing is any evidence as to what your client's market sheer would be if the government formed periods they were qualifying for the same from ninety ninety six one hundred ninety eight what did the evidence show about their market share during that time the actual share customers they had that time was eleven thousand five out of approximately four thousand there was the actual evidence shows what the actual market share was course no one knows what the potential or projected market share that event but nonetheless given the fact that the actual market share was invaded at least twenty five percent from clearing they heard this they made finding they basically found that your damages model was on supportively made findings of fact and the question for us is was that purported mind substantial evidence that e vendors who are conducting electronic commerce but you have potential vendors who didn't want to do so because the system had not been implemented on time and that was a secondary and vote buying organizations and vendors did not want to use it there assuming that you raised it is is that you still have to show that they wouldn't have they would not be required to speculate in they seem to say that because this was a new company this everything that had failed to establish causation and having failed to establish causation in the board even if it had been asked for a jury verdict could not go further assess a jury verdict we also pointed out in our brief that and i think that i see one ninety five one thousand two hundred thirty trading partners that's at the bottom of page one ninety five that's him that's the number software which was used by some guys as customers all of the posters with some of the customers so that the information prior to nine hundred ninety six is about what percent and there was not any factual basis for that that that was just his assumption it worked out mathematically because he was assuming that vendors would six and that then at that point half of those customers would go back happy happy and stay with guts but that was another unsupported assumption there was no basis who or even and the other point that khaki is trying to make these saying that it has this extensive market khaki actually was providing software and so th that there were only four thousand customers in the system in october of one nine hundred ninety six what the data actually shows is that in october of ninety ninety six there were four thousand vendors registered in the contract in the central contract registry the c c r but that is not the same thing is the number of vendors using electronic data interchange and this was brought out in the testimony at trial by mr or by cacace counsel's cross examination of mr shattuck and he testified appendix pages one four three nine one five four five to four six that number vendors in the c c r was not the number of vendors that were actually conducting electronic commerce through the vans it was just simply the number that had been included in the regist so the board was properly concluded that there was not with factual basis for the market shares that were being used by khakis expert the board also concluded that last crawford's cannot appropriate in this type of case where the breach consisted of failing to meet the implementation plan by not deploying twenty one contract size by fail the board look to this court's decision in applied companies and concluded that with the breaches of this nature and if this type of contract was profits there's no entitlement to lost profits and this was i don't  report schedules were estimates and because what was here was an accurate estimate that there was no entitlement to last well that was a quick question but i think you convince making so actually a factual finding that these type of cases is just too speculative to prove last crawford's where he's willing as a matter of law is where he follows clyde companies and he says the breach analogous to a negligent as to meant as it applied companies and in that case there was no entitlement towards profits as a matter of law so here also is making the analogy because with the breaches here i and also that there was no guarantee the contract told them that there was no guarantee of a minimum level of transactions because it was no guarantee of a minimum level of transactions you couldn't put the government in the position of then guaranteeing that there would in fact be transactions because the contract altered that there was no guarantee now and then also important and that all pat report provided were estimates and that and this is a factual findings fourteen factual finding twenty and twenty six where the board points out that those schedules are simply  it's what the government failed to do here was made an estimate and that was the breach and it also pointed out that in the contract there was no guarantee of the level of transactions because it was no guarantee the level of transactions you couldn't put the the government into the position of guaranteeing a certain level of transactions therefore it was appropriate for the board to make this analogy to apply companies and conclude that the because of the nature of the brooch the company was not entitled to pocket this is a also an alternative holding made by the board the board also found that there was not sufficient factual basis for system that's an appendix a six zero six where it says the record in october nine hundred ninety six there are only about four thousand of an estimated three hundred thousand government contractors have validated registrations in the database which is the as to the issue of applied companies judge delucchi had their precisely correct the issue was the breach of the provisions of the v l a which then caused a loss of customers and i said nothing