the next argument it is in appeal number zero six five zero zero seven hague paradigm environmental versus united states plan help us to skate the clear language of the contract which said they had to remove all visible asbestos in my dealings that point not have to do with the  well how is the work going to do to i have to have a very different issue it is because the contractors work was interrupted if you think i was interrupted during discussions with respect to the workplace that was the contractor was your it all comes back to the same issue you your company continued to follow their work plan instead of following the specifications the specifications required to remove all visible asbestos which means they were going to have to grind if necessary to get it out of the crevices to very different and so i don't see how you can divorce one from the other the problem is they continued to use the water some pressure spray method when that you use these high high pressure hydro blasting devices but so what in that you have to be saying that your work plan had method which had to be accepted by the agency even if they didn't produce the result the specifications of the contract called for right isn't that what the bottom line is here the bottom line of the work  t issue is that the contractors working in iraq there it was it was delayed for six weeks it had nothing because it wasn't complying with the specifications and requirements of the contract specifications were and they for were designed for some other and i defied all are you or are you not contending that the specifications were trumped by the workplace yes i thought so then we get back to judge raters question well how can that be because it's fundamental in government contracting law that the specifications are what the definition normally there what government and you seem to be arguing when i try to peel away the surface that we can ignore some of the specifications because they're inconsistent with the work plan and that in a contest between the specifications as written right or wrong and the work plan you say the work plan should govern the good right the government is still want to is that your position or not that the work plan trumps the know they went through all of this process laboriously for a month to revise the work what if it the norm that if specifications are going to be changed there has to be a modification of the contract to change that which didn't happen well this is the government's responsibility it seems to me they accepted the work went and then went but not as rescinding any of the specifications they accepted the work distinction and that was perceived as being too difficult to implement what was going to be fry a bill and on and so they went to this visible standard and it was understood by all the contractors that time how can we now presume that that was modified by the acceptance of a work plan which of course does not change the getting back i mean that if you look at for twenty eight of the joint appendix j or twenty eight that seems to set forth what had to be presented in the workplace and the kinds of things that are set forth there superintendents attend the control pollution and various other things the project schedule the emergency procedures none of this seems to speak  to be addressing relate specific job requirements it's not it's not it's just the whole lateral items like what's the contractors emergency plan and so for many years don't seem to be the kind of things required to be addressed in the workplace and don't seem to speak to the claims of issues that we're dealing with today like what you were just discussing with judge rae clear exactly right we're now apparently this is  thousand pounds per square inch pressure and they were satisfied that was in re going to remove everything and it did it there weren't any surfaces there they were gone the surface of the co fanatical by the it doesn't matter the contract made that company the umpire not your company not me not somebody else that company and they found that they requirement to remove residue was not m contract said no traces of debris or residue are visible by the observation service contractor did not classify the residue apparently because the laws whether it's residue or not it still has to be invisible it still says whether it's debris or red or residue or traces it still cannot be visible by the observation wisdom of what the government contracts for is not to be second guessed the government can do things that are as a corporation stupid i'm not i'm not contesting that the government can demand whatever level of performance specifies i'm just asking you as a practical matter why was it important to hand drill out of cracks and crevices little bits of residue because of the potential as best as would be released into the  this is a legal matter presents us with the one of those ill defined areas of the law when do we consult trade practice in theory if if we consult trade practice to determine the meaning of the terms of these contracts we might take into consideration some of the evidence that mr hawes talked about with the individuals involved finding that this was sufficient to remove the residue on the other hand if we look at the language of the contract without consulting trade practice we reach a different conclusion when when consider trait practice to determine ambiguity correct and the court can we consider that all this evidence of that trade practice to decide what the meanings of the terms terms and the technical terms in this case there is no distinction in this case the plain terms of meaning residue of the braid indicate indicate that and just in the rest of the context that anything that is a lot but nonetheless visible  the notes and crannies of the concrete needs to be removed as part of the time it is there a possibility that there are two trade practices one for bill buildings being rehabbed and another for buildings being imploded that's possible i don't have the government explain in its brief that one of the reasons for this total removal was so that they could recycle the material and that recyclable material couldn't have any asbestos said they have one hundred percent removal but still that requires us to to determine whether industry practice recognized that is a reasonable interpretation of this contract language i think it's correct to say that the context from the metric case is well the context in which the contract is written certainly bears upon the course determination of what whether or not are in the us or unambiguous but those factors need to be secondary to the point language of the agreement with different languages so plain why should the government itself hire a consultant and ask that consultant to determine what had to be removed and what didn't if that if the government was sure that the light was unambiguous no need to hire a consultant spend a lot of money waste a lot of time we already know the answer visible means visible but you don't know what the consultant was asked to do and this is on page six seventy three of record was simply to explain what the industry standard was but if but if the government you was our contract specification was deliberately higher than the industry standard then of what point is it to spend time and money to ask and consult normal industry standard is that's not what you want that's not what your contract call for you deliberately didn't call for that so why ask somebody and spend money to have them tell you what to trade practices i don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to try to resolve a dispute with a time track or in this case after so that's a matter of the goshi agent that's not a matter of definition why did they consult debris under the terms of the contract have to be visible no traces visible whether it's residue debris there can be no traces visible under the language of the contract and in this case a contracting officer might well  and eight of the solicitation to specify and enforce total removal of every speck of this vast this anywhere including in cracks and crevices and so forth then why didn't the government react negatively when despite acknowledging receipt of those modifications to the spec the contractor didn't raise the price one do up what was required and he didn't up his bid price wasn't that very suspicious that he would not have put the government on notice if he didn't understand how much of a harder job this was going to be the petitioners citation add to the specifications and the price doesn't go up they usually go back to the contractor and say wait a minute you you maybe don't understand we just made this job twice as hard and you didn't raise your bid maybe you don't realize we really mean it's going to be twice as hard mr bar consulting outside sources to determine the meaning of residue and traces then why isn't mr haas correct that may be the work plan was  additional thing that this court can look to the work plan was accepted and everybody was trying to figure out what they should do maybe they had already decided what they could do with the word plan you know the one thing mr holmes was correct  early here by mr hawes that the work plan was accepted i thought i read in your brief a denial and said no no the work plan was never accepted which is that mr mcknight's after deposition testimony was the work plan except modification of the of the i'm not asking about whether it counts as a modification i'm asking in what sense and with what consequence was it the quote accepted the acceptance of the only form there's no state and  record stamping well isn't it isn't it true that it was repeatedly changed at the suggestion of the government and then at some point the government had no further suggestions and therefore didn't ask for any further changes and therefore it became final which maybe we could call on implicit acceptance there are several reasons why one of the serious although the first of which being that the idea of implicit acceptance is contrary to was submitted it the government said no it's not correct they came back with another version the government said no there's still some problems and finally there was another version and there was no further discussion about it i think what she said and shell is getting at is just in terms of the requirement that a work plan be submitted did there not come a time when something was presented and the government had no per their comments about it and they went ahead with the contract  you say leaving aside any issue about whether the workplace changes the contract isn't it fair to say that at that point there was an implicit acceptance of the workplace whatever the workplace stands for i don't think that that  notice question suggests fair because at the foot of the make any difference to this case i mean they had to submit a work plan a work plan team in it was revised eventually there was no further discussion about it and they went on that's separate from the question as to whether what was on the workplace and became part of the contract i mean you can they can be an accepted workplace but that doesn't mean the contracts been changed i would agree with that point then why don't you say the word play was accepted that the workplace changed the job that's correct or are you making your argument more difficult than the there i was going to prevent him from so doing the only point i want to make clear and the courts question earlier  to at least look at it and consider it even if it doesn't modify the specifications in the contract but but isn't it a permissible source for the review in court to look at along with all the other documentation you're referring to trade practices and things of that nature not all the work plan isn't the work plan a document we can consider in making our decision i'm struggling with that question because as i tried to explain the work plan doesn't shed any light on the issue of the three to which expenses need to be moved to the extent to quell that's your opinion and if we agreed with it that obviously there would be no impact but suppose that we do consider the work plan and suppose we have a different view of it than you and we think that it actually does shed some light on what the contract required what the two parties had in mind what the mutual intent was intent but in this case the point language of the of the of the contract is what because what control i think it's important to note that for all the talk about surfaces and all the talk about debris the language of the contract indicates that it's not services that are deemed to be clean it's a specialist containing materials that have been applied to services need to be cleaned and as the court of better claims indicated such material may in fact settle in the poorest of how can we under the law create a contract as amended because of what is said in an exchange of letters between the contracting parties or are we limited to the contract itself and any the engineers who drafted the specification what would you agree that such an illumination of the issues of the meaning of the contract would require that we first find that some important phrase or word in it is  of that work plan do you contend changed the contract in other words there's got to be some provision in here that is different from something in the contract and your view altered