he kept saying we need time and money and they never asked for a specific amount he didn't there were other issues ongoing in the contract so he didn't cause a state for this one i need eighty seven days because it was ongoing  regulations or anywhere else that say how they're supposed to make your request but time is our special form you're supposed to use or anything like the other isn't it's i'm sure that that the prudent practice would be dismiss which it was it could be it couldn't as i explained how could it couldn't say give me x days we're telling you we need time when you say give me an excuse for what's happened so for but that wouldn't serve any what was the problem with responding to the government's request that you make a specific request for additional because officially what happens is fine now if you are with this same contractor the same contracting agency something occurs this constructive chang or the government says do this work we'll talk about your claims later so the contractor puts the government notice right away and says we're going to need time we don't can't negotiate time right now because we don't know how much time i'm going to need we tell you as a it's the first response back was three months later and that if the government had just said time i'm sorry but the contract on the contract did go in same time the only  rationale used before the government adopted for cases adopted a doctrine constructed change yes it's a firm fixed price contract so what are we talking about something how can we need to hold tomorrow to ten days something happen going to straighten  with the navy and i want future contracts if the government said at some point in time during those two in one thousand days the government should realize we the government have a problem not just for our contractors but for the government remember it was at the same time  paragraph to requires the contractor within ten days from the beginning of any delay unless extended by the contracting officer notifies the contracting officer in writing of the causes of delay the contracting officer shots are tane the if you believe very extreme that the terms of the subject contract due in limited circumstances permit nine compensable extensions of time for delay in completing the work that arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the control without the father negligence of the contractor see far fifty two point two four and i dash ten default fix price construction if you believe that you are entitled to a non compatible extension of time to go to perform the subject contract as a result of such delays you ma have sufficient facts to make a finding a thought of whether or not these particular causes were on forseeable and without the fault or negligence of the cause of the contractor itself had the contractor hands off or provided that information to the contracting office the contractor failed to comply with the request for further information from the department of the army and the question is under those circumstances can the contractors claim be bored because you didn't respond to the department the army repeat the their obligations laughters obligations under the contract and there is no threat of default here nothing in the letter threatens offer with default and during this two hundred nineteen delays the site was that i am not aware of any specific cases on on that ground and none of them are cited by the parties in the in the brief but irrespective of under the five frazier factors this offer was still required to show that it was ordered to perform actual contractual work work or was ordered to accelerate there's no indication here that anything that the contractors contracting officer said was anything other than  order to accelerate all of the costs that the offer incurred were because of shipping and storage costs that would have been incurred regardless of whether they were ordered to accelerate negotiations with pakistan were undertaken in the government's contractual authority the trial court also correctly control concluded that the government did not constructively change the contract because the offer was not a part of what not ordered to perform both hearsay and parole evidence because that evidence is not appropriate to interpret the unambiguous terms of this particular contract and unless the panel has additional questions for me we would request that that the court affirmed the trial court's decision and issue a direction as to where the shipment should be redirected to an alternate route that would increase costs or continue to ship materials through the garage the pakistan border so ask that question and ask the government guidance governor wait for three