what the consequence is because you understand the facts and i'm sure you do the facts here in september rd kean we notified the contractor that it was performing after having notified them many times before they were going to  time period between the notification of the surety and the completion of the work once it was completed it was completed and snow was of any particular prejudice to the surety that after that point and in the court relied heavily the court relied upon section five which is the provision of the bond that details the obligations of the surety if section three the conditions preceding are satisfied so in that section it says that if it  itself ordered and then finally in its support for do none of that investigate the facts and either pay us engineering what it believes liability was a work deny that there was any liability in for us engineering which is in the latter is what it did and it did that if after we notified them about the claim that they asked for more information we provided our entire file with regard to you know sheet metal including the plans drawing specifications billings invoices labor cost the facts on the ground were that it was working on getting the work done and the nd part was as it should have done so so irksome sooner after it completed the work but once the completed the work is completed there was no difference to the surety whether it was a month or two months later i mean the work was once the work use completed they've lost their options under section five of the contract well scrubbed it your honor that section five says st of all the section three has to be satisfied before section five comes in applying the opening chords to section five says once five section three is satisfied then the surety has the all to reserve he has options right they can it can cajole the sub to finish the job they can get another sub or they can receive pay in the different order or they can they can do none of those things in and investigate the facts and after you go out and get another sub to finish the job they you know your honor i don't ever have a reason they think could have done it they didn't but there is no prejudice to the surety that justifies the total for for sure the bond when an under section three point one they still can raise those differences if a court reverse any cases actually reading this that's for one provision to not require time notice right that not they're not decide cases on that nor are there deciding cases reading it to  only decision the bill provides the believe that the lower court provides and the best case for you the closest case for you tending in that direction is he's our cases that mean that we could impose the prejudice requirement when it terminated the principle in the bond united sheet metal without notice because of that decision that that decision however it came about question sure it was the right to choose how to perform under the two to perform and ten performance bond form the it is before i give the language of the bond it's useful to know that this is a bond form that was and that was insisted upon by us engineering under the after three things occur the st is that u s engineering provides notice to united sheet metal and western surety that it is considering declaring a default that then triggers a procedure for scheduling and can and convening meetings the nd thing that has to happen is a u s engineering declares a default terminates the contract and notifies the surety of the rd thing is that the owner agrees or pay the balance of the contract price to the sure turn around the end of the day and say oh we had we did have a bomb here and we were super efficient and who we hired and you know mitigated all laws in getting a new contractor to really you directly in the hunt decision he he wrote that sure to use it require that putting those requirements in their bond presumably you are unwilling to submit to the vagaries of litigation exactly what it would cost what it should have contractor us engineering saying that they did everything right and they save us money by coming in and completing the job we we don't have a way to test that we didn't have an opportunity to bring in a consultant which is what we usually do is sure you lawyers to bring in a cons the project someone with an extensive construction background to figure out what needs to be done on the project that that right and it's determined to be right in hundreds determined to be a right and other  it's also determined to be a right in the bond itself and that us engineering also argues that your reading of the contract requires near instantaneous notice after the terminations of a contract that it has to be pretty much contemporaneous with the terminations to avoid it too late to get the project back on track or too early so that could yet determine the scope of loss and that's that's actually not a problem in your view it would certainly be prudent to give notice of terminations when that germination happens to be prudent for the contractor itself because then you bring in the resources of the sciri that that they can rely on and they can  bring in people to view the john to to get boots on the ground if need be or to tender replacement contractors if need be and that depends on the circumstances i could see there being a close case if there was a little bit of a care a lot of that is behind walls by this point i'm so we would do so we've literally would have had to come in and do destructive testing to to figure out what had to be done and surely that was a going to be acceptable to the owner to the south african embassy and i don't know that it would have been acceptable to us engineering who would've come had to come back end and fix it but that's that that's just an example of of what are sure he would need to e of the defaulted obligation by a different contract or after reasonable notice to the charity and so that's a little clear that there's a temporal requirement there or not let's hear a response before deval is meaningless and prove it contracts in the district of columbia have to be interpreted in such a way that there are no meaningless promises or looser promises and that's an interpretation that the answer to this but how often does does it serve your does your client actually itself perform and complete as opposed to get it out of her range for completion if  it does happen your honor i can't speak to this client in particular i don't know that i've had a case with this particular client where if it takes over it's not a it's it's not necessarily the st thing that the job is fairly close completion and there are substantial contract funds remaining and also we do get sometimes in government projects government the government is not eager to allow a project to be rebid because of being  this situation if they'd exercise that option they would have gotten other countries do it i do take issue with one of the comments that was made about having to go into the project and deconstruct it was finished and to get at the work that was done as if that was the only way to evaluate what the cost was that was incurred by us and you hearing when in fact it's perfectly if you're for perfectly able to do it today you can because we have given them all everything that's related to this private the work that was done we get they have the plans drawing specification the as built drawings the buildings all the information about what went into the five hundred and eighty six thousand dollars is available in there so it's perfectly possible to   i believe that's the extent my comments and rebuttal thanks very much for your time and attention today thank you cases submitted