you can assume that we've studied the briefs and the drawings that were to guide the roof repairs at norfolk navy base so give us the core of your argument and don't believe as our seas interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation that makes full use of drawing a thirty eight drawing eight thirty eight with respect to the issue you're describing talks about it three layer memory that same drawling as one of the s but the drawing also shows cleat and fasteners to hold the membrane against the vertical wall of the parapet and that seems inconsistent with pain because pain isn't held in place by cleats and fasteners it just sticks to the surface it's applied to so i'm having trouble understanding how any reasonable roofer looking at that detail one of a thirty eight and looking at the cleats comes up it's a flat roof and that base by she has to come up to cover the corner and then it needs to terminate at some point and s s r c's interpretation of the drawings was that that that base flashing would be fastened to the wall the  another small section of three ply membrane that would come up over that base blatchley and terminate in a regular i mean the legs interpretation of new work no twenty eight has absolutely no meaning it talks about creating a regular in the existing concrete the only existing concrete is the parapet wall and then it's talks about aligning that regolith with the existing regulated in the brick the brick is the pen houses and certain sections of the roof the penthouses but up against the parapet well and it forms the corner where you have the brick interpretation is that they were part of the three ply were roofing memory again the movies interpretation completely ignored several drawing nodes as well and she ate it carves out typical notes in elevations to mean the roof since the main room on cells see through jag that's right it's a typical note also if you look at the demolition no twenty three which is called out on that main repairing it back on sheet eight to where the definitions are it specifically says specifically calls out the middle it can certainly be waterproofing if the paint has that property but it's not so clear to me that it's reasonable to say well if i painted wall i've now put a membrane on the wall i would suggest that's a much more applies identical meanings to these different terms on page eleven of the government's brief footnote three and this board has are going to protect p r s have previously held that it's illogical to infer identical meanings to different words when used in a contract  are it's hard to make a general nation fits all cases as to whether slightly different since similar words have distinctly different meanings to the same meaning seems to vary from one contract and one case to another where we would argue that two different terms should have two different meanings we said the h c c case for instance where the term primer was held to be distinct from the term undercoat one might think logically the rafah proprietor referring to the same thing the board have now are different terms for different reasons point out that in that table three specification notes it's a twenty mil painting system that's a very thick painting system if you look at the table beneath it it talks about coats of paint on the water one point five mills thick my point is that it might take more than three coa crappy decision and the precipitate construction decision that we started in our brief for the fact that a paid member unit is something that does have a glaring contradiction we do not believe that there was any such glaring contradiction and that s r c is interpretation property reconcile the specifications the contract drawings and the contract notes again the maybes interpretation requires you to ignore certain contract notes you find that a little further until you are to me what notes you think have no there's no doubt that it's pointing to the main group if it only applied to a and b it wouldn't make any sense because a and b main routes are not part of this contract is the board found on page two of its opinion so the names interpretation relies on you ignoring the notes on elevations four and in as indicated in drawing a thirty eight and a forty is talking about a paint system it may require more than one coat to come up with that individual layer as a point on the specifications but the three major talked about three layers of paint is not talking about  if it was it would have used the word plot so that's our season trepidation is reconciling the notes on sheet eight calling for painting with the notes on eight thirty eight talking about a letter which s r c recently interpret to be a layer of paint  i guess that the work for the regular and counter flashing however you work no twenty eight points to dotted lines which refer to actually had house side wall that issue if it was not on reasonable to read it as a contract to read it with or another we can in retrospect dig through and say we take this in this in this and you can read it the way the navy r appellants interpretation of the contract would cause an unreasonable reading of the drawings as a whole it would render certain provisions of the contract completely unnecessary and it also the government's position is that that that that states rigging should have installed the reply plashing system not paint the walls and if i could me you had a whole series of generalizations about all sorts of things that we've been we've done dinner given no effect or conflicting and cetera if one adopts the contractor's interpretation but you just made generalisations you didn't show us fasteners and sheet metal coping is not necessary for walls that are painted these are the fasteners and the sheet metal coping is only necessary if a waterproofing membrane that needs to be attached to the walls are the building however drawing a thirty eight does not provide for this counter flashing or reglan at the terminations of the base flashing so it's removing points to new work no twenty eight which is a bug the termination in drawing earned joint appendix three eighty three there's a picture of the side of the penthouse wall additionally the new work no twenty eight which points to the dotted line in order to understand the drawings as a whole because new work no twenty eight states recreating contents that new work not twenty eight provides for this counterfeit lashing that would have been necessary if the walls were p and in addition to join appendix three eighty three if you turn to the prior drawing drawing a thirty seven eighty three dr a thirty seven specifically refers to the side of the penthouse wall which gives in detail what is necessary and in providing counter flashing and irregular i thought you just agreed that we don't have any walls an issue here we only have to and i'm i'm new work no twenty eight which points to dotted lines the same language is used in new work no twenty four on drawing a thirty seven which refers to the side of the main penthouse wall honor but i'm trying to explain what new work no twenty eight is referring to since states roofing has put that test argues that that is that that that's the provision for the counter flashing i'm not reasonable and acceptable and needs to be rejected serve the additional cost is borne by entirely by the contractor when it comes out there are abuse aspects of  interpretation and making the situation as a whole including the walkman including the fact that there was paint on a and b which are not now at issue and everything else we still need to understand that the contract reading was unreasonable state surfing's interpretation is and reasonable it's and reasonable as i have tried to explain because it renders certain the government made a bad mistake here in that the specification was supposed to describe the requirements or the rather proof membranes that the government wanted on parapet inner walls but through some follow up in the preparation of the contract documents the specification entirely omitted what those memories needed to look like and what kind of materials they needed to be made out of and how sick they needed to make the meet and so forth and so i'm wondering whether in light of the fill your to have a specification covering the membranes that doesn't add to the reasonable ness of the interpretation of contract is over one silent could reasonably think that that apply rather something different is in the back of some government employees hid who just neglected no you're on our states ripping interpretation does not make sense it's not reasonable and so even if a and b were painted prior to it pursuant to a prior contract that has nothing to do with the results at issue sure they saw what was done on a and b but this contract specifically referred to roussel see through jet they needed to do their due diligence review the contract runs and specifications astronomers want to add on the ambiguity as pointed out by judge newman and the chief judge not only where a and b painted recently existing conditions of roof some see through j were painted states ripping had done over nine hundred government review projects in the past and knew how to america was in the past doesn't address the comment regarding the sheet metal coping as the chief judge pointed out you very well could have sheet metal coping on wells that are painted medical being provided to slant the water to run off so you didn't have a harness on the surface you didn't have so there's nothing inconsistent or surplusage about new work no twenty eight on sheet eight thirty eight i also want to point out that this court has previously found that the layer can be used in the context of painting their case that i don't think we said in our brief  rb right construction company nine one nine f second one five six nine and that case dealt with specifications that were specifically talking about coats of paint and in the descent and pointing out a hypothetical the judge mentioned that it wouldn't make sense to put a layer of latex paint on top of a layer of acrylic paint so that the context of referring to paint as layers is not foreign and as our season term patient was a coat of paint is an individual application  pain however the specification especially in light of the fact required a twenty mil thick system which is extremely thick very well could have required more than one coat of paint to come up with an individual layer there are three layers specified in the specification and we believe it was reasonable to interpret the different use of layer in ply especially when on the same contract drawing as having different meanings i will answer c agrees that the one with the boy with the contract documents may not be crystal clear  requirement is reasonable and to the extent that this court does find that there are any ambiguity they certainly don't qualify as glaring contradictions as this court has pointed out is required for pete man to get with these and therefore they're late  documents and they are protected if they going to simply construe in their own favor and ambiguity equally susceptible to another construction because ambiguities in contracts drawn by the government are construed against the drafter we also cite it in a brief cas finds that it's better than s r c stats not the test the test is simply whether as our season target taishan of these contract wrongs is reasonable no more than that and here we contend that it is all right i think we've got both sides well in mind thank you very much