case has been dismissed on a motion to dismiss for failure to timely filing with the court a claim what i want to do your onus is just kind of take a four point roadmap here and that being the first thing is to lay down some background with some dates which i think are going to be relevant in this analysis the second is really a clean reading of the law as it applies to the contract and to any contractor that's in a similar situation  from elation we're just going to and you're saying that this should have been a premonition of my convenience the it never supplied the information that that that to us your letters are well and so there was a window of opportunity in which we were  when i say we the contractors waiting for response either from the v a or from the contracting officer and so what's relevant here is the setting up of that background your honor and that is that you receive this first terminations on august thirty first two thousand and twelve which is important in that the full term a nation and again we should look at as a court is a language and it says in that default that the contractor has the right to appeal under dispute either by by falling for the pill or by presenting information adequate to support a claim for reconsideration or something of that nature will and that was in the works and that was the issue which you never did do that well there was no opportunity facts and that that's what it is that the the information was being gathered and i'll tell your honor that just proffering which is what irrelevant at this point but the the contractor was gathering information to present and then received the final letter which the contractor is saying is the final letter letter in may may fifth two thousand and thirteen and in that letter again the language being important the letter specifically says there that the under the disputes cause that you have the right to appeal seven one hundred four subsection b which would then be the twelve month period to bring you to the court claims to file the complaint and that that was the main letter not the august thirty first letter and so with the issue i think that i try to present under that backdrop is that you have a contractor who receives a letter says default terminate you for contractors simple contractor raises service animals not sophisticated construction contractor or anything else for that matter they figure out when to second what happened why this happened or why or why it's contract being cancelled when they finally have an opportunity to put that together they say wait a second ok we understand we went through several iterations of this contract this contract can be terminated but not for call for convenience now that issue isn't raised until the contracting officer actually received something back from the contractor so there's no objection to saying ok we're going to terminate the contract both sides could be in agreement there but until a claim is actually made to say we're ok with you terminating but it's going to have to be one of convenience and not of calls and then we have that discussion and so in essence where i think moving to really now the second point because i know your honour's are well versed with forty one u s c seventy one which is which applicable pursuant to the far fifty two to three three dash one is for us in this country is that we now move to malone and malone's project and this whole concept and i don't think malone got it wrong the truth is i think malone got it right and what malone was saying was something very simple is that this contractor didn't file a claim before and this is an important distinction going to the board not the court of claims so this contractor didn't make a prior to be coming here my one never stood for the promise that we're going to retract or make smaller the right of the litigant to go through the other portions of the law and really pursuant to that if you go to and i think it's even more important more loan itself quoting from page one four four four court says because the claims court has held tha it does not have jurisdiction over the validity of a default terminations absent a claim for money by either contractor or the government the government contends that the board does not have jurisdiction over the case and this is a critical point in malone and it should have never been expanded in the way it was through the rest of the cases and now we're headed down this jogger not passed in which the courts have realized that there is an error problem here and we've created this polling period which is again another coming down this kind of poisonous progeny and that is this is what the once the court has not yet considered nor does it now consider the validity of the court of claims precedence just noted the long court never touched anything that had to do with the court or client and all they said was something very simple that the board that the contractor does not have to be bounced around to the contracting officer and then back to go to the board under  default and so doesn't moan say that when the contracting officer issues of written decision terminating a contract for a fall that is that is a government claim officer you have not the days go to an agency board or you have twelve months to go to court a federal claim after receiving the written decision from the contracting office and the issue with that is is just that malone does i understand and i guess what i'm trying to bring up is that this case is not one that's been let's call it unique before this court nor has it been unique before the federal court of claims and this type of case will keep coming up again and again until the last point  clear and that is that either the law directly states in writing asked by congress somewhere in a statute with like families members it meant that a contract terminated for a default much shall be filed immediately with the court of claims that's not what it says when you go to seven want to three or seven want to four and so what we have under those is that you have to make the claim to the contracting officer and so my point is exactly as malone said look we're not going to make you go back to the contracting officer we understand you've got a claim you made a claim here that's sufficient we're not making smaller jurisdiction w government and i went through it so i guess what i'm kind of getting to and in that room is case and why that's important is just that if you take around us your honor and you look at really the communications that happened back and forth there were several communications between the contractor and the government and the contracting office ok you're into your rebuttal carla so let's let's stop here thank you  please the court the trial court correctly dismissed guardian angels complaint for lack of jurisdiction because guardian angels failed to file that complaint within twelve months of receiving the termination contracting officer in fact we are here today because guardian angels refuses to acknowledge that terminations for default is a government claim that it's final an appealable to the court at all claims and if the contractor chooses to appeal it to the corporal claims it must the final decision it's not a final decision the only way it could possibly be a final decision would be if the contracting officer had reconsider her earlier terminations were to fall but there's no evidence that that occurred once you provide that information i will look at it in a court and i'll respond in accordance with the federal acquisition regulations the federal acquisition relating regulations don't say anything about reconsideration that's an idea that comes from the claims court decisions so reading that her letter it appears she thought that they had submitted a claim and as a contract counselor she was going to respond to it once she received the supporting documentation but because she never received it she never back through the reasons that she made to terminate termination for default decision in the first place which would mean she'd like they have to go to the contract pile look through the things that she looked at and come into the terminations for default position there's no evidence she did  says the v a is unable to reason that we evaluate her response or claim doesn't that mean that they would back to the fall and to see what's there and they say well there's not enough here for us to regional evaluate your claim give us more information doesn't that we open the the inquiry i think she's looking at their claim that they meant it and she's saying i can't evaluate this without the supporting documentation there's no evidence she went back and looked at her final and anything you know what she would have done had they provided the information it is purely speculation and that's not enough to when she looked at it at the letter that was settled and based on a level letter she cannot reasonabl y make a decision one way or the other and she's asking for additional information doesn't that roll back the the default from a nation timing now because what she says is i can't make an evaluation and once i receive this decision so i wasn't the appellant on notice that whatever letter that and file back in february had never actually been evaluated and now it's not going to be evaluated exactly they responded to judge raines question with any time somewhere in perfect reconsideration request with not only an argument of the claim but also all kinds of supporting documentation then contracting officer will in fact reconsider initial decision to terminate and then that will told the clock but in this particular instance that didn't happen there was  can or will entertain that request for reconsideration that's exactly right that's what the reconsideration if the contract now to receive all the requests and at that point maybe they have two choices they can just send a quick letter back saying i got your request for reconsideration and i'm not going to consider i'm not going to reconsider my decision or they could say oh i got your request and i'm going to reconsider it and i'll get back to you later and make the cases specifically talk about that they spent in the country no some time reviewing their request and reevaluating the earlier decision but here not only did she not do that she explicitly said she didn't do that she didn't even have the information that they never provide it this is really case it's not an agency filing deadline into deadline once you receive a final decision to go to the federal court acquittal claims or to the board which we could have done in the ninety day period but if they don't go to the board or go to the court of federal planes then it's ju reconsider her terminations for the fall or whether she thought oh this is a separate claim they have some temporary claim for some separate damages that they want i think it's hard to answer that question but in this i basically i think you have answer the factual conclusion that the that the contracting officer reviewed the letter couldn't evaluate it asked for more information and stated once i receive that information i will evaluate it in accordance with the federal acquisition regulations point though we have an opening pending reconsideration reconsideration that would be one way to look at it but there's it's even debatable whether this was even a request for reconsideration because planck aram's or guardian angel never used that term and the the what they refer to as a claim in the contract nasir referred to it as i received your claim but i'm one able to evaluate it i guess there's no regulation or anything like that when it comes to reconsideration requests of contracting officers decision determin that's right it's not in the federal acquisition in regulations or out of i don't know what to call it unregulated practice it's well it's where i'm from these claims court decisions your honor ok and what is the i i don't know the answer that but i can tell you how it's worked in the reconsideration under these decisions is that if the contract announcer does reconsider that decision then if the court finds that the country o reconsidered that i understand the practice of how it works i'm trying to figure out where what's the source for a lot of that you can even toll well it comes from these claims court decisions that the agency can change its mind were change its decision within a reasonable time and then it revert if it reevaluated the information and comes to a new decision regardless of whether it's the same decision or a different decision that new decision since the twelve month period so in this situation had there been let's say some submission of information and let's say it's totally immaterial situation the way the sufficiency i mean maybe if it's totally irrelevant there's a little bit of weight if there's no information there's no weight but still the contracting officer makes a decision as to reconsideration would never be a final letter of the contracting law she says of basically she says i haven't maybe she says simonson more information i'm evaluated this and there's not enough for me to make a final determination she doesn't say that but that's what her first letter essentially says and then the second letter she says i looked at this and you haven't sent me any information whatsoever so i'm not going to make a we consider a she and i haven't and will not make a request isn't that final no you aren't i don't think she said that she looked at it she basically said i sent you a letter earlier and i asked for this information and i never received it and then she goes on to say i haven't reconsidered my decision and i'm not going to reconsider codified in any way shape or form and there's no way that really a novice contractor comes in and says ok here's a towing period or here's what this letter is and clearly the correct and they never happened and i guess what i'm expressing to your honor is that directly within the statutes the far provisions and everything else without going back into the euro's case and doing a complete case law search there's nothing that comes in and directly says to that contracting officer we're able bodied counsel who's there to assist him that you only have twelve months even when the contracting officer says i'm waiting for response after meth or why did your  service animals it took quite some time to be able to come up with the money to fund a litigation against a federal government and so in essence at the end of the day your honor says that the i believe what we see here is really the major travesty is it's not even heard there's no testimony taken the day in court has been removed and that is that is the issue that i would suggest that your honour's go back and look at malone instead of just moving under this