work or restoration but i think the bulk of the work was done for overtime provided information to thema answered all questions and documented the basis of that rate and then fema took that information reviewed it out of the first level reviewed it at the second level approved that thirty six percent final done everything was fine until thema audited this project which started in late one thousand nine hundred not the auditors came out and without any new or different information essentially question false or maybe i'm not saying it's fraudulent actually it's a chaotic things people have different theories and people can argue about but it but if the accounting is wrong why can't the government  the district there's there's two ways you could do this one way is you could take as a good example to a person works forty hours a week to get your solutions to take that number you can just spread it over the straight time and have a number accounting treatment for how to do that there's another equally accepted accounting treatment to take that vacation so what you do is you say how many hours did the person work straight time in overtime for the year you take that number and divide total you take the total hours straight time and overtime and then you take that vacation and distributed over all the hours is one more right than the other it's a hostile recovery paper maps that did the district actually spend the money a reasonable rate and that's what they do for everybody and that's what the record in this case it's done consistently for everybody that that's an appropriate methodology and the regulations actually specifically recognize that there can be al don't think that the court's questions are that different from the position that we're waiting i think i'd probably agree with ninety five percent of what the courts are saying that the question is why is this case different if there was just a big pack of submissions and it just went through there i mean it's called micro computer technology versus riley it's one thirty ninth third chance forty four here's what happened in that case there was a educational computer education company were providing training for christian inmates and they were getting federal government money if you held grants and they were audited the facts in terms of the way this unfolded very similar to what happened in this case so they were getting these pell grants and auditor  inspector general and said this is inappropriate you have to refund this money and the court drilled into it and said some of these are clear violations and you have to give the money back but with regard to tuition there was an existing  of the department of education that said that we're not going to that the way it was being done was permissible going to be done we're not going to reverse ourselves now what makes this case unique is the enormous dialogue that happened between the parties to establish this rate this wasn't just the submission here's what our rate is this is what's that's why this is problematic and i think i hope that at least in part answers your honour's question the point of the exercise here was that this was interpreted of their regulations and they had interpreted in one way first series of years then they turned around four years later on  what i thought you're getting reimbursed for expenses in the past that were actually done for your hour spent making repairs yes or you as opposed to budgeting for something you're going to  way that the just really did it at that time it took all of these costs and then and it's an actuarial process to come up with this number so if that money gets taken away from the district now it's a lot now explain before about the cost allocution that was done what you were getting reimbursed for am i right it was like repairs in the past in other words it wasn't like famous we're going to we're going to have reimburse you for storm damage you haven't yet made the repairs but you can go out and do this then the other thing now we did the work first because the work first so i just don't i don't understand your argument well on that point that that you budgeted for it it was already done what i'm saying is that the rate that was being used to your list arrives from a process he tried to take a different way the money steer was actually spent by the district on these benefits so when in my job against that money four years later it has an impact on us because the numbers that we're using they're so i mean they want to take eight hundred thousand dollars away he's got even the thousand dollars of benefits that are  in this case we just used an accounting of the disk read those over the out now we're in a saying this will pass two that we don't think those were actually incurred so you lose those and our point is that nothing changed so for them to do that now based please the court katherine hancock for a federal at the leaves of the federal emergency management agency i'd like to first start off addressing judge old questions i think you hit the nail on the head your honor here it was primarily projects for only overtime said well let me addressed the fringe benefit rates but i think we'll answer your question hopefully here in that case they document they provided initially on the approval of the g s r is that a thirty six percent rate of plot they applied a blended rate and they hadn't used that in the past but when the oh i g went in and actually looked at the cost documented that were paid out that actual pay rolls that were paid in fringe benefits to the vacation or something you don't go and say well that wasn't a cost this is an accounting that i don't know what it is in the regulations that i've seen that say that you can't is when you attribute properly all the costs that go into a particular project and some of those are going to be actual pay rolls where you know dollars at the end of the day and some of them are going to be all over h honor i think our argument is that because it is swiss primarily overtime work and of course they were entitled to get fringe benefits to be reimbursed for fringe benefits for the or time worked but you know they were allocating straight time i think if i understand i am so in this case if i understand the problem it's i worked eight hours a day and then i go out and work overtime tonight and the government's picking up my overtime because  only cover the emergency work which is considered the overtime work for the restraining i guess there's a category you work in category at cork category the work is emergency repair work thank  i believe in the administrative record starting at page one eighty three and that washington state public assistance to manual indicates that out in their  cost i believe category the working category at work and sets out this distinction between over time and straight time and i believe it's also in the state administrative plan which is in the record apt t one for plan grant and even if it could be done in different ways i don't see how one can say the agencies arbitrary and capricious and ultimately deciding that they made a mistake on the thirty six percent unless it's two thirty second points one it wasn't an oversight by spin that this is not a field error this was reviewed by fema on three different projects actually in some cases three different levels of m b eighty seven eleven v five says shall be allocated so it's mandatory not discretionary fema get this right the first time for whatever reason the auditors saw it differently in two thousand but this was correctly interpreted the first time around four years later