what says that this provision allowing the splitting of claims was taken out they said the amendment believed in the original section and the s thirty one seventy eight is out of concern the section might be interpreted as permitting and splitting an individual claim these are all separate clanked they all except one that's a different question but but i read this legislative history as being very clear that congress is not intending by the provisions that were made when the operative they came out the same contract judges if you follow this line of reasoning you can only bring one claim under contract in the second plane comes out the same fact is going to be the same artes it's going to be same contract same project every time the question is we have europe in an attempt to see what claims under a single contract between two war and the questions is that a miss of the general rule they didn't contain or is not decision if i don't agree with it i have an option i have a choice to make if the election dr i can't in ninety days i can take it to the board a contract appeals if i don't do that for whatever reason i can take it to that i have a year to take it to the court it's my choice it's a separate claim because i it is a separate contract now if a decision a separate docket number will be applied to it it's going to come out the same contract whatever conduct i've ever worked with of the facts may overlap for example we have a claim for overzealous inspection for the entire contract in this large blank in one of the eight claims there wasn't an element of overzealous inspection own for small are small part of the contract and judge and judge miller pointed that out but the the board did ruminative know where that matters or not but that issue was never involved in any of the other seven claims and this is for the entire contract that was for a small part they wouldn't accept the new construction time a short like playing so overlap yeah but it's but it's they're totally different in that i'm saying that they well yes exactly we saw the new construction was completed on shirton day we thought it was completed and we couldn't work on the second part of this contract until they accepted the new construction so we said we're through it's done it's ready to come in and look at it and accept it but they didn't do that they spent eighty two days looking at it before they accept it the board conduct feels aggrieved that they delayed us you know that has to tell was only a small element able to file the plane under the same contract one plane in the before the board and one claim before the court a federal action that seems to me that's quite correct there are some times in which you can have two separate point or single contract but it does not imply seems to me that you can all stick that it does not imply that you can all will split claims under a single company and it but not c not if it was actually adjudicated not if it's exactly the same or nearly the same factual allegation if you'll let me explain the claims before the war and then the claim that we took to the court there not the same fashion allegation sure they all came out the same contract but listen here's what we took to the board we put but couldn't couldn't be any of us that have been of claims been raised in the first two no sir absolutely not the first the large claim was pending waiting a contracting office decision we started these small claims earlier and i had already scheduled started scheduling the trials and accelerated type trials at the board before we even submitted the large play by the submit of the large claim or only or so that could have been heard together right i could  well actually i was looking at the clear language of the c d s a and the clear language is that you're allowed an either or choice of forum but it doesn't say you can bring multiple claims from the same facts to different different courts and i think that's what the appellant tried to do here is to bring multiple causes of action on the same transactional facts to different forms at different times so you bas contract to build a building for the army in washington d c and the contract also covers building a building in baltimore two separate projects but they have to bring the claims the facts are different no i don't believe they would because that i could see as being two separate projects the facts would be different the witnesses would be different they could bring a claim in the s p ca and bring a separate claim on the baltimore project in the  appeal but here you don't have that situation because here you have the same contract now granted in the other one you do too but also substantial amount of overlapping facts basically this isn't the armament they bring like this defect there is there is more extensive facts in the court of federal claims in play but it includes most of the facts that were before the a s b ca and the other point is under traditional principles of race to fata they could have brought this claim to the board at the same time they brought those other claims there was no jurisdictional barrier to the board hearing this this november seventh two thousand and three claim at the same time that they presented their other nine claim i think about this your arse when we went to the case to the board with our small claims we arranged to have all the small excel reclaims tribe and a hundred eighty days which the c d a provide and that's what we did small claims if we had appealed our large claim later on to the board and it would never have been tried but the small claims because of the size it cannot be tried as an accelerated claim it would have had been tr years later and because of its size it would taken three or four or five judges to decide it not a single judge that decided all the others to judge miller's whole concept that you had to try together is wrong it would never have happened that way at board party from having their day in court and that's what's happening here my client lost almost a million dollars on a contract ordered for a million two because of the navy and we're not going to have an opportunity to recover that unless th have not offended impossibilities formant and they've not the thing is over zealous inspection for the contract they defeated it only one of the eight small claims there's no privy just to the government if we don't get our day in court and who has been