in session mr iraq we're ready for you whenever you're ready good morning your honor and thank you and may please the court this appeal presents a straightforward legal one of those problems which this court has described as a crucial element is that the contractor must have reasonably relied upon its interpretation of the contract indications in this case there is no dispute gramberg however the comparison is problematic for multiple reasons one is comparing the government's interpretation of the contract indications to the the position that the board took here and the grammar take here somehow reduces accuracy why at least in the case where there's no competing better but which may make a very significant difference why isn't accuracy served by saying nobody knows what's actually under the ground we don't we're not going to give the contract right to go in and dig a lot of bore holes to figure that out in advance so what we're going to do is give a is a word a contract in which the price reflects everything that is known everybody acknowledges there is an unknown and once the unknown turns into an unknown because the digging actually starts taking place then a proper accurate reasonable payment will be made for that why isn't that accuracy increasing but i think the problem here honor is that if a contractor is my question is not at the moment pushing back against your argument about what our case law says about the requirements of reasonable reliance on both the  information and other information that the bitter has and i'm also putting aside whether greenberg here in fact acted on reasonably in proceeding on the assumption that the the two bore holes told what it needed to know about how much incompetent rock there was going to be had in the footprint putting that completely aside i just want to focus on your argument about there being an the contract is actually showing what may be underneath the ground they're looking at the closest borns they're also looking at the boards that are further away that give much more context to what is going to be under the underneath the ground and based on that they're going to make their best guess as to what they think is the job would cost them and what they're going to get it and now if on the other hand the board test were adopted you could have a rd bit of like greenburg come in and say we're going to ignore parts of the of the contract that we don't think help us with it will then enable us to underbid these other two contractors who are trying to comply with the difference i can this is test and do the best question of sort of you know negligence but rather willful blindness when there was a whole host of contract indications the contract specifically said look at the other thirty eight or forty born from the u s and  question and that is you know one of the things that bothers me about this case is that there's repeated discussion about it at the board making an equitable adjustment which is what the board was asked to consider in this case and yet all borings even if they had had looked at every single thing that it would be reasonable to look at at most it would have been a twenty percent differential or a ninety percent differential that's really on and to be clear we can rock should have been expected when greenberg failed failed completely to analyze the contract indications it's a crucial prong of the test even if it only sounded there was a half a foot of one foot in constant rock one of the requirements a crucial one was that you must be reasonable in your line in order to prevail can it can i ask one hundred and eleven quick question i hope it's a quick question does the record make clear that when every sub contractors job and how much he was going to to cost the general contractor i don't know whether that's the case in this particular situation where greenberg made specifically that ok this is was that it wasn't that the contractor had not intentionally underbid but it seems to me that at a point according to the record or at a point the contractor was advised to add an additional amount in an expectation of problems with iraq and said we don't do business that way and in effect then made a bid lower than it would have been underbidding in this case and what i said was that i don't think that there are specific evidence that they intentionally underbid it however the manner in which they did the contract and what they relied upon what admissions were with regard to what they what they looked at certainly suggested that that there was an intention to sort of put on blinders and ignore the rest of these borings that may have suggested something different so i agree you say a multitude of boring laws from other projects as was apparently attempting to nullify the policy of the differing site conditions cause what's the basis for that statement and what  supports your belief that the government deliberately did not take those new borings as a way of flying that policy it's not that they didn't take the boring t million dollars project they did not take one born into things online or when or when they are have be was going out or about that time in additional borings were sufficiently close enough to the construction site that they should have been taken into consideration of what the board when they came up with the two and a half addition there was all those within one football field let's say within one football field being three hundred feet here on of that we're talking about that we're talking about close to one of the things that everybody seems to be missing is when the contrail when the government gave these contracts indications they had h twelve and only those two borns showing how subtle it is that there was no in company run photographs that's the only two photographs of the actual abo that were taken to show that there were no fractions no voice or anything else ok to show the indication what the government i don't want to say expert because you and that's where if i go back to form a question of a sauna is that what they were doing is trying to bo questions being raised another another question that that i just discussed with the government council were there details in your bid that showed  the government that you were not counting on anything more than five feet solid rock holes that you needed  to conduct your own test springs in the actual footprint or could you or other bidders have asked the government to conduct test new test borings in the footprint so that there would be so that there would be more information directly on the plot of land that had to be dug into  all right so you know this go on and go well that's why i asked about about seeking permission or asking the government to do what was amazing to me and i'm sorry brown can i need i need to really ask the question so that you hear it and maybe specifically answer it could you have requested that either you be allowed to to do new boring pre pre contract or could you have asked the government to do new borings i don't believe cause the  force to both sides you know that all these cases talk about a poster versus united states where the full court that i know what does go is but davis borings that may have been five hundred to a one thousand feet away ok all of a sudden the more than three hundred feet away still the better ability and that's why the only way a reasonable better and objective reasonable better iraq with this report of two minutes thank you ana i just like to take a half step back here to make it clear that we are not asking this court to break new ground here although we are asking is that all they spent their entire very making that effort to show that really what the board said about their reliance was was not supported by substantial evidence but we showed that there was an enormous amount of evidence that supported the conclusion