for hurricanes knew it was a company that is story going on back to hurricane andrew had gone out and placed temporary housing which amounted to mostly trailers and park trailers and that's where they and it maintained while the people were living and trying to get their houses rebuilt and at the end of that contract they would go out and the activate and bring them into a staging area knew we had a lot of experience in doing this sort of thing unfortunately during this time period it was a time period where there was a lot of changes going on and fema and there arose a discrepancy between the staging lots where these trailers will be taken and how clean they want to those things to be and how repaired they want to be versus what new a had signed onto you tell us what you believe provide require what new way was required to do what they should have had to do they were under their contract what they call in the business a wipe down contract where they go out with a pickup truck full of locks out from underneath one of these temporary mobile home there trailers really and do a wipe down they go in they have to flush the toilet they have to move that's just it which is exactly a lot of these trailers that they used to use didn't have any kind of  that what the board says and a lebanese the only evidence in this is your evidence about that they were properly checked in so forth for not having additional stuff hadn't been done to them the only evidence consistent generic anecdotal so it's a long time drew it's a lot of work it's a lot a lot of receipts that ronny and three large miners but if it gets down to an issue were reason i brought this appeal judge was because the language of this peels court or the board judge is basically there's contracting officer so if fifty other random government employees tell you you've got to do more work but they're not the contracting officer they don't have the authority to approve it it's a really seemingly unfair legal doctrine when it comes to small contractors like you're referring to but it is the law that we have no choice but to follow that the only person with these sort of by the government to additional fees is the contracting officer and in this case i thought the claims court was looking and saying there's no evidence to contracting officer told you to do these additional things that in fact when you brought to his attention or when your company did the fact that more things were being required he said don't do  not do any additional work and that was the record evidence with regard to what the contractor officer authorized and or required you to do and that's i think you might you may be right that there's some evidence that some people told you to do things that they're  ratification elements the contract amounts or veil kooker and in the head contracting officer mr mccreery who had page a forty four in appendix four forty four states i mean the question was  your understanding did you see the memorandum by mr jeffrey harrison that talked about it didn't appear that gail cokers letter that was your letter trying to correct things and or average to fix this work answer yes ok so you would agree that somehow the people at staging were still continuing this new way another contract to do more extensive clean repairs and this sort of thing you understand that right he says yes he was mcqueary who was up here in maryland that was the chief contractor not so in the institutionalize analysis the unauthorized party is the logistics that they're saying do the sex work we want to except the trailer but when the contract enough circular deposition and or testimony minute she's the one that can change the contract she's one has to authorize that she would be that the partner she knew that they were asking them to tilt continue to do more actual work there for that that comes up to the level of an institutionalized revocation really at the time afterwards saying that you know she knew it when it was going on she wrote the letter to logistics they had meetings with just they tried to fix it didn't work with just six continued in fact there was testimony over the just expressing what said we're going to do what we want to do how do we know it's extra work i mean it's up to you to show what the contract required and that something beyond that was demanded in these inspections and what's your evidence of that i mean you can't even point out what the contract requires you know the contract it's in the it's in the scope of work on a contract it can we cannot can even you don't show it to us i mean how do how does it had to the new thing to wipe them out as opposed to a thorough cleaning i mean that's the that's the first and essential part of the argument is that you only have to do a white you've gotta stablish where did you establish that the contract absolutely they all get hung up on this idea that when you take the trailer in and it gets rejected supposedly a rejection slip gets put together and it comes out on the computer records and in the crunch of all these hurricanes and always trailers those written records weren't being made number one number two if they got to a place where every time knew it took a trailer and they said we're not accepting this you've got to do a thorough cleaning cinema why that was in mr miller's test so then they go in a completely clean and he writes a letter to cope or but the point being the point i want to make your honour's is that there are rejection records and each one of the c e o decision later and then the judge's decision later they come back and do this analysis that since there's no computer rejection letter that she there were no problems as a trail anything she said in ten of the counters returned used a staging area in a reasonably clean condition ok let's assume that that's the time track and what's the evidence that more than that was require all the testimony by mr miller and all the receipts showing all the extra things we had to do which is a record was just replaced with that kind of testimony and government never brought any testimony in that said we didn't have to in fact the government was letter that you just referred us to maybe  that the inspectors required more than she'd set forth from the testimony of mr kim miller who was the manager on the contract and he didn't want any specific units where there was an extra acquirement he did not tie  they say since there's no objections they didn't do extra work there's no objections because we didn't do the extra work that's really important point underlying point in analyzing this kept going back to judge moore's quested who told you to do the extra or the logistics that cokers the c e o and those people have the authority but they knew coper knew these guys were required to continue to do extra work and they never stop where is that evidence exactly because the only thing like the letter of the six ninety six she says do not do anything else and then i understand there is some evidence to suggest she went and had communications before just telling them to require you to do additional work it may not have been successful you may lot more of a hassle to deal with the logistics people that it is just do the work i get all of that but the problem is it's the ratification i don't see the evidence jury basis for ratification and unfortunately like i said in government contract law the only government inspectors went beyond what the contracting officer described as a contract kwan's without be part of it right there or there's no reference to the to the standard that the contracting officer articulated is just they say extra work you know that that made their view of what's extra work and the contracts you of what's extra work aren't necessarily the same thing but as the evidence came in from the contractor in our primary case mr  through each point and that was all before the judge saying we had to rent lots we had to rent equipment and to do a thorough cleaning chemicals we had to build a septic system because we're using so much water doing a thorough cleaning we had to take units back or back for that was all substantial evidence before the court the fema did not bring in any evidence to refute any of that so as i understand that the scope of what the judge has to look at what you know she basically came in with the no evidence ruling on these sort of things saying that that  the one part that i want to quote in page forty six crew court said in our present any documentary or test many evidence whatsoever that substantiate to support has cost claims that goes to the costings but what bothered me about the decision of the of the court below where i think she made it legal and in reverse where i was she's finding that we didn't have any evidence we brought in huge books now admittedly it was a very clean evidence and there was mistakes in it but as i understand the case law the fact that it's not what we don't have in the record use any showing that new way was instructed to do extra work there's no here's a trailer here's what the work was of yours what it cost us what we do have in the records what appears to be mr miller who's new o is misunderstanding what the contract required and that misunderstandings carried over age nine of new ways brief before this court and it was just believed there was merely a wipe down the scope of work is actually if you agree that the scope of work is it's four pages from the contract and what that section requires among other things is that the contractor ensure that the commode unsanitary line were free of sewage that's on page six sixty nine that the units be winterized which includes all water removed with air pressure from the location where were they were to the fema lot what we also have in the record with respect to suggestion of extra work use simply anecdotal evidence and this is what the board picked up on the anecdotal evidence which when you add it all together reflects about twenty probably less than that because appears to be some overlap some twenty units that may have been rejected because primarily of sewage not being removed from the  holding tanks in the sewage lines but that was a contract requirement it actually was a contract requirement in the testimony was that they thought that went beyond the contract well that's that was mr miller's testimony because he believed only a wipe down was required complaints from mr miller that he would be required to do more than he believed was required to contract the contracting off drugs he wasn't standing there at the inspection stations and she had to do something and that's when she took several affirmative steps one was to meet with the logistics group a d explain to them tears what ought to be inspected of the contract to communicate to mr to mr miller to the letter that we've already looked at at page sixty ninety six ninety six in the record saying all you require know she's articulating with the contract of course is you know holding things at such or and she was responding to a specific question from mr miller about you know what is what is required in these instances and so she's saying that among the other things that you have to do wor holding things that that's what you're limited to look at the contract and that's all that the inspectors were trying to enforce if you look at the what what what was with respect to the twenty instances what do they say was required the requirement that the twenty instances that are new we cite two are located at page seven seventy one to seventy six in the record and there are less than seventy two or it could be seventeen issues of removing sewage things in the holding tank to particular seems to be the problem and then there were three issues of materials left in the or cleaning issues in the living spaces things that she's describing here sweeping on carpets floors back  short handed just saying clean out the holding tank because that's what was that issue the dispute in the record was not whether the sewage lines had to be clean it was whether the holding tank as part of the sewage lines had to be clean and she was saying yes that answering mr miller's question that is what had to be clear natural seemed to be in dispute at the inspectors a she to be a divergence between what the contracting officer required and with the inspectors you know these facts were simply requiring the contractor over for your portion of the contract which is the same as what ms coker was saying which is the same as what's in the board paper the contract there's there's no distinction between what was happening in the field and what was required of the contract the dispute was between in mr miller's mind what a wipe down meant and what was actually required in this contract and so that's why we had this issue in the first place and new way point out you can see that the evidence in the receipts in cost evidence that they introduced but if you look at that w actually introduced was cost that were incurred if we focus just on two thousand and five because while the costs were outside of the relevant year if you just look at those costs it's to do the contract work to clean up the the sewage tanks to to do the basic swe down and we set out the costs that are in there and why what he's charging for to the extent we can even understand it is simply for contract work and nothing more being required to do more work but it was more work than what they were performing not more work than what was in the contract we look at exactly what mr mccurry said that's the distinction he's making the court record is vague testimony but that's what that that's the vagueness in that testimony is he mean by extra work he's saying more work than what you're doing not more work than what's required more work than what's required in the contract if we go to page four ninety six also in the record again still mr mccurry testifying he explains question at the time you left with the information you have would you have recommended a ratification and the answer was with the information that i had at the particular time i would not have recommended ratification so he's clearly saying no they were not doing any extra work with respect to the damages information that new way presented at the trial of this case what it actually submitted was a stack of unsubstantiated tallies adding machine tapes and miscellaneous checks and receipts that couldn't be tied back to what was actually done any particular unit or during a particular scope of work with the damages really lou was simply based contract work mr miller admits much the c e o of new age misses much of page one seventy nine says yes some echoed in that it page seven fifty one fifty two on in the record the unsubstantiate tallies we pulled out a couple examples of the anger sheet that's what you saw if you were sitting at the the trial was just those anguishing tapes you can see not for what they represented to be nobody bought six thousand dollars worth of gas a single philip up for those reasons the findings of the board were correct the board i found the new way did not was not instructed to do any additional work and that it did not present the contracting officer did not allow the benefits to be accepted clearly the contracting officer did not already cover that the actions of the contracting officer officer and there was no one authorized commitment by the field people they were simply enforcing the contract and for that reason  leave because of it they couldn't make the contract pencil out on their we have specific evidence of the number of units they were working on had they testified to the two thousand seven hundred units your honor but they testified they had to do pretty much all they had to do do over and above the contract reforms that you have such testimony yes that's all that when he said we had to go rent a lot to do our own staging area and he said we had to go build the septic tank in the cost of that wind so we had to pull them back and forth that was all