that would be something that would be would there be something that would be a transshipment which would not be subject to p p p and then if it didn't need to be packed if it didn't  minute really is just something that comes into the depo that needed to go somewhere else immediately it never stored in the warehouse that's why it's called not accountable material so if you had a transshipment but you didn't have to pack it you make things into adjectives that aren't really adjectives if you read the plain language of the contract it's packing transshipment will be done under five five one now let's get back to the economics a little bit because i think it's important for you to understand this if the contractor only anticipates packing one in ten items it's part of the issue function you know most of the things come right off the shelf or they slap a label on it and send it off but if a contractor looks at the contract and says ok this is not covered under claim one this is not covered under and one engines are covered under  broken items are covered under claim one i'm not going to include any cost to pack those things under clean one i'm only going to include costs that i really really like to work i have to pack them so in the example of one in ten items needs to be packed under plan one under the contractor's interpretation which doesn't include transshipments it cost twenty dollars to pack that item and the price of a clean one is going to include two  because you can recover that two dollars and over the ten items that needs to be packed but there's only two dollars that that is in the contract or proposal for packing those can so if three items need to be the panel may or may not have to reach it is late and ambiguity the reasonable a severe interpretation and whether you were lied on ok and now you point and  correct me if i'm wrong you point to a number of places in the record where i think you say the record reflects that your clients bid did not reflect packing think in somewhere in your brief and you point to this and you say well this document shows five thousand and seventy seven transshipments and their inclusion oh two now the government comes back and says yes you're saying you're saying mr norman that there's nothing in this document that reflects a limitation to a the type of items now under our first regiment are concerned as a matter of fact if you look at five  the kind of marching through through the findings here there are two findings in the record and i'm looking i guess if you know the attachment to your brief  five and a seven finding fourteen on page eighty five and finding twenty two on page eighty seven these findings both would i think in the government i think points to them would lend support to the your intimate or they show the board saying you didn't rely on your interpretation what is your answer to these these two findings fourteen and twenty two a couple of points the government never maintained but you could look at these documents and come at the conclusion the board made information one of the pages had to do with traffic management which other involved packing it all i mean remember transshipments are handled they have to be taken they would have to be taken and put on the back of the back of the truck that would come and points to i guess the documents twenty two forty six or five hundred fourteen i think and i understand that you know that the key point in my mind at least is that the bat did include any packing materials or labor in clean one for packing transshipment so every transhipment packs under clinton won it loses money because there's no money  transcripts and that's the nub of the issue and you can look at all of that as a back up documents which are some are clear and some are not we think that the one proposal back a document that is clear at least with some additional explanation which we have in our brief is if you look at the cost breakout for packing only under clinton one there had snow packing labor tranship and that couldn't be a clear expression of the contractors interpretation at the time as to what it understood the judge looked at a couple of little back up documents that it interpreted as meaning otherwise but we've explained in our brief why the judge has read those documents and the government never contended this is an important point to we've been at this for a long time it said if the requirements and five five one it's not in clean one they put the price they didn't include any cost for packing transshipments and one then after the contract the government said no no no that's included and not only that they say it was included they paid back the truck up and had labatt packed all of these transshipments essentially for nothing because it wasn't recovering the cost of  point one point three it's another carve out as to what's covered under clinton to basically it's saying you know does this work isn't covered under this pact and here it doesn't negate the fact that the requirement is covered under five five when it example it's possible even under the government's interpretation that the contractor would do care care of items in storage repacking the minimum military packing levels under claim to as long as it took more than an hour per location so that's an example of where that last line that the government likes to rely on it does not cover all possible scenarios and that would be under five five one but it would not be within the scope of the last sentence  so therefore you say five four three one can't mean five four five five one includes only the things in that sentence correct or of let me ask you quickly in a question about the each issue as it d you agree with the government the government brings out a couple of examples of application of your view as to each one is with the respect  to the beds in which you charge for every bag and the others with respect to the i think it was the wire which you charge by the foot i'm glad you asked that question because i really want to get this point in the government set a unitary price for everything twenty five dollars and thirty four cents and if you look at the record at age twenty six ninety it lists some of the common things that are packed under twenty two in that list there's an packed a thousand objections it's the government that would cost the contractor about a half a million dollars to pack the spawn the government's own estimates the contractor would be paid twenty five thousand dollars so the contractor to pack that work is losing almost to happen only in dollars you've got to pack a lot of waterproof bags washers and other small things to come out economically in the same place and this is the scheme that the government created but they're happy to pay for things that cost half a million dollars when they only have to pay twenty five thousand but they are they complain about paying for paying for packing water proof bags and some exorbitant price but the government only has itself to blame for the labatt was just trying to do what i thought it had to do and it was it looks bright and the deadline and i'm not ninety six thousand by counting by the huge well let me let me give you an answer that the definition of each she plate strip or length so that was an exception to the rule in ninety nine percent of the cases we're talking about beaches but sometimes the government issues things that are in a quantity that is not designated as in each sometimes  so governor thank you for you've gone over your time michael about three minutes but we will restore your three minutes of a bottle because you had some some questions from the from the panel and we'll hear from the charged for the minimum military backing of off base transshipments and the the answer lies in the plain language of the contract there's not the in in big us about what minimum military packing is three governs packing in packaging of issues and it says packing a packaging shall be accomplished to minimum military requirements that tells us that minimum military and that is the signal that is what tells the contractor if i have an issue which is an obvious tranship the only way that that it's going to be charged clint to drippy a net is if it's above minimum military so is it your position that the reference to minimum military packing in five five one only includes the four for me try again this it's an important point etc if i understand your argument you're saying when you get to five four one three and you see down here that there is a reference to five by one which is the c b you see that it says quint two addresses and then you have a narrow category of cases you say that's all that five five one refers to and therefore that's all we have to pay under clinton correct we would say that i don't think that's entirely after all right how is it because one way is wrong because that's what i so we're we're not placing any limit on the p p and work that's because to be going on what we are saying is there's a reason why we have this special function and that's five point five one section so special collection this is a a what we make of it or it is probably two things were the reference to minimum military requirements f and g that makes sense because what epping g condition items are are items that are damaged that need to have special care so it would make sense that they would far under twenty five one if you have it because if there is going to take more time it's going to you're going to have to follow certain guidelines for the so it makes sense that you would that would fall under that requirement for a member somebody agrees that five five one does include those things the question is does it include anything beyond those things specifically minimum military packing that subject to  this is that is that consistent list all of the demonstrates a five in five point five point one point one point two points so it's a different category it's a different animal it wouldn't fall under five four one three and then that all right so that explains in that interim graphs and what about the support of made up does that and anything that is not that but falls under five point five one then would require that sort of active process or function what do you make of the of the language that judge thrice and brought up of the beginning of the argument with your adversary in the five point five point one talks about the p we're saying we are reading the contract in its entirety and we're not adding or subtracting words to get to bootstrap to a result that we want but the you're position and i think there is as well  and m does not have to be performed on particular materiel then five five one doesn't apply right and the charge doesn't come in under five five one absolutely not but i think that's their position as well so you both s in here and so forth doesn't seem to need to carry much more since you're taking the same position but the position that that the bat is actually taking though is that all off these transshipments pac you can read the sentence to say well some are to be shipped which i believe we've sort of agreed on right now and then have a another classification and say well that one would right well i'm not sure i'm not sure that it does go away i guess i don't understand how you got another words if we don't agree with you th last sentence of five four one three i guess and as if that does not tell us that five five one excludes minimal military packaging that doesn't have enough problems then we and we look at five five one and we ask the question what does this cover minimum military packaging in normal near military packaging i don't think the language that you emphasiz brief or that material to be shipped off base transcripts i don't think there's any strangeness to that language as construed by law but then that becomes strange only if you read the last sentence as does is it if it goes away from the the central point of why you have an extra charge for triple piano and that's because you're doing something more than minimum military back and that's why the unit price is five times as much as it is for the the clinton one price and that's why when we were when it's referred to g and f condition codes it makes sense because there's going to be more if they take more time to pack that that that box or to act that item and are you saying are you saying the p p m under five point five point one does not include minimum military packing right nothing in five point five point one would exclude minimum military packing for transcriptions off base friendship in context of five four one three i understand that and that certainly you have to read this in time text but then you're look at the language in five four one three and it talks about how this section addresses packing repairable items with g n r codes and all items needing above military minimum military packing but it doesn't say that's all it doesn't say only those things that's correct and issues are supposed to be packed to a minimum military level unless there are other allies identified is requiring this special packing function and even if government and they did not and there's no evidence that they ever did he said let me go back to five four one three again as the first sentence talks about five of the default packing shall be point five four one three the first and last sentences don't necessarily have to be read to exclude court is saying that there's no exclusion in five four one three well first i don't find any exclusion in five point five point one so if if there's no exclusion in five point five point one then it would seem to me that five point five point one could include as argues well off base transshipments regardless of the level of packing required  this they require an impact so then there's a question is all right what what is it in the contract that might exclude from five point five point one language the sentence the jury for going to doesn't say only or limited to it does specify certain things that require p p p n l so that that's not a problem but it doesn't that's it doesn't exclude other things at it that it would exclude from anything that is the provision to which you point as excluding doesn't exclude or this one thing that seems to emerges from this and i i can always who fly so it's hard to see how to get in the given the that there there is no document that has been brought to anyone's attention that says clinton to either one that identifies of base transshipments there's been no back up documentation of estimates that were done in preparation for the the bill there's there's no emails there's nothing to show that they ever lied on this so i mean i think mr mcgovern recognizes that there's nothing affirmative but i guess we'll have to bring your part of the argument to an end i think with giving him his three minutes you both read about the same sort of thing but thank you thank  not your three minutes of rebuttal and i think that will pretty much give everyone about the same time let me ask you just to pick up where mr hyde be finishing what do you say about his  reliance on the documents that twenty one seventeen twenty one nineteen and twenty two or forty six on this on this reliance connection with  are well first of all we're not running away from everything anything we've we want to tell you what his doctor said twenty to forty six it says approximately seventy percent of one hundred seventeen require shipping labels only ok transshipments requires shipping labels only under clinton one why wouldn't you count those under clinton one of you had to put a shipping label that doesn't say you pack at under clinton one and this universe here seventy percent plus thirty percent presumably is the yes you're on univision and it's is it's entirely feasible i mean the math is such that you can exclude all of the transshipments from the packing and still have this accurate statement be accurate but that's the bottom line other things need to be packed and we don't dispute that it is my backlog that packed a lot of things under clinton one and that was cover and they bid ok look at the heading traffic management this twenty one seven twenty one seventy traffic management somebody has got to figure out where things are supposed to go make sure that gets on the back of the truck this is labor to make sure that things get on the back of the truck traffic management thought back why the judge thought this had anything to do with packing is it is a mystery and then what about nineteen twenty one nineteen just go ok and again remember look at the top of the page receipt issue so we're ok transshipment have to be received they have to be issued they have they don't have to be s but they have to be received an issue and there has to be some labor associated with that activity so the fact that there's some labor associated with that activity doesn't mean anything doesn't prove anything but if you don't it's just inaccurate to say the packing cost five times more under clinton two than a dozen or claimed one and that relates back to the idea that you only have two dollars for item in clinton one because you don't expect to pack everything so it could cost you twenty dollars in my example it costs you actually the one item you have to pack plus twenty dollars you recover that at two dollars a pop for everything issue whether it's packed or not so that two dollars doesn't represent the cost to pack something it represents how much money the contractor allocated for packing based upon its assumption that one in ten items would be packed ok