for the court that this is one of many contracts that's being affected by the issue presented to the court and your honor the issue that we are here to discuss is h pays for a particular type of service called routine inspections i am just in that miss just last get let me start by asking you if you agree that custodial properties are not owned double as a specifically refers to own vacant and shouldn't we take that to mean that it applies only to hud own vacant and not to custodial propert asked what is clear in five a and the answer was routine inspections and that answer your honor a line very closely with section b of the contract in which and it has a monthly payment in the in the chart you're looking at but routine inspections are paid for by weekly and then you start to get the issues that the web and in the clear six it says there monthly right under six i'm looking at the chart but routine inspections are paid by weekly or performed by weekly and that and the piece of us says that you get credit for performing routine inspection indicating it's not a monthly payment it's paid based on performing scene inspection there is nothing in the contract that says anywhere that routine you what's in clinton six and it doesn't say it includes routine inspections were it tells you  and that your honor you run into the same problem then that's the board did or the board said well look clint six tells me it includes inspection but again what the board did was took the word section and read in the plural form five an add on to five and you want to be an add on to six as well it's not your honor that don't think it exists as its own thing and what the what the board did was it said well routine inspection that's not what it says it says initial inspection initial services that had to be done so why isn't that at least an adequate x one explanation even though it might dislodge one of the things the board set well your honor i think that we agree on that with regard to clint sic the point is that the board looked at the contract and said here's the only possible line the only possible explanation the reason that i'm granting a motion to dismiss the only possible read is that clint sic does exactly what it says it does and it turned the word inspection and that will then it must be that the we have the evidence of the document which says not inspection full stop but inspection for initial services so the board can opine about how it reads but we can read it too and it says inspection and the shell service yes i hope that we're saying the same thing everybody i think except for the b b c a agrees that the word inspection there does not mean routine inspections my point is that the boards use that as evidence that routine inspections fall under clinton six which we don't believe they do and so your honor i guess that kind of goes back to the point that it becomes an issue of ambiguity like the can for case that we prepared it the board has said there's only one possible way to read this contract and that includes the word inspection meaning routine inspections if that isn't the case then there's more than one reasonable interpretation and that this should be remanded back to the and the courts well under clinton five you only have that ongoing property management see well if that's the case then where do the routine inspections for clinton seven go the board's reading and the only logical place for them to go is to clean five day which again the concerts the contract tells us covers all routine inspections vs subsequently read that into the contract it's problematic and again i would again look back to kimco if the but if the if the panel find that the board's interpretation was reasonable well then we've already established that the board agrees with the government that the word inspection doesn't mean that includes sex so we're now dealing with multiple reasonable interpretations of a contract it becomes a question of ambiguity and it should g government has continued to argue here which is that the q and a somehow was not paraded in the contract and that's an issue we'd like you to instruct if you were to remand to the board for them to consider the q and a part of the contract it was entered into cite for support is a one hundred and fifteen but i don't see that that says anything about this incorporation so what else can you cite us in the record to support your view points out that sort of properties have limited property management tasks and we can look to the description of duties with respect to custodial properties to see that that is indeed true the general section of fall within certain properties and the kanji's obligations with respect to vacant land generally falls within his own property so that the in the section c of the contract the scope of work requirement that result on the face of a contract that the only reasonable interpretation here is that client side double a only applies to transactions but in any event if the court were to go out that contract or thank you your honor and i i listen very closely during mr long presentation and while i obviously understand the condition he's taking i hope that the board or the panel listened very clearly contract tells you that clint six are treated differently the clinton doesn't say routine inspection and the argument that he's making is well the contract differentiates between different there's also no nowhere in the contract that tells you that we're going to pay for routine inspections for those properties different than what the contract tells us we're going to pay for