bryson if i could interrupt you for just a nd i and i only want to a very summary answer as i don't want to take up a lot of your time but going to the merits of this case i know we're not there yet but on the merits of the underlying contract dispute is it the government's position that there was some kind of contract provision that required a cost savings for government furnished  equipment your honor we understand that that was a post contract negotiation attempt by the contracting officer there's nothing in the contract that entitles the government to a cost saving is that what you're saying t being provided yes your honor the the the contract as negotiated included those six g s t elements so if the government had indeed provided all the g demand is all about well your honor the the facts as we as we understand them and believe them word that the contracting officer was attempting to save money after the contract had been issued and that if he holdings was not willing to reduce some of those prices or reduce the cost find cost savings if you would that the that the the indication was they would remove pieces of government furnished equipment and that bt would have to go buy those pieces on the commercial market instead which is what happened in this case you know i've never contracted with the government but is this comment that you know we have a contract there's a price agreed to everything's that great too and then after that the government comes in it says hey we'd like to save a little more money here you gotta find a way to do it is this a common practice far as you know in your experience well your honor i've been involved in government contracting for thirty five years and  engineering to define cost savings and so forth it is in this is anecdotally my experience based on thirty five years very unusual for a contracting officer essentially to say if you don't lower the price related to the the amended complaint are that there was a constructive change in the contract that the government failed to make an equitable adjustment and then finally that the government breach are all alternative and not cumulative i think what's important under the st theory in the court and and then and the government spends most of its time looking at is this notion contracting officers representativeness or nasty was simply communicating a decision that had been made by the contracting officer or in the alternative that she acted with implied authority and then the contracting officer mr but the court dismissed each of the three and so we have we have appealed the dismissal of each of those three each of those three counts but but there are really thirty three dollars different theories to achieve a right to choose the same limit which is the accounting the adjustment or the removal of the government furnished equipment this is judge price and could i ask you about your breach of contract theory and i gather you breach contract areas not that there was a breach by the withdrawal of the government furnished equipment but rather that the breach came with the failure to grant an equitable adjustment and the government's answer to that is that the only obligation that the contracting how an officer had with respect to an equitable adjustment is to consider i think that's the language in the regulation and equitable adjustment and they said the contractor contracting officer did that first question st part of the question is do you agree that that is the pertinent language from the regulation that governs this the  contracting officer must consider an equitable adjustment and nd part of the question is what do you think if you're familiar with any authority on this none are cited in the brief but what do you think consider in this context entails what degree of responsibility on the part of the contracting officer is carried with the term consider yes stronger and  has some force but what they keep working for me at least is the word consider so i'm wondering whether you have any kind of authority or basis once again do you have any can you can what is your argument assuming we conclude that that's the operative language what is your argument with respect to the obligation  i think consider certainly would imply that there is still a duty of good faith and fair dealing and i think that that consider would would require something  says shall consider i think we have to read that in conjunction with with when it specifically talks to the board just one and say it shall be  contract to provide government furnished equipment even though that may be ninety percent of the costs that the contractor would otherwise incur and then  government can withdraw that equipment after the fact after the contract is signed and all that goes to the contractor is that the contracting officer consider an equitable adjustment and that the contracting officer has complete discretion as to whether to grant the equitable adjustment or not because that's what i took away from page twenty seven of your brief that sounded like the besh one which is another far provision incorporated by reference into the contract and that provision say that the contracting officer shall grant an equitable adjustment under certain circumstances so there may be a contractual obligation to provide an equitable adjustment there certainly is a contractual obligation to consider such an adjustment in the face but you know in this respect i do want to point the court's attention  saying any equitable adjustment can only be made upon the direction of an authorized government agent who is the contracting officer and so in this case this is part of the with with respect to your position normally in these situations a modification is ne it that imposes additional burdens on the contractor and the contractor ultimately asks for an equitable adjustment thanks to the modification but here and in that situation it makes sense to say that if the contracting officer didn't authorize the modification then the contractor should not do the work until it gets the authorization of the contracting officer but in this situation what you've got is the government acting unilaterally not saying to the contractor you must do this work but unilaterally withdrawing some of the equipment from the project and what is the contractor supposed to do in that situation if the withdrawal was not expressly authorized by the contracting officer the understand that but what my question is suppose that the as in this case the contracting officer did not authorize the withdrawal of the government property but it was done by someone else what's the which not only requires any modification done by the contracting officer but then that's out the identity of the contracting officer and their contact and contact information and what i would do is i would tell you to go back to whatever an authorized government agent gave them the directive and this case the patrolmen manager and ask that individual for an order issued and signed by the contracting officer if they said that's not something we're going to do we're just going to take the property and not provide the government for its property then what do you do so busy some sort of the question is if the authorized government agent refuse to refer that matter to the contracting officer anything from the contracting officer without doing anything i also want to point out mister mr john spoke to the windsor case and in that case there is a big difference between the contract d and the contract here as and signed by the contracting officer then there will be no adjustment in the contract price that simple contract d with no unless clauses that permit gratification after the fact that simply does not allow a theory about t there is an allegation that there is a breach of contract because the government did not provide an equitable adjustment but at the trial court correctly found that claimed d that cause of action few points in the few minutes that i have again this this quarter's reviewing the sufficiency of the of the complaint the st amended complaint and in fact the factual allegations in the complaint speak for themselves it was the contracting officer mr stephano is alleged to removed the equipment from the from the contract removed it from being made available to the g t and did so without a written modification to the contract and so for the government's position at this stage to continue it would it would have to imply that that a contracting officer as long as they don't put it in writing has plenipotentiary powers that for which the contractor has no remedy based on  changes clause strictly on it's but again that's just in other words here argument is the government didn't do what it was obligated to do when it was decreasing the amount of government british property and now you're being penalized  in the complaint the allegation is that the contracting officer directed the b g p only to speak with miss on this the contracting representative and that it was mr stefanos decision to divert that  say i'm sorry what do you say to mr questioners argument that the contractor should have gone back and insisted on an order from the contracting officer with respect to  lying on the the government acting in good faith and following the answer apologiser are so so i believe that those the two to the two reasons that the contractor had a contractual requirement to continue working and you know to complete the project and he had an obligation i guess of the better business ethics to complete  suppose that the contractor had followed the advice that mr kushner gave which is to go back and insist that the contracting officer specifically and in writing authorize t withdrawal of government furnished equipment and suppose that the contracting officers representative or in a studio whoever it was said no where i'm in charge of this and you've got your directive that we're going to withdraw the equipment and suppose then upon having been told that the contracting officer was not going to provide any express authorisation that the contractor decided simply to walk off the job because it was not given the assurance that it needed under the contract that it would get an equitable adjustment for the withdrawal of the g s t do you think that would in this situation but my question really is is that do you think the government would have a strong case for terminations for default in that situation they would have a case because the  contractor still has an obligation to continue work while disputes with the government are are just and so there were there were no choice