this is a final request and there is a i think an error in the armed services board of contract appeals analysis in which they said that the avoided language indicating that this was a request for a final payment this is a contract that was terminated in two thousand and ten there was no doubt in all of the correspondence all of the efforts to wind these contracts down that this is a filed a quest for payment and in fact you know this is been recognized and james l it construction so versus the united states ninety three rd one thousand five hundred and thirty seven that contract and i quote request repayment subject submitted after the government has terminated some certain four million i believe it's three hundred sorry four million one hundred and thirty eight thousand six hundred thirteen dollars that's a sum certain i think clearly at this point the armed services board different claim under the same tune if you contract the parties was filed and there was a request for a final decision made of the contract in the us now what is missing from the government's brief is the fact that the court the contract the officer didn't respond so there was a deemed final decision because for the lack of response within sixty days so it's not like there wasn't a certified claimed it was a certified plane so what was absent was a final issues that would have been at stake a case to case one was decided on th answered he answered the previous april th two thousand and fourteen claims he didn't answer the march th two thousand and fifteen claims so that's point my client is trying to figure out what's going on we entered the wrong request is to request a contracting officers final decision and the match you're going to carry for roads that the government took was exactly what we rejected in reflecting and you don't have to use particular magic words you just have to submit something which is a  you have to make it clear there is no magic specific word your honor but you do have to make it clear that that is your intent the request for a final decision the claim has a difference in if against an r t a and it does trigger other effects and you have to make it clear to the contracting officer that that is what you is different because a claim triggers the fine two hundred dollars fine as decision triggers the stache limitation triggers appeal rights and you want to be entirely sure that when they're intending to make a claim you are you are treating it you want to make sure that you understand that is their intent contract was over performance was complete there was nothing else left to do we don't dispute all that your honor but it's certainly not and intend to requests from us and most notably when we came back to them over and over and over again they didn't they made it clear that this was in their town and had they intended this to be a request for a final a one hundred officers final decision then their appeal time would have already run long before that because they would have had their dream denial in two thousand and fifteen and they would have had to go to it if we were if this court were to find that this were a claim it would go back and they would they would still have the ability to correct their defective sort of occasion but because this is not a claim the six year statute of limitations has passed your honor and and so w throughout the process of the contract and that's how the cd is written is it's intended to allow agencies to resolve disputes go back and forth fix things correct things go throughout the process but then the claim part comes in and says we and seventeen when they filed this appeal and to the extent that there was any ambiguity in their filings or any sort of discrepancy they could have filed a claim with that instance and still not been time but that they chose not to it's very clear from the record ninety days to appeal to be a speciate if they thought that was a claim they would have had to go to the as p c a two years before they actually did the evidence is in the doctors are very clear that no one ever intended those documents to be a no in fact ignoring your prior statement that it wasn't a claim and i find it to be sufficient to be a claim i am unaware of any case in court a federal claims or in any case and specifically addresses that factual circumstance or other so unless the court has any of further all of the jurisprudence based on the certified claim is gracious contract cleaning maintenance for she united states in that case this court reviewed all of the correspondence between the parties let me but let me go back to address what the purpose of the cd is this court has addressed that very issue and i'm going to read it if you don't mind i just comes from do well his inquiries the you know that you know there is just talismanic kind of interpretation of what precise words are is so contrary to this court's ruling about what is required but let me just point out the what what's the you know i really do understand failure to affectively communicate both ways and then it's inhere existence when you're operating in on english speaking environments what are the implications for the car if you just start spraying away from the question is when is it appropriate to give the armed services board a contract and clearly when you have incoming and treated williams did issued a ruling that says this is the final decision of the government and there has been a certified under penalty of perjury claim for some certain and a demand for contracts and it's been terminated for five years it makes no sense to keep going back to the you know army corps of engineers for it's now time to go to the armed services board of contractors and you know let me just in terms of the implication but i need to speak to what the implications are if we adopt this very rigid approach the department of justice is suggesting not only would you be required the justice department has talked about it triggering statute of limitations it being and you know very formalistic not only are they asking for magic language he would have to like filing of a complaint you would have to provide proof of service you know you would have to affect service  is the government's final decision why would you have any reason to believe that there was a view that what you submitted wasn't sufficient if the c e o had said no i don't construe this as and is explain you got to go