instead of this purpose all that designed so if we assume they don't die is intitled to rely on indications to think we are according to three cases we cited nor and so saying at the record does provide it adequate basis to find quantum reprove we were the only ones scuse me l g i was the only one who provided expert testimony on what on how you could trace out  allocate this delay there is no contrary expert scheduling testimony the board ignored that and the bridge itself found a way to allocate delays for me to worry about twenty days on the  so the board was essential to the jury verdict method could find a way to allocate quantum for that exclusion delay it certainly could find a way on me and to allocate the way here that's covered one remains in the board found that they excuse me on it no it's because they've given us an adequate and accurate indications but the government said is you've got a minor flaw a real problem here that can be handled with fifteen to thirty divinity in that design upon which people rely and it's a double standard to say that the brain is a designer chip doesn't have to look at the heart or report the fed proposer was supposed to be able to rely on the navy's engineers issue as to whether these are intended indications and they are intended indications the only issue that i find interesting in this case is the sixteen inch condoms and the government says well we're not rational in your line in the city thirty six decision the books we have completions are supported by its extensive findings of fact in this case let me ask you something before we get into the argument do you see any impediment to reviewing this case here where the specifications in their opinion and the basically it was the contractors responsibility to determine were small and the design and the water drainage system that could handle it that was probably our responsibility and i designed built a contract they had to and that they are whenever they hired their civil engineering firm i believe it was like sixty days after contract award when a similar thermal engineering firm eventually went out and looked at the site and everything they determined that the  but there were multiple conferences there was a full percent review eighty percent review and is the group found the contractors documents were very personal it took a lot more time to review these documents than was eventually anticipated and there was a lot of back and forth between the parties when it until they finally got to the final design which a group wasn't approved until like nine hundred eighty seven  and owner overground system and nothing johnston chairs they just seventeen inch pipe because it was cheaper requests for time extension says it was never enforced that's not accurate that money wasn't be tamed but the clause was always imposed the government just said we'll take it out of your paycheck at the end of the project and in a couple of weeks before the end of the projects  at the start when we finish the last minute on top of the last minute on time you cannot have it you have to have an acceleration if you start six months late but you can keep your last unit on time i find to the contrary has to be arbitrary