period performance in the context of the past quarter such as this is that had one completion date for the entire scope of the work so period performance in the context of this damages clause they would have done exactly that modification twenty nine in fact use those terms cites the pause puts the contract on notice that you're entering into an entirely different risk profiles than one you signed up for initially initially you signed up to do a scope of work with one and a it's the contractors for audited scheduling work to figure out what period of performance or associated with subcomponents but you have to that's no way to be phoning in agree i'm sol think that that's what my argument is your honor i think that we're all very precisely that the terms of the contract or to be given their or their meaning in their intent now the contractor agreed to sign up in but it's of the risk for doing the entire work within and having it complete by a specific date the government acknowledges that well we prevented you from completing the entire secure lighting will work would be the act the duration for that particular activity so the period of performance for work during the general officer corps work might have been thirteen weeks the period performance for doing some of the other people that that protest paid to go shoot the government which will never contested by the government there was no counter affidavit or declaration so the only evidence about the intent of the parties with respect to this modification was the evidence out of the four corners of the modification so maybe i'm using the term differently than you or your honor but what i'm saying is they ignore the evidence offered about what the parties intended for this particular model by going back and looking at prior modifications that had no relevance to this particular model that's not giving the benefit of the doubt to the moving part that's making the inference isn't drawing inferences very much in me but that for the individual humans you have to look to the completion date for the individual units so under that theory it would be proper to hit them with forty two dollars a day specified in the task order for construction services issues they're under there was not only unit repair work unit renovation work there was also demolition work which is just site work in for example in the youngstown demolition site there had that had to be demolished and cleaned up so that is his site work that was not completed in on time and liquidated damages assessed for that unit being late but the clothes maintains a fitting mar twenty six maintain all of the dates for all of the other parts of the work and th well i think you can you can see this in a similar case if there was only one unit and the unit was not completed on time that unit would you would still have to paint your site damages  because it has there are two components being the site component and the per unit computer component and the site component supplies all the time as long as the work and the work is not complete cause of the board reasonably interpreted as being if any of the work is not completing your assigning the site component and then on a unit per unit basis for each of the other units and as i said there was a work that was not complete demolition work that was not completed in timely manner as well as any help you get that the ads on feb when they had not for us and it seems like the court has agreed that there were two completion days and the the work not being completed the good day to damages i understand that and they started there's really only two issues being the correct interpretation of mar twenty six i think that's a very clear issue in this case there's the general officers quarters unit and that issue is fully settled through the equitable adjustment in mark twenty six the only other issue is whether there were disputed issues of material packed and here the board is correct if there were new spirit issues of richard's fact in the claim there is no allegation then the delay on the general officers order junoon impacts the other units there's no such allegation in the claim then a complaint is filed at the board and there are no such allegations of any linkage between the general officers quarters units of greys and the other units being delayed and then when the summary judgment motions are presented to the  directly contradict the plain language of the mar twenty six and has the board said we look first of the language the language has to completion da all and one of the cases that would be appropriate to look to cited in our brief of the applied the pine industries cases where they are the hardest try to argument presented to the board was that the liquidity damages clause was clear on its face and the ambiguity that was being alleged was to be found in march twenty six the board preceded  first analyzing mar twenty six concluding that it was very clear and then apply its understanding of march twenty sixth to the liquidated damages will pointed out there were two components that the yes i think this dialogue demonstrates that that puts a reasonable interpretation of the terms theory performance and schedule days used within the context of this most efficient is very much  doubt there are different interpretations and when the board stepped in and said we're going to resolve this by simply defining those terms as quote unquote completion date that changed the entire contract that some have signed up to some kind of put yourself at risk for a single completion date for all the work now the boards of no we think that we have now multiple completion dates you're at risk for liquidated damages for violating the multiple days of the government's also argued that there's nothing ambiguous about the release language i would invite the court to to look at that closely it says that the release relates to the government from further record of adjustment to changes to this modification i personally can't tell you with changes to this modification that will eat language or first two but to say that this is an unambiguous release is clarity that i certainly don't have and i don't know that anybody could read that and say that there that it's clear on its face the case to say that one of the languages meaning that it would be derived by a recently intelligent person acquainted with the contemporaneous circumstances by ignoring the sun's evidence the board failed to acquaint itself with the contemporaneous circumstances of this case modification was intended to say the government acknowledges we prevented you from completing the entire work on time your work on that is your cue unit was extended up until september somehow that's