we understand everything that's going on in this case can i just ask you a sort of technical question i think the government raised this and read pre which is even if we would would agree with you on the fringe benefit issue that only seems to account for a chunk of the three hundred thousand dollars that's in dispute here so i don't think you responded in grade like while i even if you're right on the fringe benefits that doesn't allow  three hundred thousand dollars that's like sixty thought well right that's not quite true ok because the three hundred thousand dollars is dependent on the former which is not based on the actual numbers we pointed that out in our first response to their attempt to get the money it's on page one thirty three of the appendix and we do two why are you trying we didn't make a big point given the benefit of the state salary to direct it so i want to get my understanding of your argument is that the salem formula uses accrual accounting correctly or things such as friends benefits and overhead correct when it does it for fringe benefits using an accrual thing impact the amount of compensation that the employees are entitled to know as part of the fringe benefit or days off or holidays and that sort of thing those are actual costs that the state now still owes the employing some who are the money sure we got a problem here my understanding is that for a long formula makes a magic computation that produces a compensation numb how much these people are entitled to your rights that's what should you did for a long period of time and an audit over one of the have to pay out over the course of the year some you might not have to pay off they might carry over till the next but that their real lives liabilities that you're climbing the auditor said well difference between the two is your numbers are based on a crude y abilities and the government's number who are based on actual cash and the government is saying we want you to true up at the end of the year meaning that you would look and see how much of the a cruel you haven't actually paid yet and you wouldn't build on that you would only build from what you've actually paid the lower court and interpret in the contract held that the contract requires expenditure to be actually expend you actually must spend the money you can cruise and that's the government's theory ok and so the question is where in that contract or in the regulations is it all of them big us really required that the reimbursements be cash as opposed to work contract is the result of a lot of very acrimonious negotiations between interior understand all that stuff i mean their share of the matter is that the contract says you got to use audit we pointed out that the numbers they were using were not the actual build numbers they had those numbers we give them to them every single month life will assume that the california negotiated a contract allowing it used life or it was negotiated but the o m b says you spoke to use five now five years after you've entered into that contract the interior department oh we didn't know what we were doing for five years the people who negotiated this didn't know the people who are to did didn't know but we now know that your results under our way of accounting is two thousand dollars or two million dollars different than yours so you have to use our number it's not right that's what they're doing here they're saying if you use our accounting principles which they may develop you or sis money but we used our accounting which was only for fringe benefit the actual your accounting principles under your hypothetical for just fringe benefits correct so tell me what the dispute is so i understand that sixty three thousand was stuff that you think you're owed because you did it on your comic system  just don't understand is what about the other the remainder of the money that you're sitting reimbursement for petrol for fringe benefits it's all ok because it was categorized as it was broken down as rigged benefits that salary and he isey are so i thought they were all different categories is that wrong the entire three hundred thousand dollars if it is for the is entirely for fringe benefits yes do you understand where i got the there are two hundred two places in the contract you know the two places in the contract where actual cash payout is referenced mari and that's for salaries and that that everybody had gone along with it the people who negotiated it went along with it and the people who are good and accepted well along with it and all of a sudden now someone comes along to the oh no you're wrong like you may have been allowed to spy from now we're saying you got to use my phone because that's the way o m b says it that's not giving you the benefit of the bargain that you shot we did it deliberately why else would we would we enter into an agreement that allows us to do a method plus the o m b method supposedly conflict life one five zero conflict they say we owe two million dollars because we didn't so there are six point on the fringe benefit to the challenge here is that the number they're asking for includes money that was actually paid out it was a clear yes and then they didn't actually pay out all the for instance yes well that's that's the whole case right on the fringe benefit portion yes but i mean you haven't made and you haven't made an independent showing in your briefs the that salary should be treated differently no we think that no they offer all three overhead dowry and  ht and received more reimbursement than that was actually paid out by california and what basis what they had been seeking more than they actually paid out because they came up with this loaded hourly rate that included fringe benefits at when the contract uses the word actual costs in two places but does not use with regard to salaries does not use it with regard to fringe benefit or over someone makes seventy five thousand dollar in your salary in alternately we're paying more for them to do work on this contract and the doing one hundred percent of the work on this on the scrap or remit their pain we're paying them more than they actually pay their employees we're paying them or for for the requires a cost to actually be paid actually paid in order to be reimbursed yes or no i didn't catch the first part of the first yes let's assume the contract does not require are if that were the case we would want to conduct discovery into whether california complied it was too late for that no because the case is being patched and is just interpreted in the contract and your whole case depends on rethinking the contract on and vigorously including section c of attachment and also there's a compensation for personal services section eight and attachment b these are the only of the note of them preclude accrued cos i'm well if you're on our own in terms of their compensation with a certain number of days they get off certain number of late rooms certain numbers like in the government era number of sick leave days and whatnot right and you get them right now the problem was that by the end of the year the people who are reimbursement request because the money wasn't actually paid out but i don't think it was right yes i think it was yeah it wasn't actually paid out but i don't think the trombone there's no question there's a contract requiring the money to be paid out yes or use the same method of accounting and he did there's no question we did and in fact if you look at the o m b guidance which is not part of the record for that section two hundred point four three one compensation for fringe benefits it says except is otherwise provided the costs of fringe benefits are allowed all provided the benefits are reasonable and the pipe along nonfederal entity employee breman or an established policy of a non