board's twenty percent definition of material in the contract itself said what i call one hundred percent definition which was evaluate select particular and stock materials and wrong because they need to find material and ship to go back and use the court to use the contracts definition of material that the board starting out with a definition has not supported by substantial evidence the contract itself defines the board ignores that definition truncates the definition and then wonders why does it take twenty hours for purchase order for her picking up the phone and ordering stuff the that the board didn't really consider what the contract required for material and they took the very small part and that's what broader than that but even assuming that the board also concluded that not that your accounting practices this process was because of the numbers they looked at how are you it was based on our records and simply that it can't be possible your records would be wrong no records were good we had good records it was the problem that the board so but it seems to me that i'm  sorry and the same would hold true as i read the board's decision they didn't believe the tag time sheet argument because the ultimate conclusion was a total of twenty point one hours per purchase order well that's true in that sense but if you look at material handling the way the contract defines it to include supplies one by the way supplies i'm sorry spare parts in one instance was about anything a third joint appendix eight o two we showed there for of the december two thousand and one invoice materials were one hundred twenty five thousand for that month spare parts were sixty five thousand half of and yet the board says the usually it's definition responsible for anything and that's what i'm referring to yes as at the board that there that you what it is responsible for material camp yes that it defined and that in that context that when they were determining the liability existed it was there any the board coming in looking and challenging the underlying documentation the government never challenged it it was never an issue it was never an issue at the hearing of the board to ensure i know judge chief judge daniels read the material dance so when the board as i read it has two primary arguments on these take time sheets it doesn't think that when you start of a very high number from this well which is that they didn't believe then you would add an additional five some five or six hours the same would hold true for the board's second point where the board clearly says that they don't believe that material him was projecting the condition of whites in the quitman of course it's material here it's not picking up the phone ordering five chemicals really comes down to how you define material hamley cough i mean that's the problem no he was he i don't think he would difficult if he had green with the narrow definition that the cost would be appropriate to come down to the definition of how widely  where whether these costs are properly allocated to fix priceline or or to a time insurers lie which at the time of performance although ben all his previous testimony that in fact knew all along that this was a time materials line item nobody else involved knew this and so for instance and in regard of the prior to ca audits there's no reason to believe that the d c auditors would have looked into that particular aspect of these costs being for the time and tears lying because there was no concept for the government or for the testimony that describe what materials handling consists of and she described the processing of invoicing and ordering these chemicals and going to certain types of vendors to attain this in addition although there was no evidence presented is before the board in terms of these other types of whatever that the spare parts were being content or spare parts were these obscure imitations of the time sheets so i'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what happened here so are you saying that if you understand what mr o'connor's argument is here for us to act yes or are you saying that he's wrong on the substance or you just thing that well it's too bad because that issue really wasn't one that the board five and that there may have been other things that might have been involved even assuming that based on the evidence they presented below they didn't present that evidence just to show that there was any sort of effort made upon that that would have been fit average to perform these tasks and the border in another it's in of itself looked at that evidence and said it's just facially irrational it just makes no sense that they supervisor of accounting as a factual matter could possibly spend fifteen hours to do each invoice on five hundred words over a period of years it's just simply there's no rational basis for that and so the board made a pact with finance to that and all the better argues it's not appealing that it then and then other people admittedly helped assisted her doing some of these functions then there were even more hours out on the board found it simply was not rational to work around that that is part of its determination as to what the accounting matter which is regardless of even assuming that it was what they thought it was that both of looking at the entire record and the record of ben was accounting practice and looking at the dca auditors testimony about this  can least of the reasonable conclusion of the board that as a matter of fact these costs could not be accounted for quickly as to the time sheets and i don't believe there was a dispute below and i don't think there's truly dispute here as to whether bengal's employees in fact completed time sheets wrote on those time sheets the e p fifty six or b e p the dispute this is about where those costs probably are allocated and its centers around i guess to some  secretary of aspect of this case still holds the fact is that in bend most present proposal opposed one hundred hours per secretary to work on a fixed price line and there's been no indication  secretarial work was was well first of all i mean when you say with him the question was mr mulayam testified that he only put it in there because he thought that someone might need it we might need it but in fact he either never needed it or if he did need it it was assigned to overhead and so to two aspects of that first there were secretarial work being done there was no explanation or sufficient explanation for the board to basic conclusion on as to what the secretaries were work in there admittedly may have been some it would have been just allocated to overhead and apparently applied across all contracts that would be clearly at odds with what the definition of that sector should have been for a fixed price line and so that as additional support the fact that the to challenge its credibility so we read into it for that reason but for the government and the board actually to challenge hard data time sheets because an estimate is off is backwards estimates can be off estimates are estimates the time sheets are there it's black and white so to me there's much more credibility it's hard for me to santa can argue about fifty six percent estimates because the rest of us the data probably they were audited by to see how could they possibly be taking it well that they would be yes if you take their small i could go back to my walk me point that yes that testing equipment and doing has just gotten the people to were working at this location on something for this many hours on this particular day but the board was getting i don't understand how that's inconsistent with what the board on with the board was charged with looking at what they actually did during the time they were charging what to clear on that if the e c it was concerned that somebody was charging just charging process charging this direct costs tagging because it should have been an indirect i think d c s would want to know about reach makes it makes the point mr millennium benmore with the incumbent contractor so to make its bid look good anybody would put in the required number of hours for a secretary at the site and we said the secretary would do that kind of site would be ordering uniforms and that kind of stuff but he didn't need it when you came down to administering the contract he was the incumbent all that stuff had been set up so either he didn't charge at all or he just was so mind he put in