hundred twenty two thousand dollars the french benefits of costs and consulting expenses however were denied because my client counted for them as and direct expenses even though they were direct expenses by all forty nine yeah but you made a choice as to which way to go the far granted the client can't go both ways i'm not suggesting that we do your honor i'm suggesting simply that at the level we're suddenly costs will consider bush they never were they ever that those were over i mean you could argue whether they were credible or not but that's not the function of the of course at this level the court should have looked at other debts and said well depositions that was the only evidence before the court there was no consideration of this claim by that she c e o or the government prior to the filing of the lawsuit below the far specifically speaks to that that was the termination for convene this notice is issued it's the obligation of the terminating contracting officer to contact the contractor and attempt to negotiate a settlement of these costs based on an artifact they're failing to put in a fire escape in the lobby of the john wall act federal courthouse and the local fire department identified the active form of parties that that had to be done and at that point in time is required to say oh yeah he was required to stay on standby the house that in the sense that he was waiting to receive a notice to proceed by the government for a period of two and a half years up until weeks before he got the terminations for convenience letter he was he received e mails from people in the g s a saying that they were waiting to receive his notice to proceed and he should be ready proceed and then within a better of weeks or less he was given a terminations for convenience letter and was told by the contracting officer that they regarded the contract as closed because have because this was on the motion for summary judgment of the united states he should have a charter that this presented a genuine issue of good serial facts for a trial he didn't do that well in  any event one other thing that happened was after the court initially ruled on the release issue in our favor the government conceded liability ok now the g n a t expensive issue especially the issue of standby isn't entitled if you're west of hearses allstate boiler case specifically speaks to that and so if you want to look at it from the standpoint that they've ceded the standby issue or if you want to look at it from the standpoint that there was a genuine issue of material fact that are the grant of summary judgment either way it was a trial and the only thing that was left was whether they had provided sufficient argument to sustain summary judgment and the issue of damages so whether it's that point or question got to with the evidence release you and i will respond to that that drug or what the drug works properly recognised was that there in order to prove stand by you need to have either direct evidence were in direct evidence there was no evidence before before the co this one statement by the contracting officer is your honor indeed she was not personally involved she became in her case involved several years later now the trucks were properly recognized it was not a weighing of the evidence it was a question before the reasonable for a fact five hundred five there they were on standby if there is another part of the course opinion that white house does not pay sufficient attention to and that is there is an independent basis for finding that linus was not on standby that precedent the big contractor is not a standby because it could that demonstrate it could guarantee the availability of all the subcontractors to be ready to mobilize and come back to work and that was a separate and independent basis that razor the first time and are waived for that reason but they argue for that somehow they were prevented from writing this documentation which is contradicted by what they argued to the court below where they essentially argue that we did comply with this in terms of the budgetary allocation it is available for it so whether or not it's for the contractor was engaged to finish this lobby renovation i don't know but certainly with respect to  motion for summary shirting was unusual because the burden is on them to identify why they think they're entitled to judgment as a matter of law they did not racists and i sure they did not say that our claim for g addressed as part of your overall claim but after the deposition testimony was provided and it was an admission by a party opponent that from a dating contracting officer said yes my client was on the stand or that issue was not an issue a little longer until the corporate load took it upon itself to raise it as an issue again now when they focused on her deposition testimony and said that it wasn't credible or it was insufficient four hundred twenty two thousand eight hundred thirty dollars for standby costs yes so you raised it in your certified claim that's right the litigation was over payment of that certified claim