i'm not so sure she didn't mention in your final decision i'd have to review it again judge but clearly the board found that they had missed the deadline there was a stop work order of the critical care characteristics cla weather report its findings agreed with those findings but end up ignoring the findings don't even communicate them back to hanley didn't discuss them with him like it did come up with certain comments about the foundries your honor recognizes but that was only in the final decision they never once requested him to go back to the foundry whatever good that might have done before the final decision  ignored the findings in the rubble report and terminated hamley for failing to come up with a root cause when in actuality they had agreed with the root cause that was in the with cover board in in the livery for couple of but it was a combination of factors that they decided to go with web going was on august twenty third the day after the deadline when their big telephone conference that they all decided and hanna believe was a mutual decision that they would go with the web co steel web still held out the opportunity of using plymouth but it would be a longer lead time it was eight weeks at the time they were discussing it but they require clear direction from the government as to whether or not i want to go back to plymouth or not because otherwise the decision was to go forward with web because a price because of better lead time because of other issues i think the testimony indicates that plymouth was just very difficult to deal with they really didn't didn't appreciate the business didn't care or want the business so having decided to go with level and it decided to also use a new process that wasn't even contractually required called center grinding which is a very elaborate process very accurate process to make sure that the tubes are very close in terms of their dimensions this all relates to the hydrostatic testing which was intrinsic to the critical characteristics procedure because the measurements on not all measurements were taken ten percent of the tubes were measured before the test rather than hundred percent but the c e o offered in every pulse of a flight or an opportunity for him to show that nonetheless the tubes would in essence have passed that test in the form of a statistical analysis that was an option she gave to him because of the several us driving procedure and we had a number of measurements of the tubes outer and they simply did a statistical analysis to figure out the standard deviation of all of those measurements ok and then they figured out the probability of what it would be for a measured measure to be on the lower order point seven six two such that it might be possible for a tube to expand more than point zero zero three inches and trigger the snap gauge that karma can set up to to determine the maximum point of the test and the probability of that happening  of all the equipment that the government was welcome to inspect add core mac and passed so they could pass the ai equalise the government never responded to that list never indicated in any respect how it was  government that that is in essence the requirements were met where in the record was there an explanation of why certain parts of the documentation that were submitted were white  as i understand it these are detonators yes and probably right so people can die it doesn't work yes judge yeah and that's why i haven't had it was so proud of its have a weakness in them very often it's it's kind of confusing some people think that if you get a ruptured tube you're going to stop production for a long period of time  in order to determine exactly what's going on and that's true to a point i mean but as a test reports here show the web to report in particular if it's not a metallic defect and these are found to be  nonmetallic effects in other words is more likely was a piece of dust in the foundry that found its way to the molten steel and in the cold working process it resulted in what's called an idea or inert diameter lap and those are unavoidable they always occur that the propeller acts the contractor beforehand like so many instances of it so the test is designed to actually destroy those tubes that have the weakness in it so they can be discarded and you move on with the production pro honor because none is required because the default clause of self in the contract only were caught recall acquires a show cause notice in a certain circumstances were in danger performance occurs and that's when i can and direct you stated and i believe it does state that it's a prime official basis for default means that you don't actually have to provide notice if the due date comes due then default curse of course that's not the only basis for the faulting  people will die so we believe that the board made strong findings of fact and they are factual determinations that this court should uphold they're not arbitrary they're not to precious they are backed up by substantial evidence and we believe that that the board did it did a good job and summarized in this case and we believe should be upheld absent further questions from the from the court  just in these fronts first of all to one of the questions terms of record evidence of plymouth taking longer there was some statements to that effect in hamleys response to the show cost more will be subject to rare hydrostatic test failures and will not be certified by the manufacturer to milty one five one one nine a henley request clear direction on this question if cetera et cetera they never did get that clear direction and so they did so in summary i mean is this a findings of the webcor report what the government did with them that support the reversal of the board's decision for three reasons first the government's failure to cooperate or even to communicate with family regarding the government's agreement on the findings in the web board combined with the fact that the government ultimately ignored the findings of the webcor report constitute the government's breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing particularly as it relates to the critical characteristics clause and this constitutes a material breach which would as we discuss in our in our brief without more automatically converts the default terminations to a combination for convenience and because we're dealing with a duty of good faith and fair deal it precludes also any alternative finding supporting the government's terminations for default secondly the board's failure to acknowledge the webcor report itself as contradictory evidence tending to prove that hamley comply with the government's demands in that the government agreed with the web report show that the board's conclusion of the government acted reasonably in terminating hamley is not supported by substantial evidence it's got a look at the whole evidence including all contradictory evidence which included the webcor report which everyone at this point time seems to be ignoring third and finally the fact that the web co report itself is a product of the government's request to hamley to continue contract performance under the critical characteristics clause long after the contractual delivery deadline of of april twenty two it passed indicates that the government waive the twenty two april contractual delivery deadline such that any reliance upon that deadline cannot support a finding of terminations or cause as a consequence hamley respectfully submit that this court should reverse the board decision and convert the government's terminations for default into a termination from venus or alternatively the court should remain on this matter back to the board for factual findings reflecting the entire record including the we report and all other contradictory evidence including the submissions that hanley made constantly to the government but the government never responded to thank you