the cost of living is just so cold let me let me just nail one thing down it appears the court of federal claims factual summary pretty much relied on your complaint do you dispute any of the facts agreed to a number of procedures relating to the calculation of cola payments to workers and not so called not far areas of the united states and specifically agreed to follow what we've in terms of conforming methodology unless the government in existence that congress was down to keep it in existence for all time in order to avoid a breach of their contract to allow implications or could they let's say twenty twenty after twenty years after colas for the rest of time i think the short answer is that there will be some somewhat of an extreme position but i think yes under the sun and the settlement agreement you know they can change the methodology if they provide notice but they agreed to provide co hundred forty eight but presumably it wouldn't matter what the calculation method used to of derive the colas would be right and they could they could modify that priscilla to the contract they could modify that if they that the cost of living are different in different localities and therefore we think the best way to get that fair the cost of living problem is to do it through a system that essentially is look out what locality pay has but we'll call it a cult well that's just i think that's essentially their argument the difference however is coal is based on fifty years was based on a comparison between the cost of goods and services in the not foreign areas compared with  disadvantaged class members as a move from a system that compensated them for the higher costs of goods and services and shifted to a system that basically punish them because wages are so love that they're gone maybe a special case i don't know but it for example in alaska said that one party to a contract reasonably anticipated receiving yes that's the stink sent well the question is in this case where there are what are you claiming the billiard club the members of the class reasonably anticipated receiving a regular by regulation the cola system if you're wrong about that then you've acknowledged in the contract itself that the government is free to make modifications that include getting rid of the also as pretty much irrelevant because if you're right about your contract interpretation if you don't need syntax if you're wrong about it syntax is of no good used to you well to the governments of the government's point i methodology so why wouldn't any regulation that o p m devices the earlier sentences made them revise its regulations or set color rights so why isn't that a very broad give to the government to revise regulations that judgment or trial that claim ultimately gets rejected but the question is not at this point whether this court believes that we've established such a claim but whether simply whether that claims possible and that's different than centex of centex the score relied heavily for they received with this increase call kings did not affect the pension annuities for federal workers because cola payments are not considered calculating retirement and it is accordingly to increase the retirement notice for federal workers and on foreign areas congress passed the area which based outcall which instituted locality pay regime whose effect was to increase the retirement release for these federal workers well yes but they're unhappy because they think that when you balance out the benefits and they the detriment of the change that they were seriously prejudiced and so let i think we pretty much have to take that as a given we can't proceed on the on the idea that they  unbeknownst to them they really are better off now than they were before so let me ask you a question moving from the merits to the jurisdictional issue that you race in your brief yet you say that this case should not have been brought in the court  federal claims where should they have gone to enforce their contract rights under the agreement you are they didn't break claim the district court date they did but where should they have been they should have been in the district court when you told the district court that they shouldn't be in the district court well and now you're telling them they shouldn't be in the court of federal claims where should they have gone your honor it depends on if they meet the ten thousand dollars threshold well let's assume that they're above the ten thousand dollars where should they be if they were above the ten thousand dollars threshold at the time in two thousand and twelve when they want to claim the district court they should have been in court for a controller and now that they're in the court of federal claims you if you're right about the argument that the court of federal claims doesn't have jurisdiction because this isn't a monetary claim then the court of federal claims would not have jurisdiction you've already told us that the district court didn't have jurisdiction i'm asking you but the ten thousand dollars threshold so you're saying a declaratory judgment declaring that they're entitled to a certain amount of money as damages for their contract breach you know that doesn't know they're not entitled to that's the point your honor is they're not entitled to damages well that's your position on the merits but are you saying that even if you're wrong on their merits and they are entitled to damages for breach they still should have proceeded by way of a declaratory judgment action for breach of a contract yes so if you're wrong in your position on the merits then it seems to me the damages provisions may well come into play it seems to me the argument you're making is we're right in our reading of the contract and therefore they're not in time of two to attack and secondly failing to provide notice with respect to the second attack the trial court correctly held that once o p m decided we provided notice that no longer intended to be bound by the conforming have that all opium no longer there's any ambiguity because it says revise regulations or change call rates regulations are not set up necessarily relating to the polak and in this regard it's considered the actions of the government  based pay system as as opposed to call of the sick is really only there to tell you how to calculate colas and they have nothing really to add to on the locality pay part of the equation right that's correct ok and that their answer is well at least for a period of time the cola would be folded in so the stick was still relevant but i take it your answer to that is that what you tell me if i'm wrong but i  take it is that they call up remained pertinent to the calculation of the actual dollar amounts paid each year on a sliding scale but only the two thousand and nine caught the fixed number that had already been three ok where coal is frozen and in two thousand and nine that rate is now frozen forever and for as you might have a fourteen percent rate for a given area now that's frozen then you have a mathematical formula going forward where regulations is clearly a reference to cola regulations where as you say that intend for three the use of the term regulations is not limited to cold the regulation it could include locality pay regulations right what i think the difference is that when and paragraph where you'll see that the phrase new regulations in capital and capital is right there the term regulations and capital there has to do regulations and you say that when it's capitalized that means the color regulations when it's a lower case that means any regulations whatsoever publications did indicate they were changing color but if you look at that you'll see that the interim regulation which provided the notice for the final noted the passage of an area and cited to an area which then sets up exactly honor we don't think it applies here because the contract permitted the actions that the government took would you would you should see it otherwise if the got the contract had been completely silent on new regulations but congress had just decided to change the system nine years after the fact i'm not sure the hypothetical your honor it goes to the notion did did the contract permit what the government did here we believe it d that they say is that the statute that was passed authorised locality but of course all of cali pay regime can exist side by side with coal as it has done as a whole has been phased out the past seven or eight years so there's nothing