[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case, and in hindsight, maybe we could consolidate this, but we were obviously set off on this jurisdictional argument.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
Anyway, the next case is 22-1368, EEC International versus Secretary of the Armed, Mr. Holmes.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
I think we can probably ally maybe some of the time, since we've had a... We don't need to re-discuss this jurisdictional question on this.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, and I appreciate that.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
I was not planning to do that, but I would just note that...

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
preliminarily the same case law and the same issues apply to this particular appeal as they did the first one.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
But I don't want to repeat all of that.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
I think we've covered it quite thoroughly.

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
What I would like to do, again, is walk through briefly this issue of some certain and how you get it.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
I have a question about that, so maybe I can guide you in terms of what I need.

[00:00:56] Speaker ?:
Sure.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
The relevant test here is whether or not the claims share operative facts, right?

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
And as the board points out, certain valid distinctions between the sub-issues of each claim, right?

[00:01:11] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
So is the fact that the issues merely concern the same aspect of construction, like the outlet stuff, enough to show that they share the same facts?

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
or does every issue share facts at some level of abstraction?

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
I mean, I know the standard is low, so I'm not sure what the level of abstraction is between the facts.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
I think you make a strong case on some of the items, but I'm just not sure what the standard is.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
And I would refer back to, because to put this in context, what has happened here is the contractor filed its claim, and it divided the claim into different parts.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
And then the board has looked at the claim and said,

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
And then there's a sum certain for each of those parts, clearly.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
If you go to the appendix page 187, the claim we filed has got a direct cost sum certain for each of those 22 items.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And that's the direct cost.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
And then if you go to page 219, the markups for overhead and profit are on that page.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
And you simply multiply the number from

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
187 times the overhead and profit and you get the the identical amount of the claim that you know the overall amount of the claim what the board did and this is what makes this case so unusual is the board decided that Contractor you don't have right to file the claim you want to and cluster your your claims in the in the order you want and

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
it read the claim and said, we're going to pick different claims and put them together differently.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
And when you do that, the estimate is then split up differently than the way we did it.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
And so they've created some certain uncertainty by the way they chose to split the claims up.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
And we think they did it wrong.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
It's pretty clear from the board's opinion that the board really didn't understand these claims and how they were put together.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
The way the board split the claims up, and I've got several examples I could walk you through.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
The cost elements of one related claim are being split up by the board, is essentially what they've done, in their opinion.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
But each of the issues the contractor chose to put together, in its view, the logical relationship of issues, and then cost those.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
And then the board split them up differently and said, well, now we can't figure out what the cost is, because we've sliced them up in a different grouping.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
We went back and redid the estimate.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
as a part of the motion practice and said, well, if you really want to split them up a different way, then you have to redo the estimate, and here's how you do that.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
And again, we cited in our briefs and we set before the board how you would recalculate that estimate the way the board wanted to have it split up.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
So I think what we have here is the unique circumstance where the judge has

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
divided the claim in a different manner and then created a problem that didn't exist.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
And if that's the legal standard that the judges... Are you arguing, and maybe let me just make sure I understand your argument, are you arguing that the non-challenged line items are interrelated because they share a common design process?

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
Is that part of your argument?

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
I'm just trying to...

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
Well, that is certainly one of the parts of it.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
But if you want to look at the nine line items, and basically from Appendix 187, what the judge did was he picked out nine of those particular items and said, I don't see these as interrelated.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
I see them as separate claims.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
And so he recreated a claim instead of nine claims that we had in our original claim.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
He created 22 claims.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And the dilemma a contractor is in is if a judge comes back and does that and says, well, now that I've recreated the claims, I can't figure out the sum certain.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
We're not given a chance to explain what the sum certain is.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, if that's the law, then contractors' claims could just go away whenever a judge decides to split them up and doesn't give the party an opportunity to say,

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
No, I still have my sum certain.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
There was an overall dollar amount.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
We have specifically, if you look again at the claim page, we have an overall dollar amount if you take the communications claims.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
There were claims 4 through 13.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
That's $1.827 million is what we claim for direct cost with the markups.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
If you want to subdivide and then each of those

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
nine claims has individual subamounts, and if you want to break those up into additional amounts, well, then we should be given the chance to say, well, here's how you split these up, if that's what the court or the board wants to do for saying, well, what's the sum certain for the raceways or the La Grande floor boxes?

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
There's no case we've ever seen where that's been done by the court or board, where they take the claim or recreate the claim and then say, and we can't figure out the new number from your estimate.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
And we did, by the way.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
And it's in the record.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
There's another affidavit that Mr. Scott Hayward, the project program manager, put together explaining if you want to go back and recalculate

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
the estimate, you know, that was done and we cite that in our brief.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
Again, I don't have the specific page sites handy here.

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
I think I'm a little, maybe I could reserve my, get back like I did last time on my rebuttal and give you the specific page sites.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
But that's basically what happened.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
If you look at the claim and read the claim as submitted, there is a clear sum certain in there for each of these sub-items, you know, of the 22 that we listed.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
And there's really no way, the only way you could raise some certain question in your mind is if you create a different claim than what we filed.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you about that, going back to the issue we were discussing in the earlier case.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
Did this issue ever come up during the trial in this case?

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
Any questions raised with respect to the specificity of the numbers or the lack of specificity that was, you know,

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
I give the same answer.

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
This case, they were litigated together.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
The nine-day trial covered both this claim and the other appeal issues.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
The words, some certain, were never issued.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
Nobody from the government, no witnesses, ever said, we can't figure these out.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
We want to reorder this, and we can't figure out the reordering of the claim.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
Was this the case where stuff was bifurcated, apparently, because some of the stuff was already decided?

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
No, there had been a couple of summary judgment motions on the merits, and then there was a decision on the security issue separate.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
But no, this was all litigated together.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
Both quantum and entitlement were litigated before the court, and cost were

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
proven by the parties.

[00:08:20] Speaker 02:
There was much discussion of cost and how you calculated these estimates.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
And there was a lot of testimony about specific parts of the estimate, about how they were put together.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
But the sum certain issue and the issue that we are here today about never came up.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
It was simply not an issue that the government raised or the judge raised.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
After the board's decision, was this issue discussed in any form on rehearing?

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Well, so we had our trial.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
The board did not rule on the merits of the issues before.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
Then it ruled jurisdiction.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
Then there was the jurisdictional motion filed after the trial when we were doing the post-trial briefing.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
That's when the government raised some

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
some certain.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
And that's when the board decided it.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
And there was no additional evidence.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
It was simply briefed.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
We did file an affidavit at that point, because that's the first we knew that the judge was going to reorder things.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
And suddenly, there was going to be new subparts of claims.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
We filed an affidavit at that point explaining how you subdivide the specific parts to get to the issues.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
Did you contend at any point that the government was to stop from arguing that there was not a sum certain for this regrouped evaluation?

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
Well, in the briefing on the motion for reconsideration after we got the decision, and then also in response to the government's motion to dismiss for jurisdictional reasons, we certainly argued that

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
you know there was a some certain and and it was presented and we walked through much like what we walked through in the brief in this case uh... we we cited back to the claim documents and and and made our arguments so uh... i don't know if that answers your question but we you know we did raise that argument but uh...

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
You know, we didn't get to the issues, obviously, that the Supreme Court's gotten to.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
But we raised a fairness argument about we spent huge amounts of our resources litigating this.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
And now, suddenly, the government has come in at the 11th hour and said, we've got a problem with the cost.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, nobody at trial raised the cost issue, this cost issue, of some certain to us.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
How compelling that issue is may be affected by, I mean, I don't know the answer to this, whether or not, even if it's not jurisdictional, what authority the board would have to reopen or revisit this case at the 11th hour.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
I just don't know what the answer is.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
Well, again, the board has very flexible procedures for opening a record.

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
If they needed more evidence, if they felt like, based on what evidence was presented at trial, they needed additional evidence

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
dressings, they certainly can.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
And again, I have seen that happen.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
We'll reserve your time here from the government.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
So with respect to whether there was a some certain stated in the claim, what

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
ecci is arguing is that a contractor is allowed to aggregate individual claims and then no one is allowed to look at them and decide whether this aggregation is really whether there's multiple claims or just one claim and this court in place way is that that's not that it's not up to the contractor to decide but based on labels or common thread whether something is one claim or or or not you have to look at the

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
the operative facts, whether they are the same or related.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
And all the board did here was in response to a motion to dismiss challenging whether the claim had some of these line items at Appendix 187, whether some of those line items were in fact multiple claims because there were multiple operative facts.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
The contractor doesn't get to decide that something is

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
a single claim just because that's how the contractor wants to set up or set forth their claim.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
And the board went through and wasn't beholden to the labels that ECCI used in describing its claims.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
The board basically said, ECCI, you made the wrong choice in grouping these various claims.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
We're going to consider it in a different way.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
Does that mean ECCI never has an opportunity to sort of represent its claim or resubmit some certain argument based on the way the board is looking at the claim?

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
it is easy to see i have a responsibility to do a little bit of a little bit to figure out what is uh... uh... uh... single claim or multiple claims and it would just be too easy to accept the argument that the contractors allowed to just ignore those lines and ignore the law and aggregate things in a way that it makes it difficult for anyone to understand

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
Well, what is this uncertainty?

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Judge, one's question.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
I don't think I have an answer.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
What was it?

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
I mean, the ECCI basically is submitting a claim based on what it perceives as the appropriate way to aggregate various components.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
And I hear your argument that, well, the board disagreed and said, no, no, no.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
You didn't do it right.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
But it just seems inappropriate that ECC

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
I would not have an opportunity to say, well, OK, if you think we didn't do it right, we're happy to regroup, and we'll do the math for you.

[00:14:19] Speaker 01:
And here's our claim.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
Did that not happen in this case, or were they foreclosed from doing that in this case?

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
That did not happen, I think, because of the question of whether that deprived, whether there was a claim.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
doesn't have the sum certain, then there's no claim to be presented under the statute for contracting officer's final decision.

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
So you could go, presumably, they could redo it.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
Well, they could resubmit it.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
There's a six-year statute of limitations, right?

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
However, when we're doing this, raising this for the first time three months after the trial is completed, they've blown up the statute of limitations.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
So that's an issue.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
I mean, in another circumstance, right,

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
If there's a motion to dismiss or something, they can either try to amend the claim, or if the judge says no, then they can go back and file a new claim, as long as they're within the statute of limitations.

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
But that opportunity is foreclosed in this case because of the lateness of raising these issues.

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
Am I fairly stating that?

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
It may be foreclosed in this case, but that shouldn't change whether

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
The standard for determining whether a claim is one or multiple claims and whether a some certain has been stated, that should apply here.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
I'm not suggesting any nefarious purpose at all by the government.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
But doesn't that create an amazing opportunity?

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
I mean, let's say there really is a problem with the some certain.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
And you lie low until the trial is passed.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
And then you raise this issue post trial, and the statute of limitations has run, so there's no opportunity to cure.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
Isn't that problematic in those circumstances?

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
I don't know whether that's any of my business, but isn't that problematic?

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
That could be problematic, but that would assume that the government wanted to litigate a case

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
for six years just to broaden the statute of limitations.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
And there's no evidence that that's what was going on here.

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
What happened was that shortly before this proceeding, this case, these appeals went to hearing, there was a change.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
The contractor shifted its claim

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
And this raised a red flag and caused the agency to go back and look at what was the original claim, what was really going on.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
Was there another procedural problem, therefore, because they're required to go to the contracting officer first?

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
And so did you say, well, no, you shifted a claim.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
You can't do that at this stage because you haven't properly asserted the same claim before the contracting officer?

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
That argument wasn't made.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
I mean, the court does have

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
has held that the claim amount can change to some extent in litigation.

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
But this seemed like they were suddenly saying that the security changes were no longer a delay claim.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
And that had been a big part of the number of days of delay.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
And without teasing that out, in the claim process, the contracting officer

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
It is unable to meaningfully engage and try and resolve disputes before litigation starts.

[00:17:58] Speaker 01:
Was the claim originally submitted entirely as a security concern?

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
So just to be clear, this does relate to the 21-23-23 claim.

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
flipping and flopping a bit.

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
But it was presented as 200.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
There were 329 days of delay, 205 of which were the security claim.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
And it was $113 million, some certain.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
And so that was the problem.

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
When the board, when this issue was raised, the board looked and did the board's role is to see if there are multiple claims.

[00:18:37] Speaker 04:
And that's what the board concluded in both 2120

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
three twenty three and this one which is twenty two thirteen sixty eight dealing with the direct costs and in terms of the some certain the spreadsheet again that's being referenced is something that was prepared after the the

[00:18:58] Speaker 04:
issue was raised and would require, as ECCI put it, that you'd have to zero out some cells in a spreadsheet, you'd have to add GNA, you'd have to delete rows, replace some quantities.

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
This math is nothing like the simple math that the court has held and the board has held to be simple math.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
And the reason why this would be a problem

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
What constitutes simple math?

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
In your mind, what constitutes simple math?

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
What would you say that would be?

[00:19:31] Speaker 04:
It would be like the claims, the cases where you have a rental rate.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
And the claim is a rental rate specified in a lease.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
And the claim is you owe me 10 months of rent.

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
And you could multiply the 10 by the $500 of rental rate.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
And the reason why it has to be really that simple is because you're using it as a proxy for something that is expressly stated.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
And so if there's any chance that the contracting officer, if the math is too complicated, if it's not as simple as

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
adding two numbers or multiplying two numbers, then we have no confidence that the contracting officer is going to be on the same page as the contractor in terms of what the sum certain is.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
What's being requested, and how does the contracting officer respond to that request?

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
If there are no further questions, then we respectfully request that the board affirm.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
Yes, so just several points.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
Before, I have one question.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And it's with the other case.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
But it came up.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
And it's nobody's fault.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
And you didn't have time the first time.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
But you want to respond very briefly to the issue that the government has raised, which we expect to this change that took place right before the trial, and how that affected what was going on.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
That didn't happen.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
The delay claim was never about the security issue.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
There was a separate cost in the claim.

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
And again, appendix 608 explains those costs.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
that claim was litigated and lost.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
The delay claim was always about the communications design and delays associated with that.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
If you look at the claim and study it correctly, which apparently the government has not done,

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
You see that each of the time periods where there's delay, they looked at, and when you have a delay issue, you have to look at all the issues.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
And so the security issue was looked at as a potential delay, but in every time period, all the other delaying issues were overlapping.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
And the other issues, which were the communications issues predominantly, were always the longest path, the critical path to the project.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
And so for that reason, we never claimed security as a delay.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
And again, we cover that in our brief.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
And I think it is quite clear, if you go back and study the original claim and the pages where those charts show the different delay issues, they overlay security during the same time period and then the communications during the same time period.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
Every single time period of the delay that's analyzed, the security days of delay is less than the other delays that were going on during that time period, meaning that those other delays were the critical path.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
And the experts actually testified on this.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
You make me very happy not to be a trial judge.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
How do you respond to the government's argument that you do not present simple math?

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
Well, we use multiplication and we use addition, and those are simple math concepts.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
You obviously have to look at an Excel spreadsheet and you have to

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
know what numbers to pull off the Excel spreadsheet.

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
So the whole concept isn't you just do simple math.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
You actually have to study the documents and understand how to apply the simple math.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
And that is more difficult.

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
But it doesn't change the fact that you can do the math.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
And related to doing the math, when they reordered the claim, we filed as a part of this motion practice after the trial an affidavit from Mr. Scott Hayward, our program manager.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
And he went through and redid the math.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
And that's the part that they're talking about was complicated.

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
You had to go back to these Excel spreadsheets and pull the right cells and the right cost numbers off of those, and then put them together and do the multiplication and the addition.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
But his affidavit is at 611 through 617 in the appendix.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
And it walks you through how, if the judge wanted to reorder the claims.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
The affidavit talks about zeroing out certain cells and all that.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
How do you know exactly what to zero out?

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
Maybe just wax a little poetic, not too long on that point.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
Well, so when you're using the Excel spreadsheet, there's direct cost, there's labor cost and all that, and depending on how you split the claim up and which portions you want to declare to be a separate claim, you've got to pull from the cells the appropriate labor and

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
Because once you subdivide the claims, not all of the direct and labor and material costs are applicable, and you've got to use engineering judgment to find out, OK, if I'm going to split this claim into two different parts than I originally did, some of these costs apply to the first part, some to the second.

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
And you have to zero out the cells for the Excel spreadsheet to work to do the calculation of the estimate.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
Once you're going to change a claim and make it different, you have to have a different estimate.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
And the process of preparing that estimate requires you to split up your cost in an appropriate new subdivision.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
And that's what he was doing in that.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
And it sounds complicated, but it's what engineers do.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
And that's how estimates are prepared.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
And we redid it.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
In a former life, I was an engineer, so I know a little bit.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
OK, so you can relate to how these things work, yes.

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
Yes, and any further questions it looks like I'm out of time.

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you and we again request a reversal on a remand as appropriate from the court.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
We thank both sides and the case is submitted.