With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for equitable adjustments for such delays. See generally FAR 52.249-10; see also Fraser Constr. Co. v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 56, 59 n. 2 (2003). Equitable adjustments are governed and limited by the changes clause, whereby a contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment only for those changes ordered or directed by the Contracting Officer pursuant to the changes clause. See FAR 52.243-4(a)-(d). As a result, contractors are not entitled to compensation for excusable delays not caused by the government. See, e.g., Sauer Inc. v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2000) (requiring that the contractor “demonstrate! ] a government-imposed delay, i.e., a compensable delay” to recover damages); cf. Luria Bros. & Co., Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 676, 369 F.2d 701, 714 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because the delays Edge experienced

A: recognizing that courts may not confine defendants to work off court costs in order to satisfy the governments contractual interest
B: recognizing that the contractor may recover costs when loss of productivity results from the governments actions
C: holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages
D: holding limitation clause inapplicable where contractor incurred additional costs as a result of governments failure to perform
B.