With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. Brennan further testified that based on his examination of the project as compared with Morganti’s as-planned WC01 schedule and as-built progress from February 22, 1996, through termination, it was his opinion that any delays that occurred beyond WC01 were caused by Morganti and not the actions of the FBOP. As noted above, Mr. Brennan did not consider the parties’ Schedule B Agreement regarding the use of Morganti’s WC04 schedule as a baseline for measuring progress and delays, and thus his analysis disregards the parties’ stated intent. In such circumstances, the court’s role is to comb through the evidence and determine whether, based on the record, Morganti was entitled to any time beyond December 31, 1996, for critical path delays caused by Mod 192. Law, 195 Ct.Cl. at 386-87 (<HOLDING>). Although the court’s analysis “takes into

A: holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case
B: holding court may rely on other evidence in the record where plaintiffs total time theory has been rejected
C: holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected
D: recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice
B.