With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “[t]he ultimate question ... is whether [the contractor] adequately disclosed to the Government the ‘accurate, complete, and current’ ... costs .... [and] whether the Government relied on the overstated costs to its detriment.” 576 F.2d at 914 (emphasis added). In other words, a contract price has been increased by defective cost or pricing data when the government relied on the defective data to its detriment in agreeing to the contract price. That reliance on defective data is a necessary element of a TINA claim was reinforced by this court’s decision in Universal Restoration, Inc. v. United States, in which we found that the government could not recover on its TINA claim, even though the contract price was calculated using defective data. 798 F.2d 1400, 1402, 1406 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In that case, we held that the presumption

A: holding that the addition of a enough cereal to dog food to place it in a tariff provision with a lower rate of duty was within the importers right to fashion merchandise to obtain a lower rate of duty
B: holding that government could not recover under tina even though billings were calculated on the basis of the 115 markup for overhead and the court aceepted as correct that universals overhead rate was in fact lower than 115
C: holding that appellant waived the issue on appeal by not raising it in its opening brief even though the lower courts decision was based on that point
D: holding that if a decision below is correct it will not be disturbed on appeal even though the lower court relied upon wrong reasons
B.