With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". & Rem. Code § 150.002(b) (emphasis added); see Dunham Eng’g, 404 S.W.3d at 796 (explaining that the “core focus of section 150.002(b) is ascertaining and verifying the existence of errors or omissions in the professional services provided”). Thus, reading the statute as a whole, section 150.002 does not apply to every claim against a professional engineer or engineering firm, but only to those claims arising out of errors or omissions in providing professional engineering services—that is, services requiring the engineer’s use of education, training, and experience in applying special knowledge or judgment. See Tex. Occ. Code § 1001.003(b); Dunham Eng’g, 404 S.W.3d at 793. Cf. Bruington Eng’g Ltd. v. Pedernal Energy L.L.C., 403 S.W.3d 523, 529-30 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2013, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Jacobs Engineering argues that the selection

A: holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute
B: holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false
C: holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim based on conclusory allegations that a locality failed to adequately supervise officers in the proper use of force where the complaint provided no factual allegations of known widespread conduct by the localitys employees comparable to that alleged as to the plaintiff
D: holding that plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit when all of its allegations against engineering firm with whom it contracted to supervise oil well fracturing treatment were based on firms provision of those services
D.