Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the beginning of any unreasonable delay. General Provision 76(c) clearly states: "Unless specifically authorized by the Contracting Officer in writing, no construction will be started until the CQC plan is approved” (emphasis added). No written authorization to proceed was given to Avedon and' Avedon’s CQC plan had not been approved. The court thus finds no basis for Avedon’s reliance on this NTP and no basis for an unreasonable delay claim based on this incident. Even assuming arguendo it had a right to rely on the NTP, Avedon would be hard pressed to show the Navy delayed unreasonably subsequent to the NTP. The delay time after August 22 attributable to the Navy was only six days from August 31 to September 6. Cf. Joseph Corman Corp. v. United States, 246 F.Supp. 602 (D.Mass.1965) ; Chaney, 190 Ct.Cl. at 712-13, 421 F.2d at 735
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice
B. holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable
C. holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
D. holding a delay of notice to proceed from march 4 to september 26 of the same year was not improper
E. holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.