Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the doctrine of res judicata. Fundamental to a claim of res judicata in an administrative context are the requirements that the administrative agency was acting in a “judicial capacity” and that the parties had an “opportunity to litigate” their claims. See Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 107, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991). Plaintiff has not satisfied either requirement. Plaintiff has not demonstrated, through case law or facts, that the HCFA contracting officers in 1994 were acting in a judicial capacity when they made their decision in February 1994. Nor has Data shown that there was an adversarial proceeding between HCFA and Data that resulted in the issuance of the 1994 memorandum. See Roxco, Ltd. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 39, 45 (2004) . For these reasons, the court finds that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment
B. recognizing that res judicata does not apply unless the facts and evidence necessary to maintain suit are the same in both actions
C. holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award
D. holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding
E. holding that res judicata does not apply where the contracting officer did not act in a judicial capacity and there was no adversarial proceeding between the government and roxco
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.