Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2003) (stating that courts apply “general rules of contract interpretation in cases where the United States is a party to the contract.”). C. Disposition Of The Government’s March 8, 2002 Motion For Summary Judgment. The May 1, 1997 Contract contains a standard integration clause that provides: This award consummates the contract, which consists of (a) the Government’s solicitation and your offer, and (b) this contract award. No further contractual documents is [sic] necessary. Def.App. at 2. Therefore, as a matter of law, the terms of the contract must be construed based on the language in the governing documents, not parol evidence. See McAbee Const., Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1434 (Fed.Cir. 1996) ; see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing presumption
B. recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals
C. recognizing this presumption
D. holding that where there is a strong presumption that the contract was  a fully integrated agreement coupled with the consistency of the evidence surrounding its execution with that presumption  the agreement was fully integrated
E. holding that the court may consider collateral evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement in determining whether the language of the agreement is unclear and if the evidence presented is so plain that no reasonable person could hold any way but one then the court may interpret the meaning as a matter of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.