Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
tort cases without express focus on choice of law issues. See, e.g., Carmichael v. KBR, 572 F.3d 1271, 1288 n. 13 (11th Cir.2009) (providing that the court’s analysis “would remain the same regardless of which state’s law applied”); see also Taylor v. KBR, 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir.2011) (dismissing on political question grounds -without discussing choice of law); Lane v. Halliburton, supra. The evidence of sensitive military decisions persuaded these courts that such cases are not “typical negligence action[s]” where the fact-finder can “draw upon common sense and everyday experience” in determining whether a military contractor acted reasonably. Carmichael, 572 F.3d at 1289. But cf. McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1359-62 (11th Cir.2007) . Differences among the tort regimes of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error
B. holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
C. holding that submissions qualified as cda claims when the contractor asserted in writing and with sufficient specificity a right to additional compensation and the contractor communicated his desire for a contracting officer decision
D. holding that private contractor failed to demonstrate that claims against it required reexamination of a military decision
E. holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.