Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contract. Additionally, under SES’s subcontract, SES declared that “it ha[d] investigated all pertinent conditions relative to the performance of the work contained in this Agreement, knowing the character, quantities and sources of materials to be used in performing the work, [and] the labor conditions prevalent in the area in which the work is to be performed.” SES does not seek the difference between the 00812 rate and the 00813 rate as damages. Cf. Morrison-Hardeman-Perini-Leavell v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 938, 392 F.2d 988, 997 (1968) (noting that contractor can recover against government, where government directed contractor to pay, both retroactively and in future, new higher minimum prevailin Servs., L.P., 317 S.W.3d 431, 456 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. filed) . We reject SES’s reliance on these cases.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a defense immunizing federal contractors from liability where the contractor has conformed its behavior to precise government specifications and if necessary has warned the government of risks posed by those specifications
B. holding that where owner and contractor frequently discussed progress of construction project and advancement of money by owner to contractor and contractor misappropriated some of the money debt was not excepted from discharge under bankruptcy code  523a2 because owner did not show that contractor had intent not to perform when the agreement was made
C. holding that contractor was not precluded from recovering damages against owner for defective specifications stated in contract notwithstanding lumpsum and prebid investigation provisions in contract because owner made positive assurances concerning reliability of said specifications
D. holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where the governments specifications were impossible to meet government changed the specifications but did not change the price to be paid original contractor refused to perform and new contractor was paid more to meet new specifications
E. holding original contractor not liable for additional cost of relet contract where significant changes were made to the construction specifications
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.