Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the facts and circumstances.” D.W. Sandau Dredging, ENGBCA No. 5812, 96-1 BCA ¶ 28,064, at 140,161, 1995 WL 739023 (1995). In this connection, “the amount of money involved, the length of time of the non-payment, and the payment procedur to pay large amounts” could constitute a material breach. Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 118, 125, 455 F.2d 546, 550 (1972). However, here, the evidence established that the FBOP never refused to pay Morganti; the FBOP merely delayed payment. While the FBOP’s payment history was not perfect, it is not disputed that Morganti received $82 million in progress payments on a $110 million project that it ultimately failed to complete. In such circumstances, the FBOP’s conduct does not constitute a material breach. Id. at 124, 455 F.2d 546 ; Jones Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 86-1 BCA ¶
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff
B. holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation
C. holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach
D. holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract
E. holding contractor liable for total or material breach thus excusing government from payment of contract price
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.