interpretation will prevail if more than one reasonable interpretation); ITT Arctic Servs., Inc., 524 F.2d at 684 (same). Whether the constructive changes for which plaintiff seeks to recover are within the scope of the contract is an issue because plaintiff inexplicably contends that they are not within the scope of the contract. If these constructive changes fall within the scope of work required under the contract as modified, plaintiff could not cease performance, but must proceed under the Changes clause. Plaintiff also may be entitled to recover for breach if it is able.to demonstrate that these changes were the result of breach of good faith and fair dealing or that defendant had superior knowledge. See generally Fox Valley Eng'g Inc. v. United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 228 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Conversely, if the purported constructive
holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach