States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1262 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“[I]ntent is determined by looking to the contract and, if necessary, other objective evidence. In 'the absence of clear guidance from the contract language, the requisite intent on the part of the government can be inferred from the actions of the contracting officer_”). Because an ambiguous or uncertain writing sometimes only can be understood upon consideration of the surrounding circumstances, courts may rely on extrinsic evidence to interpret an ambiguous contract clause. See Cruz-Martinez v. Deft of Homeland Sec., 410 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“‘[M]eaning can almost never be plain except in a context.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 212, cmt. b (1981))); Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d at 1375 (<HOLDING>); Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. United States,
holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous holding extrinsic evidence may be used only to interpret not alter a written contract holding that extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an ambiguous contract holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is ambiguous