stands on firmer ground in seeking to excuse its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies by invoking the exception for “pure questions of law.” See generally Pl.’s Reply Brief at 12-14; PL’s Surreply Brief at 20-21. But see Def.’s Surreply Brief at 3^, 11-13. As the Supreme Court explained in McKart v. United States, exhaustion generally is not required where the issue before the court is a pure question of law, since resolution of such an issue “does not require any particular expertise on the part of the [agency],” and “judicial review would not be significantly aided by an additional administrative decision.” McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 198-99, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); see also Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997, 1003 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). SVC correctly notes that “the issue of
recognizing exception recognizing futility exception to doctrine of exhaustion where agency was powerless to grant relief sought recognizing doctrine recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile