must be reduced by the costs, if any, that plaintiffs would have experienced absent a breach.”). That ruling was not reversed on appeal. The Government now also insists that the court also must account in this proceeding for the additional savings that SMUD realized from 2004 through 2008, by closing the SNF wet pool. Gov’t Reply and Resp. at 12. As a threshold matter, the parties stipulated and the court entered an Order limiting the scope of this proceeding only through December 31, 2003. Sept. 27, 2004 Joint Stip. and Order (Docket No. 254, 257). In addition, the Government did not argue entitlement to this offset at trial, on appeal, nor did the Federal Circuit’s remand direct the court to do so. Rem. TR at 188-89; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 236 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Engel Indus. Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding where a party failed to raise an issue clearly implicated in the initial decision of the trial court our mandate  acted to prevent that party from raising this issue on remand holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court