(1996); City of Tacoma. Dep’t of Pub. Utils. v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Outside evidence may not be brought in to create an ambiguity where the language is clear.”); Interwest Constr. v. Brown, 29 F.3d 611, 615 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“‘[E]xtrinsic evidence to change the terms of a contract that is clear on its face’ may not be considered by a tribunal.”); Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 555, 567, 553 F.2d 651, 658 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012, 98 S.Ct. 724, 54 L.Ed.2d 755 (1978). But, if an ambiguous or uncertain writing can only be understood upon consideration of the surrounding circumstances, extrinsic evidence will be allowed to interpret the language. See Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Sylvania Elec. Prods., Inc. v. United States,
holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous holding extrinsic evidence may be used only to interpret not alter a written contract holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is ambiguous holding that extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an ambiguous contract