the extent that it is determined reasonable during contract negotiations.”).) Alternatively, it argues that the contract cabins profit to no more than 10% of the reimbursable costs. (See id. (noting that "the combination of profit and administrative cost must not exceed 10%”).) KRA on the other hand argues that the contract is silent as to profit under hybrid contracts and that therefore such profit is permitted without limits. 6 . In its brief, KRA also seems to broadly challenge all of PWDC’s FY 2009 disallow-ances. But the administrative and indirect cost disallowances are the only ones that KRA points to with any specificity. We therefore find that KRA has failed to preserve its arguments regarding PWDC's other disallow-anees. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993)
recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal recognizing that it is well settled that casual mention of an issue in a brief is cursory treatment insufficient to preserve the issue on appeal citing simmons v city of philadelphia 947 f2d 1042 1066 3d cir 1991 holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief