Mem. at 35, it nonetheless contends that “[t]he clear intent of making the subcontract a ‘part hereof (of the bond) was to supplement the default provisions in the bond agreement so that Tower would be obligated to perform the work according to the subcontract if POST did not,” id. at 36. The plain meaning of the contract language simply does not support Tower’s interpretation. The Performance Bond states that the Subcontract “is hereby referred to and made a part” of the Bond without any exception or reservation. The Court can discern no other meaning or effect of this language but to include the Subcontract’s terms as provisions of the Performance Bond in their entirety. Cf. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. ex rel. Noralco Corp. v. Norair Eng’g Corp., 553 F.2d 233, 235 (D.C.Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, “[i]t is generally held that ‘[w]hen
holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work holding that subcontract requirement that work    be performed in accordance with specifications in prime contract meant that prime contract governed the manner of the performance of the work not    the basis for computing the amount to be paid the subcontractor holding that only provisions relating to work specifications and performance were incorporated into the subcontract because the relevant clauses limited the incorporation of the terms insofar as they relate  to the work undertaken herein recognizing that  the work to be completed in accordance with the time limits of section 6 is the work for which lien enforcement is sought holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one