this relief is to clarify obligations pertaining to the contract at issue in this case as well as future IDQ contracts so as to permit a “true meeting of the minds between owner and bidder, and to create a fair and competitive venue for continued use of the IDQ contract.” Id. Schweiger argues this court has jurisdiction to hear these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2), and 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). The government argues that Schweiger’s claims for declaratory relief fall outside the purview of the this court’s jurisdiction. Motion to Dismiss at 23-26. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. One limitation upon its jurisdiction is that this court is generally precluded from issuing declaratory judgments. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969) (<HOLDING>). See also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d
recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act holding that declaratory judgments should not be used as a restraint against criminal action holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims