through the doctrine of third party beneficiaries.”); see also Restatement (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 302 (1981) (“[A] beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the intention' of the parties and either[:] (a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or (b) the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.”). To establish rally.” Id.; see also Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1352 (referring to “the stringent requirements which must be satisfied to establish third-party beneficiary status.”); see also G4S Tech. LLC v. United States, 779 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). In addition, a government contract must
holding that there was no thirdparty beneficiary status despite contrary circumstantial evidence when the governments actions never deviated from the scope of its sovereign responsibilities to safeguard taxpayer funds and advance the public interest holding that a contractors employees were not within the scope and course of their employment when they deviated from their work to shoot at squirrels holding that a janitorial workers sexual assault of a student deviated from his duties and was clearly outside of the scope of his employment holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees holding that the employers deviation from its established procedure when terminating the plaintiff was circumstantial evidence of retaliation