a convincing argument that the MOUs are so indefinite as to preclude determination of breach and remedies. To the contrary, the obligations of the parties are clear: TMM is to provide discounted medical services; the hospital is to provide free space and support staff and to encourage dependents to use TMM’s services. The CHAMPUS regulatory scheme provides payment details. The determination of damages or specific performance would flow naturally from a breach of these duties. The government also argues that the resource sharing agreements are not contracts because they are not labeled “contracts” in the regulatory scheme. However, the failure of Congress to use the word “contract” does not preclude the holding that a binding contract is formed. See, e.g., Thermalon, 34 Fed.Cl. at 415 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the government argues that, if
holding that national science foundation research grant is a binding contract holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that binding review by a designated third party is arbitration even if not denominated as such in the contract holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion holding that no binding insurance contract took effect because the initial premium was not paid