be established where the party “fall[s] within a class clearly intended to be benefited” by the contract. See Montana, 124 F.3d at 1273; see also JGB Enters., Inc. v. United States, 497 F.3d 1259, 1261 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (observing that a subcontractor was a third-party beneficiary,. where “the [contracting officer] knew or should have known that the [G]overnment’s payment on the contract was intended to directly benefit the subcontractor”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that third-party beneficiary status is not established “merely because [a] contract would benefit [a party].” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. United States, 342 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“FDIC”); see also US Ecology, Inc. v. United States, 245 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). Instead, “[t]hird party beneficiary status is
recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid holding employer thirdparty beneficiary could compel arbitration holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply