show that the United States waived its defense of sovereign immunity. See Chancellor Manor v. United States, 331 F.3d 891, 898 (Fed.Cir.2003). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2000), includes a waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity defense for claims “founded ... upon any express or implied contract with the United States----” Id. at § 1491(a)(1); see Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.2005) (noting that the Tucker Act “confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States, and ... waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions”). The court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction extends only to plaintiffs in privity of contract with the Government. Chancellor Manor, 331 F.3d at 899 (<HOLDING>); see Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204, 1210
holding that for the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the tucker act there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the united states holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981