CO agree to any action by prior, written approval. Harbert/Lummus also argues that, because the government does not dispute the CO’s authority to enter into a written contract with Harbert/Lummus to care for the plant after DOE ceased its guarantees, the CO must have had the authority to enter into the oral, unilateral contract because both contracts stemmed from the CO's authority to minimize DOE’s expenses with regal’d to the project. Again, this argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the fact that the unilateral contract was oral and did not contain the required written approval. As we have held before, agency procedures must be followed before a binding contract can be formed. See American Gen. Leasing, Inc. v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 367, 587 F.2d 54, 57-58 (1978) (<HOLDING>); New Am. Shipbuilders, Inc. v. United States,
holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds holding that express oral agreement with government agent was not binding because among other factors applicable regulations required contract to be in writing holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter agreement holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract