with id. at 334-35 (ruling that, with respect to another contract, the subcontractor failed to establish third-party beneficiary status because neither the prime contractor nor the subcontractor notified the contracting officer that the purpose of modifying the remittance clause was to assure the subcontractor that it would receive payment). Similarly, when the government modifies a contract pursuant to and/or acts in accordance with an assignment agreement, the government expressly agrees to the assignment. See Summerfield Housing Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 160, 173 (1998) (finding that by modifying the contract with the name of the assignee and by incorporating the notice of assignment, the government expressly agreed to the assignment); Norwest, 37 Fed.Cl. at 610 (<HOLDING>). can consider. No admissible evidence was
holding that the contracting officer effectively made a final decision on the government claim for set off by declining to pay the contractor the balance due on the contract holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim  holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority holding that when the contracting officer modified the contract to name the contractors bank as payee the contracting officers actions demonstrated an express agreement to pay the bank