It would be logical for plaintiff, a sophisticated contractor, to identify work external to the scope of the contract. This comports with the purpose of a fixed-price contract, which allocates risk at the time of contracting, irrespective of what hindsight may reveal and identifies with certainty the benefits and burdens borne by the parties. 4. Illegal contract and mutual mistake Count Seven avers that the contract is illegal and unenforceable because the Government failed to comply with section 8118 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329-84 (1987), and thus seeks in quantum meruit. On March 9, 1998, the Federal Circuit vacated its reversal of the decision in AT & T v. United States, 124 F.3d 1471, 1479-80 (1997) (<HOLDING>), reh’g en banc granted, 136 F.3d 793
holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract holding that the evidence was insufficient for the statute of limitations to bar recovery of a quantum meruit cause of action holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract holding that a discharged firms recovery is limited to quantum meruit holding supreme court had jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of evidence in subcontractors action against project owner seeking recovery under equitable doctrine of quantum meruit rather than recovery based on contract