to post a bond, yet the Conservation Service failed to do so. Pis.’ Appl. for Default Judgment at 1; Pis.’ Reply to Def.’s Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 13. The government construes that statement as alleging a claim under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3131, which the government contends is not money-mandating within the meaning of the Tucker Act. Def.’s Opp to Pis.’ Appl. for Default Judgment at 2 (citing United Elec. Corp, v. United States, 647 F.2d 1082, 1084, n. 4 (Ct. Cl. 1981)). Cons timing the Telzrows’ filing leniently, they appear to allege an actual promise by the United States to cause a bond to be posted for subcontractors, which promise was not honored. Pls.’ Appl. for Default Judgment at 1. Such allegations state a claim for breach of contract. See Massachusetts Bay, 129 F.3d at 1232 (<HOLDING>). Factual development is needed to determine
holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding government could be liable for breach of a contractual obligation to purchase insurance for plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that the plaintiff had not stated a claim for inducement to breach a contract where she had not alleged facts sufficient to show the existence of an enforceable underlying contract