awardee receives a Certificate. See Gov’t Brief at 23-24, 29. The Government also argues that such interruption would subject Fairchild AFB to state and local penalties for violation of state and local solid waste laws. See Gov’t Brief at 29. Wash. Rev.Code § 81.77.110 and Wash. Admin. Code § 480-70-136, however, provide that expedited and temporary Certificates can be issued without a hearing while a permanent application is pending. These provisions alleviate the Government’s concerns regarding any possible service interruption or possible violations of solid waste laws. Further, in this case, requiring the Air Force to resolicit this contract as a HUBZone small business s 1567, 1573 (Fed.Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362, 1367 (Fed.Cir.1983)) (<HOLDING>); Meister Bros., Inc. v. Macy, 674 F.2d 1174,
holding that tucker act jurisdiction is founded on an implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered holding that the tucker act confers jurisdiction to hear claims for alleged breach of contract and that jurisdiction is not lost if the court later determines on the merits that the alleged contract is in fact void ab initio or invalid 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 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 unsuccessful bidder is awarded its bid preparation costs because the government violated its implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered 