(Fed.Cir.2004) (“Because the Tucker Act itself does not provide a substantive cause of action, ... a plaintiff must find elsewhere a money-mandating source upon which to base a suit.”). In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim by or against, or dispute with, a contractor arising under ... the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, (‘Contract Disputes Act’) including a dispute concerning ... rights in tangible or intangible property, compliance with cost accounting standards, and other non-monetary disputes on which a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of that Act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2); see Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1270 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act
holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute recognizing that this amendment provided the united states court of federal claims with jurisdiction over a nonmonetary substitute for monetary relief holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud