or lawsuit. Id. at 1553-54. However, the subcontract also included a disputes clause that gave the subcontractor a direct right of appeal. Id. at 1554. The government argued that the disputes clause was included for “informational” purposes. Id. The court concluded that the disputes clause was in direct conflict with the ABC clause, which had been specially negotiated, and held that the disputes clause had not been included to give the subcontractor a right to a direct appeal or to bring a lawsuit. Id. at 1555. Common among the cases cited by the plaintiff in which courts found privity between the subcontractor and the government is the government’s manifestation of intent to waive sovereign immunity and allow the subcontractor to sue it. See, e.g., RMI Titanium Co., 78 F.3d at 1140-41 (<HOLDING>); Arntz Contracting Co., EBCA No. 187-12-81,
holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority holding that a subcontractors previous contractual relationship with the government the subcontracts assignment back to the government and a disputes clause expressly authorizing and directing the subcontractor to bring claims to the doe contracting officer manifested intent holding that an assignment was recognized by the government because the government issued a check made payable to the assignee as payment under the contract 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 government approval of a subcontract terms giving subcontractor a right to a direct appeal to the department of energy board of contract appeals among other things manifested intent