fees and court costs; (5) compensatory damages as provided by statute; and (6) any additional relief the court deems appropriate. DISCUSSION 1. Standard of review Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When a federal court hears such a jurisdictional challenge, “its task is necessarily a limited one.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). “The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Id. The court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, and must construe such facts in the light most favorable to the pleader. See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, if the jurisdictional facts
holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that courts must when reviewing motions for summary judgment evaluate disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that triers of fact may draw only reasonable inferences