that these facts demonstrate that Data did not rely on the 1994 memorandum as setting forth the final indirect cost rates for the years 1987 through 1991. Def.’s Opp. at 13. The court agrees. The correspondence exchanged between Data and HCFA indicates that plaintiff was aware that final indirect cost rates still needed to be finalized for the remaining contracts between Data and HCFA. Id. Thus, Data’s argument for equitable estoppel fails because Data has not established the second and fourth prongs of the equitable estoppel test set forth above. Data’s claim of equitable estoppel also fails because plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish some form of affirmative misconduct by the government. See DeMarco Durzo Dev. Co. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 632, 638 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Wertz, 51 Fed.Cl. at 450 (holding that
holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction