employment contract, such claim fails as a matter of law. “Absent specific legislation, federal employees derive the benefits and emoluments of their positions from appointment rather than from any contractual or quasi-contractual relationships with the government.” Chu v. United States, 773 F.2d 1226, 1229 (Fed.Cir.1985) (citations omitted); see also Collier v. United States, 379 F.3d 1330, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“Civil Service employees hold their positions by appointment, not contract.”). To the extent Plaintiff claims that the television host position should have been issued to her as a POV position covered by the BPA, that claim would also fail because the Government only obligates itself to the extent of actual purchase orders issued and performed. See Freeman, 94-3 BCA at 135,-907 (<HOLDING>). Criminal Accusations and Tort Claims
holding that rfra provides no waiver of governmental immunity  as a result the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under which he can recover the monetary damages he seeks holding that when contractor seeks payment for services never ordered under a bpa the government has no obligation to appellant and no contract exists under which appellant can pursue his claim holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract