are alleged to establish this claim. Id. And, although the Government had considerable leeway to make or withhold payments to affect contract completion, only payment to Plaintiff (or withholding payment altogether) would achieve Contract completion in this case. Id. at 10. The Government failed to do either. Id. B. The Court’s Resolution. The June 30, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and Final Order considered Plaintiffs argu ment that notification of default or imminent default was “superfluous and unnecessary.” United Surety, 87 Fed.Cl. at 589. The court rejected this argument, as a matter of law. Id. at 591. Instead, the court held that the Government owed no duty to a surety until notice is received. Id. (citing Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. United States, 909 F.2d 495, 499 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>)) (emphasis added). Plaintiff also argues that
holding that obligee can recover from surety attorneys fees that are provided for in obligees subcontract so long as the total recovery against the surety does not exceed the penal amount of the bond recognizing that the gjovernment as obligee owes no equitable duty to a surety  unless the surety notifies the government that the principal has defaulted under the bond  notice by the surety is essential before any governmental duty exists holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety