that the Government directed and caused it to take additional actions, which plaintiff followed, resulting in additional work. Plaintiff emphasizes that the Government at no time discouraged it from performing or indicated that it no longer wanted the CLINs performed. Moreover, plaintiff contends that the extra work, which constituted constructive changes, was authorized by the Program Manager. None of plaintiffs evidence, however, suggests that it could prove inducement, as the case law has given meaning to the concept. See e.g., Advanced Materials, 108 F.3d at 312 (finding that statements regarding potential willingness to fund overrun insufficient to constitute inducement or as basis for detrimental reliance); Ebasco Servs., Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 370, 381-82 (1997) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, plaintiff made no showing
holding that the finality of a contracting officers determination was suspended during his review of a request by the contractor to reconsider the final decision holding that when the contracting officer modified the contract to name the contractors bank as payee the contracting officers actions demonstrated an express agreement to pay the bank holding that contractors decision to continue performance was voluntary and not induced by actions or statements of representatives particularly in light of contracting officers consistent indications that funding limit would be enforced holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim  holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim