820 (quoting Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 332 U.S. at 384, 68 S.Ct. 1). While it is generally accepted that a person with no actual authority may not bind the United States to the terms of a contract either express or implied, Trauma Serv. Group, 104 F.3d at 1325; City of El Centro, 922 F.2d at 820, “in some circumstances, a person with some limited actual authority impliedly may have broader authority,” Cal. Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 19, 27 (1990). Actual authority may be implied “when such authority is considered to be an integral part of the duties assigned to a government employee.” Landau, 886 F.2d at 324 (quoting J. Cibinic & R. Nash, Formation of Government Contracts 43 (1982)); see also United States v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 481 F.2d 764, 768-69 (9th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); Gardiner v. V.I. Water & Power Auth., 145
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 attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims holding that although the court has the authority to review facts not before the plan administrator the court should use that authority sparingly holding that the county attorney had de facto authority and noting that the objection to the county attorneys authority was first made on appeal holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority