the court to have jurisdiction over a claim based upon an express or implied contract, there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the United States. Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed.Cir.1998). However, there are several exceptions to this general rule. First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed.Cir.1999). These exceptions include suits by intended third-party beneficiaries, suits by subcontractors “by means of a pass-through suit when the prime contractor is liable to the subcontractor for the subcontractor’s damages,” and suits by government contract sureties “for funds improperly disbursed to a prime contractor.” Id.; see also Ins. Co. of the W. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367, 1373-74 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he common thread that unites these
holding that the tucker act does not waive the governments sovereign immunity for federal reserve activities holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law holding that for the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the tucker act there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the united states holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act