Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim against the government, where the government signs a contract that establishes contractual obligations for the government but interposes a third-party as a 'contract administrator'

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over “any claim against the United States founded *** upon any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1). The Federal Circuit (the only court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Federal Claims) has interpreted those words to mean that only parties “in privity” with the government may invoke the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. It held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction in this case because petitioners are “in privity” only with a third-party “contract administrator” interposed by the government—despite that government officials negotiated and signed the contract. As the government explained in its petition for rehearing en banc in a prior case, that holding conflicts with other Federal Circuit precedent holding that the exact same form contract at issue here imposes contractual obligations directly on the federal government. This conflict has been brought to the Federal Circuit’s attention repeatedly, and it has consistently refused to convene en banc to bring clarity to its law. The enforceability of billions of dollars in government contracts hangs in the balance. The question presented is whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a breach-ofcontract claim against the government, where the government signs a contract that establishes contractual obligations for the government but interposes a thirdparty as a “contract administrator.”