Opinion ID: 4513078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Miltons’ Relationship to the Contract

Text: The Claims Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the Miltons’ remaining claims because the Miltons failed to establish that they were parties to the Contract. Milton, 2019 WL 4137495, at . Under the Tucker Act, to established that the Claims Court has jurisdiction over a contract-based claim, a plaintiff must prove privity of contract between itself and the government. Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Claims Court found that REM, not the Miltons, was party to the Contract. Milton, 2019 WL 4137495, at . The Contract, which clearly establishes that the bound parties are REM and the government, confirms that the Claims Court’s finding was not erroneous. Supp. App. 47. On appeal, the Miltons argue that Mr. Milton was necessarily a party to the contract based on VA regulations related to REM’s SDVOSB status. This argument is unavailing. VA regulations set out a scheme to provide preferential treatment to SDVODBs but do not establish a contractual relationship between the veteran business owner and the VA. See 48 C.F.R. §§ 819.7001–819.7009. The fact that REM received an SDVOSB certification similarly does not create a contract. The certification merely establishes that the business meets the regulatory requirements for preferential treatment. See 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.12– 125.16. Thus, the Claims Court correctly found that Mr. Milton, as an individual, does not have privity of contract with the government based on REM’s SDVOSB status. A plaintiff may also seek relief before the Claims Court as a third-party beneficiary to a government contract. See G4S Tech. LLC v. United States, 779 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To establish third-party beneficiary status, the contracting parties must intend to directly benefit the Case: 20-1130 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 03/05/2020 6 MILTON v. UNITED STATES third-party. Id. The intent may be express or implied, but must be fairly attributable to the contracting officer. Id. The Miltons do not allege in their complaint that they are third-party beneficiaries of the Contract. They argued to the Claims Court, in response to the government’s motion to dismiss, that the VA is a third-party beneficiary to the contract. Pls.’ Resp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 5, Milton, 2019 WL 4137495 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 20, 2018) (No. 18-21), ECF No. 18. The Claims Court held that, because the Miltons did not articulate how the VA’s status as a third-party beneficiary gave them any rights in the Contract and because the Miltons did not allege that they themselves are third-party beneficiaries, the Miltons failed to establish this alternative basis for the Claims Court’s jurisdiction over the claims. Milton, 2019 WL 4137495 at . We agree. The Miltons have not alleged that they, themselves, were third-party beneficiaries to the Contract nor have they articulated why the VA’s status as such a beneficiary would give them any right to bring this suit. Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Court’s holding that it does not have jurisdiction over the Miltons’ contract claims.