so below is an excerpt from one of the cases… where the case lost but i think we would win, because the original spspa was designed to benefit the plaintiff, just look at all the earlier language.
A plaintiff who would allege third party status sufficient
to ground jurisdiction here must demonstrate more than
that he merely benefits from a contract to which he is
not a party. Penn Towne Builders, Inc. v. United States,
4 Cl.Ct. 677, 682 (1984). Plaintiff must show “that the
express or implied intention of any other parties to [the
agreement] * * * was to benefit plaintiff ” specifically.
Id. (emphasis in original); see Busby [School of Northern
Cheyenne Tribe v. United States ], 8 Cl.Ct. [596,] at 602
[ (1985) ]; Ables v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 494, 500 (1983),
aff’d without opinion, 732 F.2d 166 (Fed.Cir.1984). The
contract must also reflect the intention of the parties to
give the claimant “the direct right to compensation or to
enforce that right against the promisor.” Baudier Marine
Electronics v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 246, 249 (1984),
aff’d without opinion, 765 F.2d 163 (Fed.Cir.1985) (citing
German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226
U.S. 220[, 33 S.Ct. 32, 57 L.Ed. 195] (1912)).