Claim Resulting From Termination of Contract for Convenience

A subcontractor requested review of its claim arising from the termination of a contract partly for the convenience of the Government, contending that the Government deliberately deceived it by concealing the fact that the prime contractor, rather than the Government, was responsible for payment. The mere fact that the Government was instrumental in inducing the subcontractor to do something was insufficient to establish privity of contract, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that the Government incurred a legal obligation to pay the subcontractor's claim.