With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". $1,350,-000, the court is concerned about Prudential serving as its own surety. Prudential is very much an interested stakeholder in the instant suit. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the claimant’s rights would be as fully protected as if the bond carried a surety .other than Prudential. Notwithstanding that Prudential is on a fist of sureties approved in the District of Kansas, we believe that a separate surety is necessary to more adequately protect the rights of the claimants by giving them two independent parties from whom to collect. See Wilmington Trust Co. v. Gillespie, 397 F.Supp. 1337 (D.Del.1975) (requiring bond in Rule 22 interpleader even where stakeholder was disinterested); but cf, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Schmitt, 441 F.Supp. 440 (N.D.Cal.1977) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over

A: holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety
B: holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors
C: holding that a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff could serve as surety
D: recognizing that the gjovernment as obligee owes no equitable duty to a surety  unless the surety notifies the government that the principal has defaulted under the bond  notice by the surety is essential before any governmental duty exists
C.