With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the doctrine of equitable subrogration, the Government violated a “duty, implicit in the three-party relationship between [the Government], the contractor, and the surety,” to administer the contract in a responsible manner. PI. Mot at 18-19. This argument, however, fails to recognize that the court’s jurisdiction is dependant on the doctrine of equitable subrogation. United Surety, 87 Fed.Cl. at 587 (“Because United Surety became a performing and paying surety for Selpa, United Surety has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.”). Although a surety bond creates a third-party relationship, the surety does not assume privity of contract with the Government. Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 242, 244-45 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Without privity, the surety may only satisfy

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 absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease
C: holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government
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
A.