Disaster support agreement between federal agency and state was an enforceable contract, not a gratuitous provision of resources.
Nonfrivolous assertion of contractual breach by the government sufficed for Claims Court jurisdiction.
Request for assistance and project worksheets did not constitute an express contract; as there was no mutual intent to contract, there was not an implied in fact contract.
As a component of local government, hospital's claim to be a third party beneficiary of a contract between the state and the federal agency is sufficient to state a claim, since the contract named the locality.
As the funds were provided to the hospital contingently, and subject to express conditions, the recoupment of the funds was not an illegal exaction.
Although the requested recovery of funds is equitable it is materially indistinguishable from a claim for reimbursement, and the claim is essentially contractual in nature, giving clear jurisdiction to the Claims Court, an adequate non-APA judicial remedy preferred by statute.