Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Pension Plan & Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed.Cir.1999); AG Route Seven P’ship v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 521, 527 (2003). The Federal Circuit in First Hartford held: [Such exceptions include suits] by an intended third-party beneficiary, by a subcontractor by means of a pass-through suit when the prime contractor is liable to the subcontractor for the subcontractor’s dam ages, and by a Miller Act surety for funds improperly disbursed to a prime contractor. However, the common thread that unites these exceptions is that the party standing outside of privity by contractual obligation stands in the shoes of a party within privity. 194 F.3d at 1289 (citations omitted) (footnote added); see also Alpine County, Cal. v. United States, 417 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2005) . The third-party beneficiary status exception
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that beneficiaries of a trust that signed an agreement with the fhlbb were not in privity or have thirdparty beneficiary status because the government did not make any promises expressly intended to benefit them
B. holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government
C. holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid
D. holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status
E. holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.