Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with a direct right of appeal to the board of contract appeals is strong evidence of CDA coverage of a subcontractor’s claims. Id. In Johnson Controls, this court dismissed an agency board’s holding that the government, by “circumvent[ing] the independent authority of the prime contractor [such that the prime contractor] was acting as an agent of the government,” contracted with the subcontractor under the first part of the test, since the “holding, by implication, recognized that there was no direct contractual relationship between the government and [subcontractor] Johnson [Controls].” Johnson Controls, 713 F.2d at 1552-53. Also, because the contract required the contractor to obtain a Miller Act bond, the subcontractor had a recourse other than a direct appea BCA ¶ 17,604 (1984) ; McMillin Bros. Constructors, Inc., EBCA No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence of virtually identical offense was relevant to show intent among other things in trial of charged offense
B. holding that government approval of a subcontract terms giving subcontractor a right to a direct appeal to the department of energy board of contract appeals among other things manifested intent
C. holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds
D. holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract 
E. holding that a subcontractors previous contractual relationship with the government the subcontracts assignment back to the government and a disputes clause expressly authorizing and directing the subcontractor to bring claims to the doe contracting officer manifested intent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.