Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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) . Without privity, the surety may only satisfy
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government
B. 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
C. holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease
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
E. holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.