With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 94,206, 1986 WL 19610 (RFP stating, “[i]n order to have an acceptable proposal, the offeror must meet all of the mandatory requirements set forth in Section C.2 of the Solicitation Document”). 17 . See, e.g., George Hyman Constr. Co., B265798, B-265798.2, 95-2 CPD ¶ 173, at 3-5, 1995 WL 604642 (Comp.Gen. 1995) (referring to “minimum acceptable past experience” as a "go/no go” requirement; proposals meetings this requirement would then be rated); Amtec Corp., B261487, 95-2 CPD ¶ 164, at 4, 1995 WL 578228 (Comp.Gen.1995) (same); George A. Fuller Co., B247171.2, 92-1 CPD ¶ 433, at 2, 1992 WL 108946 (Comp.Gen.1992) (same); Contract Servs. Co., B246585.3, 92-1 CPD ¶ 427, at 4, 1992 WL 108952 (Comp.Gen.1992) (same). Compare Mangi Envtl. Group, Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. at 16 (<HOLDING>). 18 . Indeed, elsewhere in the evaluation

A: holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered
B: holding identification of personnel requirement mandatory but not the provision of resumes for such individuals where solicitation indicated that proposals failing to provide at a minimum the names and proposed duties of the specified individuals will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further
C: holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
D: holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court
B.