With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “award[ed] an overwhelming majority of all services contracts as nonpersonal services contracts, though they were personal in nature.” OIG Report at 15; see also [Proposed] Second Am. Compl. ¶ 56. The court is generally reluctant to void a contract with the government on the basis of the government’s noncompliance with, a statutory or regulatory requirement. See American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The court will ordinarily defer to the judgment of the government in issuing the contract and find it valid, “impos[ing] the binding stamp of nullity only when the illegality is plain.” John Reiner & Co. v. United States, 163 Ct.Cl. 381, 386, 325 F.2d 438 (1963); see also Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, 124 Fed.Cl. 163, 183-90 (2015) (<HOLDING>). In the circumstances at hand, the court is

A: holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by conditioning probation upon the payment of taxes and that the excess sentence imposed was void
B: holding in a bid protest that a lease awarded by a federal agency was void because it exceeded an explicit congressional limitation legitimated by statute
C: holding that agency exceeded statutory authority in enacting regulation concerning medicare payment recovery because rule plainly covered some situations in which recovery was barred by statute
D: holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise
B.