With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Division over the next five years. 575 F.3d at 1355. The Federal Circuit then discussed whether the demonstration of the protestor’s “substantial chance” of receiving the contract award but for the alleged agency error, the traditional test for standing in bid protests and the test proposed by the government in Weeks Marine, is the proper standard for pre-award bid protests: We have not had occasion to discuss what is required to prove an economic interest, and thus prejudice, in a ease such as this, where a prospective bidder/offeror is challenging a solicitation in the pre-award context. In such a ease, it is difficult for a prospective bidder/offeror to make the showing of prejudice that we have required in post-award bid protest cases. See, e.g., Statistica, 102 F.3d at 1582 (<HOLDING>). The reason of course is that, in a case such

A: holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error
B: holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
C: holding that in the postaward context a protesting party lacked standing to bring the protest action because it could not show a substantial chance of receiving an award when its submission did not comply with the solicitations substantive requirements
D: holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error
B.