With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the method of transmission error because it would have a substantial chance of receiving the contract award in a rebid. By conflating the standing requirements of prejudicial error and economic interest, Labatt would create a rule that, to an unsuccessful but economically interested offeror in a bid protest, any error is harmful. Under this radical formulation there would be no such thing as an error nonprejudicial to an economically interested offeror in a bid contest. We decline to adopt such a rule. Instead, we reiterate the established law in this circuit that nonprejudicial errors in a bid process do not automatically invalidate a procurement. Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1996); Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Widnall, 15 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Andersen Consulting v. United States, 959

A: holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal
B: holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination
C: holding that an error by the procuring agency must be clear and prejudicial to overturn an award decision
D: holding inter alia that de minimis errors by the procuring agency are not sufficient grounds for overturning a contract award
D.