With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 41 Fed.Cl. 748 (1998)). Where, as in the circumstances presented, error in connection with a proposed procurement is alleged, “there is no factual foundation for a ‘but for’ prejudice analysis” — the court cannot, therefore, assess whether “but for” the error alleged, plaintiffs had a substantial chance of receiving a contract award. Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1361. There is no meaningful way to assess prejudice if the failure to hold a direct competition was wrongful or not adequately supported. Plaintiffs were wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to fully and fairly compete, which suffices to establish prejudice on the merits. Under the circumstances presented, it is concluded that the standard to be applied is a non-trivial competitive injury. Weeks Marine, Inc., 575 F.3d at 1362 (<HOLDING>); see also Google, Inc. v. United States, 95

A: holding that 28 usc  2401 is a jurisdictional statute of limitations
B: holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions
C: holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391
D: holding this standard applies to a protest alleging any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with  a proposed procurement quoting 28 usc  1491b1
D.