With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". benefit by ensuring that the agency obtains the most advantageous contract available. Thus, a district court may not overturn a procurement decision “unless the aggrieved bidder demonstrates that there was no rational basis for the agency’s decision.” Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 429, 434 (3d Cir. 1979); see also R.A. Glancy & Sons, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 180 F.3d 553, 557 (3d Cir. 1999); Coco Bros. Inc. v. Pierce, 741 F.2d 675, 679 (3d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that discretion to award in-junctive relief in procurement cases “is restricted to circumstances where the gov ernmental agency’s action is illegal or irrational”). However, if the agency provides a rational basis for its action, our inquiry comes to an end. See Princeton Combustion, 674 F.2d at 1022 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we turn now to DRPA’s arguments

A: holding a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 if the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure
B: holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure
C: holding that the definition of procurement under the tucker act is broader than the definition of procurement contract in the fgcaa such that an agency can engage in a procurement process for the purposes of the tucker act even though it is using a cooperative agreement instead of a procurement contract to memorialize the parties agreement
D: holding that as a matter of law where the procurement decision was rational a reviewing court may not award injunctive relief despite the presence of procedural irregularities in the procurement process
D.