With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1998), rev’d on other grounds, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.1999). Even though the Navy recognized that the procedure listed in the RFP was unnecessary, “the Navy [was] strictly bound by its terms....” Alfa Laval, 40 Fed.Cl. at 230. The appeals court noted that “in waiving a portion of the standard for [the winning bidder], the Navy violated a clearly applicable procurement statute and regulation.” Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed.Cir.1999). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the Navy was obligated to “evaluate sealed bids and competitive proposals and make an award based solely on the factors specified in the solicitation” Alfa Laval, 175 F.3d at 1367 (c 3d 1577, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)); see also Impresa Construzioni, 238 F.3d at 1332 (<HOLDING>); CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d

A: holding that if the procuring agencys decision lacked a rational basis or was made in violation of the applicable statutes regulations or procedures the court must then determine as a factual matter if the bid protester was prejudiced by that conduct
B: holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement
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 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
D.