the trial court finds that the government’s conduct fails the APA review under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), then it proceeds to determine, as a factual matter, if the bid protester was prejudiced by that conduct. This court reviews the trial court’s determination on the legal issue of the government’s conduct, in a grant of judgment upon the administrative record, without deference. Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (Fed.Cir.2003); Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1057 (Fed.Cir.2000). That is, this court reapplies the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of § 706 to the BOP’s procurement decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) (2000); Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-841, at 10
holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that clearly erroneous standard applies to review district courts determination of dangerousness under 18 usc  4246 holding that 28 usc  1491b by its plain terms and according to its legislative history  applies the administrative procedure act standard of review previously applied by the district courts 5 usc  706  recognizing that  2254d by its own terms applies only to claims previously adjudicated on the merits in statecourt proceedings holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act