and consideration of relevant factors.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Centech Group, Inc. . The court has been authorized by Congress to adjudicate cases only when the contracting officer’s decision lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary or capricious, which Plaintiff has not established. For these reasons, the court has determined that the FBI’s decision to award the contract to STOPSO was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). Assuming, arguendo, there is a violation, Plaintiff failed to establish that the FBI’s best value procurement decision was not “grounded in reason.” Unisys Corp., 98 F.3d at 1327; see also Galen Med. Assocs., Inc., 369 F.3d at 1330 (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION. ■ For reasons discussed
holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim  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 holding that jurisdiction over an appeal of a contracting officers decision is lacking unless the contractors claim is first presented to the contracting officer and that officer renders a final decision on the claim holding that a contracting officer has great discretion in best value procurement decisions