There have been variations in the verbal formulation of what is necessary to show prejudice. See CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1574-75 (Fed.Cir.1983) (finding that to satisfy the minimum requirements for standing to sue, a disappointed bidder must show that “‘there was a substantial chance that [it] would receive an award — that it was within the zone of active consideration’ ”) (quoting Morgan Business Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 325, 619 F.2d 892, 896 (1980)); see also TRW Envtl. Safety Sys., Inc., 18 Cl.Ct. at 69 (finding that procurement defects adversely affected plaintiffs chances of selection and therefore that it had established prejudice); TRW Inc., GSBCA No. 11309-P, 92-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 24,389, at 121,789, 1991 WL 175673 (Aug. 29, 1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Diverco, Inc., B-259734, 95-1
holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement 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 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 holding that governments regulatory violation does not itself necessarily entitle a protester to relief in such situations the board must review the conduct of the procurement with heightened scrutiny to determine if the improper taint had any actual adverse effect on the procurement process 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