the Air Force to terminate that contract. See AR at 411-12, 476, 479-80, 483-84. Therefore, when Solicitation No. F45613-02-QA027 was rebid, Blue Dot should have been the successful bidder since the Air Force’s concerns about Blue Dot’s “past performance” primarily concerned the operation of the recycling center. See AR at 213-14, 216, 218. The dispute at issue, however, concerns Sole-Source Solicitation No. F45613-03-Q-A068, which only covers solid waste collection and disposal services, not the operation of a recycling center. See AR at 3, 781. Therefore, the Air Force’s 2002 evaluation of Blue Dot is irrelevant to whether Blue Dot was prejudiced by the Air Force’s can cellation of Solicitation Nos. F45613-02-Q-A027 and F45613-03-Q-A028 and decis F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (holding that “a
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 in bid protest cases  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  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 the general accounting offices determination that a bid for a procurement contract was responsive and properly disclosed the bidders identity had a rational basis 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