2009) (citations omitted) (quoting Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi, 238 F.3d at 1332-33); accord Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard ... requires a reviewing court to sustain an agency action evincing rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.”); see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. 814 (“The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”). In addition to showing “a significant error in the procurement process,” a protestor must show “that the error prejudiced it.” Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). “To establish prejudice ..., a protester must
holding that 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 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 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 a protester must show that the governments error in a bid evaluation was so significant that the government had no reasonable basis for its best value determination 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 