706(2)(A). The term “interested party” is defined consistently with the definition of the same term in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. § 3551(2)(A). Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees AFL-CIO v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2001). Standing to bring a protest as an interested party under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act is “limited to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, 258 F.3d at 1302). We address the issue of prejudice before considering the merits of a bid protest. Info. Tech. Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). A losing bidder seeking to interfere with a
holding that prejudice from a question that violated doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered holding that a question of prejudice goes directly to the question of standing therefore the prejudice issue must be reached before addressing the merits holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact