[risks] before they become historical fact” and that it has supplied a “reasoned chronicle of its risk assessment.” In sum, we hold that the Corps’s decision to issue the MATOC solicitation “evince[es] rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.” Were we to conclude otherwise, we would be second-guessing the Corps’s action. That is something we are not permitted to do. “ ‘If the court finds a reasonable basis for the agency’s action, the court should stay its hand even though it might, as an original proposition, have reached a different conclusion as to the proper administration and application of the procurement regulations.’ ” Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644, 648 (Fed.Cir.1989) (quoting M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289, 1301 (D.C.Cir.1971)) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the Corps has demonstrated a
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 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 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 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 the general accounting offices determination that a bid for a procurement contract was responsive and properly disclosed the bidders identity had a rational basis