“award[ed] an overwhelming majority of all services contracts as nonpersonal services contracts, though they were personal in nature.” OIG Report at 15; see also [Proposed] Second Am. Compl. ¶ 56. The court is generally reluctant to void a contract with the government on the basis of the government’s noncompliance with, a statutory or regulatory requirement. See American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The court will ordinarily defer to the judgment of the government in issuing the contract and find it valid, “impos[ing] the binding stamp of nullity only when the illegality is plain.” John Reiner & Co. v. United States, 163 Ct.Cl. 381, 386, 325 F.2d 438 (1963); see also Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, 124 Fed.Cl. 163, 183-90 (2015) (<HOLDING>). In the circumstances at hand, the court is
holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by conditioning probation upon the payment of taxes and that the excess sentence imposed was void holding in a bid protest that a lease awarded by a federal agency was void because it exceeded an explicit congressional limitation legitimated by statute holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise holding that agency exceeded statutory authority in enacting regulation concerning medicare payment recovery because rule plainly covered some situations in which recovery was barred by statute holding that enactment of  13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment