a statute, regulation, or procedure, it must establish prejudice by showing that it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.” Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed.Cir. 1996)). Panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, have taken different approaches regarding the evidence required to satisfy the “substantial chance” doctrine. Compare Information Tech. & Applications Corp., 316 F.3d at 1319 (a protestor must establish that its chance of winning the award was “greater than ... insubstantial ... if successful on the merits of the bid protest.”); Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>) with United States v. Int’l Bus. Machines
holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding the appropriate standard is that to establish prejudice a protestor must show that had it not been for the alleged error in the procurement process there was a reasonable likelihood that the protestor would have been awarded the contract this is a refinement and clarification of the substantial chance language holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error