was fair, the court focused on whether the submitted version of the proposal was complete, and whether the plaintiff had gained an advantage through the late submission of the paper copies, such as extra time to prepare the proposal. See id. at 167-68. Ultimately, the court concluded that the record before it demonstrated that the plaintiff had not gained a competitive advantage from its late delivery, and consideration of the proposal would not prejudice other offer-ors. See id. at 168. Additionally, the court observed that considering the proposal “would further the competitive process.” See id. According to defendant, plaintiffs reliance on EOR is misplaced. Defendant distinguishes the instant record on the basis that the solicitation in EOR required th (Fed. Cl. April 21, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The court finds defendant’s position
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 that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding that in the postaward context a protesting party lacked standing to bring the protest action because it could not show a substantial chance of receiving an award when its submission did not comply with the solicitations substantive requirements holding that in the postaward context a disappointed bidder lacked standing to bring a protest action when its submission was nonresponsive to the solicitation