the offerors submit electronic versions of proposals by email, while the solicitation at issue here requires electronic versions to be submitted on compact discs. As such, defendant argues, “T Square did not submit a timely version of its proposal through a delivery method authorized in the solicitation—rendering its proposal nonresponsive.” EOF No. 20 at 25 (citing AR at 100, 139-140). Defendant maintains that, absent compliance with the solicitation, the proposal cannot be considered for award. In support of its position, defendant cites two cases in which the court dismissed post-award protests for lack of standing when the disappointed bidder submitted a proposal that did not comply with the solicitation. See A & D Fire Protection, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 126, 139 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 2007 WL
holding that the losing bidder has standing to challenge the award of a government procurement contract holding that city had implied contract with bidder to treat bidder fairly holding that in the postaward context a disappointed bidder lacked standing to bring a protest action when its submission was nonresponsive to the solicitation 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 a denial of a bid protest without holding a hearing did not deprive a disappointed bidder of any property rights because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a government contract unless the contract actually is awarded