6”). Thus, to successfully challenge an agency’s procurement decision, a plaintiff must show that the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 6 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also Bannum, Inc., 404 F.3d at 1351. This “highly deferential” standard of review “requires a reviewing court to sustain an agency action evincing rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.” Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974)). Thus, the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>), Instead, the Couit’s function is limited to
holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another holding that board of contract appeals should defer to agencys best value decision as long as it is grounded in reason  even if the board itself might have chosen a different bidder holding that appellate court may affirm ruling where trial court reached right result for wrong reason as long as alternate basis for affirmance was presented to trial court and no further factual findings are necessary holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that as long as there is a reasonable basis for the agencys action the court should stay its hand even though it might as an original proposition have reached a different conclusion quoting m steinthal  co v seamans 455 f2d 1289 1301 dc cir 1971