preparation of HCS’s proposal in response to the Solicitation, in any way, other than in selecting the location of a hotel for the proposal. PL Mot. JAR Ex. 1 (Murray Dep. at 52). Command had the burden of identifying “hard facts” to support its allegations of a conflict of interest or bias on the part of MICC that gave HCS unequal access to information or an unfair competitive advantage in obtaining the contract award. The court has determined that Command failed to meet this burden. See PAI Corp., 614 F.3d at 1352 (“To demonstrate that such a determination is arbitrary or capricious, a protester must identify ‘hard facts’; a mere inference or suspicion of an actual or apparent conflict is not enough.”); see also C.A.C.I., Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The Administrative Record does not set forth
holding that a moiety award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious holding that the mere allegation of arbitrary and capricious action on defendants part absent a direct and pointed attack on the evidentiary basis of the agencys action is insufficient to warrant a judicial determination of wrongful agency action recognizing a nonstatutory basis for setting aside an arbitration award if it is arbitrary and capricious holding that to demonstrate that a contract award is arbitrary or capricious on the basis of a possibility and appearance of impropriety a protester must identify hard facts not a mere inference based on suspicion or innuendo holding that court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence