833 (2004) (emphasis added) (“The question ... is whether the agency considered the relevant factors and made a rational determination.”); Keeton Corrections, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 753, 759 (2004) (emphasis added) (“no valid basis for the override of the automatic stay has been shown to exist.”). The source of the “rational basis” or “rationally based” standard is in two important decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Banknote Corp. of America, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1348 (2004) (where the principal issue was “whether the contracting officer applied the proper standards when evaluating bids in a ‘best value’ procurement”) and Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Banknote and Impresa discussed the standard
holding that transitory employees are entitled to protection under the elrodbranti line of cases holding all bid protest actions under the apa are now reviewed under the standards applied in the scanwell labs inc v shaffer 424 f2d 859 dccir1970 line of cases recognizing that standards of liability under title vi are different from traditional agency principles or the general standards of liability under title vii holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action