is prejudiced only if that entity had a “substantial chance” of winning the contract award, but for the Government’s error. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2005). In this ease, the December 12, 2008 Solicitation was a small business set-aside at a $7 million level. Gov’t App. at 6. A business determined by the SBA to be “other than small,” does not qualify to compete for the procurement and therefore would not have any chance, much less a “substantial chance,” of winning the contract award. 13 C.F.R. § 121.1009(g)(5) (“A concern determined to be other than small under a particular size standard is ineligible for any procurement ... which requires the same or a lower size standard[.]”); see also Int'l Mgmt. Servs. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 6 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, a threshold issue in this ease is
recognizing that officers are permitted though not required to compare small business bids and large business bids from previous competitions in establishing the competitive range of acceptability holding that collateral estoppel is not applicable to finding against plaintiff on merits where court also held that plaintiff lacked standing holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding plaintiff lacked standing to challenge small business status of awardee because plaintiff was not a small business holding defendant who was employee of and had key to his fathers business  premises searched  lacked standing to challenge search of building his father owned