by the method of transmission error because it would have a substantial chance of receiving the contract award in a rebid. By conflating the standing requirements of prejudicial error and economic interest, Labatt would create a rule that, to an unsuccessful but economically interested offeror in a bid protest, any error is harmful. Under this radical formulation there would be no such thing as an error nonprejudicial to an economically interested offeror in a bid contest. We decline to adopt such a rule. Instead, we reiterate the established law in this circuit that nonprejudicial errors in a bid process do not automatically invalidate a procurement. Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1996); Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Widnall, 15 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Andersen Consulting v. United States, 959
holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding inter alia that de minimis errors by the procuring agency are not sufficient grounds for overturning a contract award holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that an error by the procuring agency must be clear and prejudicial to overturn an award decision holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis