a procurement error is demonstrated on the merits.”). In Impresa, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, spoke directly to the relationship between a “responsibility determination” and the substantial chance doctrine, i.e., if a “bid protest were allowed because of an arbitrary and capricious responsibility determination by the contracting officer, the government would be obligated to rebid the contract, and [the challenging bidder] could compete for the contract once again. Under these circumstances, the [challenging bidder] has a ‘substantial chance’ of receiving the award and an economic interest and has standing to challenge the award.” Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1334 (citing Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed.Cir. 1999)) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, to establish bid protest standing,
holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding that a protester must show that the governments error in a bid evaluation was so significant that the government had no reasonable basis for its best value determination holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding the appropriate standard is that to establish prejudice a protestor must show that had it not been for the alleged error in the procurement process there was a reasonable likelihood that the protestor would have been awarded the contract this is a refinement and clarification of the substantial chance language