of price proposals. In essence, it sought to protect its existing advantage in technical ratings. Mantech argued that it was unfair to allow the other offeror to improve its technical proposal after Mantech had been prejudiced by errors in the evaluation of price. 49 Fed.Cl. at 74-75. 5 . In fact, GAO has extended the rule to mean that an agency cannot limit the scope of proposal revisions after corrective action unless it can show that "the amendment could not reasonably have any effect on other aspects of proposals, or that allowing such revisions would have a detrimental impact on the competitive process.” Cooperative Muratori Riuniti, B-294980.5, 2005 CPD ¶ 144 at 5 (Comp.Gen. July 27, 2005). 6 . See Blue Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308, 1313-15 (Fed.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 7 . We also recognize what might be seen as
holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court holding that errors not raised before the trial court will not generally be considered on appeal holding that patent ambiguities or errors must be raised before bidding on a solicitation holding that all sentencing errors must be preserved holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal