proceed with receipt of proposals prior to the resolution of this matter could effectively exclude [Red River] from competition entirely.”). Accordingly, Red River has established that it is an “interested party” with standing to pursue this pre-award protest under the Tucker Act. C. Standard Of Review. 1. In Bid Protest Cases. Bid protest actions are reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., which provides: ' The reviewing court shall — ... (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be — ... (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (D) without observance of procedure required by law[.] 5 U.S.C. § 706; 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4); see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the court must ascertain
holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement holding that the general accounting offices determination that a bid for a procurement contract was responsive and properly disclosed the bidders identity had a rational basis holding that the definition of procurement under the tucker act is broader than the definition of procurement contract in the fgcaa such that an agency can engage in a procurement process for the purposes of the tucker act even though it is using a cooperative agreement instead of a procurement contract to memorialize the parties agreement holding that as a matter of law where the procurement decision was rational a reviewing court may not award injunctive relief despite the presence of procedural irregularities in the procurement process holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure