despite the government’s label, is one of the merits: whether TMM failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. The requirements for a valid contract with the United States are: a mutual intent to contract including offer, acceptance, and consideration; and authority on the part of the government representative who entered or ratified the agreement to bind the United States in contract. Thermalon Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. 411, 414 (1995) (citing City of El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816, 820 (Fed.Cir.1990) and Fincke v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 233, 244, 675 F.2d 289, 295 (1982)). In addition, government contracts must comply with statutorily sanctioned regulations. See, e.g., United States v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F.2d 387, 392 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). A contract which is “plainly illegal” is a
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 recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract holding that proceedings  involving a layperson representing a corporation are null and void ah initio holding that policy was void ah initio as a wagering contract where the investors funded the premium by funneling the money through the trust account holding that a procurement contract award in conflict with statute and regulation was void ah initio