the authority to adjudicate this ease on the merits “because HUD’s award of a cooperative agreement in the form of [an] ACC is not a ‘procurement’ within the meaning of the Tucker Act.” HUD Mem. at 21. However, although the parties jointly conceptualize the jurisdictional question in this case to be whether the PBACCs awarded by HUD under the 2012 NOFA are “procurement contracts” within the meaning of section 1491(b)(1) (or rather cooperative agreements), the Court finds that this issue is properly considered on the merits. That is, the Court finds under the Tucker Act, it has jurisdiction to review a party’s contention that a particular government contract is a procurement contract and therefore subject to CICA. See 360Training.com, Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed.Cl. 575, 588 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Because the Plaintiffs have raised exactly
holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement 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 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 governments regulatory violation does not itself necessarily entitle a protester to relief in such situations the board must review the conduct of the procurement with heightened scrutiny to determine if the improper taint had any actual adverse effect on the procurement process 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