in the belief that only "[i]f the court finds error” in the procurement process does "it then ex-aminen whether the error was prejudicial to plaintiff.” Info. Tech. and Applications Corp., Inc. v. United States, 51 Fed.Cl. 340, 346 (Fed.Cl.2001) (dismissing the protest after finding no errors in the contested procurement), aff'd, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (affirming dismissal of the protest on the merits, but holding that the Court of Federal Claims’ "approach was erroneous” in failing to examine prejudice before addressing the merits). In other cases, the court has wasted judicial resources adjudicating the merits of a bid protest that the plaintiff never had standing to bring in the first instance. E.g., Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 605, 620 (2000) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 275 F.3d 1366, 1371 (affirming
holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee holding that its plaintiff failed to prove it was prejudiced by defendants actions and dismissing the protest but only after deciding the merits holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay holding that a protest was invalid either because it was filed the day before customs denied a previous claim for relief or barred by the provision allowing only one protest per entry of merchandise holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages