see also Gulf Group Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 338, 351 (2004) (articulating the preponderance of the evidence standard). In order to succeed on the first ground, the protester “must show the decision was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.’” Med. Devel. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 691, 700 (2009) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2006)). Where “the challenge is brought on the second ground, the disappointed bidder must show ‘a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations.’” Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi, 238 F.3d at 1333 (quoting Kentron Haw., Ltd. v. Warner, 480 F.2d 1166, 1169 (D.C.Cir.1973)); see also Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556,
holding that if the procuring agencys decision was made in violation of the applicable statutes regulations or procedures then the court must determine as a factual matter if the bid protester was prejudiced by that conduct 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 a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error holding that in bid protest cases  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 a protester must show that the governments error in a bid evaluation was so significant that the government had no reasonable basis for its best value determination