and, as such, must be upheld unless the [c]ourt finds the decision to be ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion^] or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Benchmade Knife Co. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 731, 738 (2007) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). This standard “requires only that the agency’s decision be supported by a rational basis.” Mgmt. & Training Corp. v. United States, 115 Fed.Cl. 26, 44 (2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4)). In addition, although “the assessment [of the availability of small businesses] must be based on sufficient facts so as to establish its reasonableness, no particular method of assessing the availability of small businesses is required.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Res-Care, Inc., 735 F.3d at 1390-91 (<HOLDING>); Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 109
holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the contracting officers thorough analysis of materials submitted by potential bidders in response to a request for information holding that the finality of a contracting officers determination was suspended during his review of a request by the contractor to reconsider the final decision holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion