a presumption of error must “verify the bid, ‘calling attention to the specific error suspected, whether or not that error is reasonable.’ ” Troise v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 48, 62 (1990) (quoting and explaining the holding of BCM Corp. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 602, 609 (1983)); see also Giesler, 232 F.3d at 869; United States v. Hamilton Enters., Inc., 711 F.2d 1038, 1046 (Fed.Cir.1983); Conner Bros., 65 Fed.Cl. at 691. Indeed, even when a mistake is merely suspected, the agency’s duty to verify the accuracy of an offeror’s proposal is triggered. See Troise, 21 Cl.Ct. at 63. And there is some authority for the proposition that the duty to verify arises in both negotiated procurements and sealed bidding. See Griffy’s Landscape Maint. LLC v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 257, 259 (2000) (<HOLDING>); but see C.W. Over & Sons, Inc. v. United
holding that the duty to verify exists regardless of whether a procurement is characterized as negotiated or sealed holding that judicial review is available over the determination of whether extreme hardship exists though no jurisdiction exists to review the ultimate decision of whether to grant a waiver under  1186ac4a recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that such a duty exists holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place