United States, 554 F.3d 1029, 1037 (Fed.Cir.2 cting officer did not consider nor discuss STOPSO’s purported mistakes is not disposi-tive. The court cannot assume that the contracting officer did. not consider STOPSO’s compliance with the LOS Requirement, based on the absence of an explicit reference in the Administrative Record of that fact. Plaintiffs request that the court establish a rule whereby agencies affirmatively must document compliance with each and .every proposal requirement is not the law. See John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d at 1372 (“[The United States Court of Federal Claims’] equitable powers should be exercised in a way which best limits judicial interference in contract procurement and administration.”); see also Ala. Aircraft Indus. Inc-Birmingham, 586 F.3d at 1375 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations
recognizing that courts accord significant deference to an agency decision where agency expertise is involved holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem or offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise