(requiring the court to “determine whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a heavy burden of showing that the award decision had no rational basis”) (internal- citations and quotations omitted). To overturn an award decision as arbitraiy or capricious, the court must determine 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.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856; see also John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d at 1372 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Plaintiffs allegations that the
holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances holding that manifest disregard of the law is one of the very unusual circumstances in which a federal court can set aside an arbitration award recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous