Hooks, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed.Cl. 147, 154 (1997); Cincom Sys., Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 663, 672 (1997); Commercial Energies, Inc. v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 140, 145 (1990) (“In simple terms, courts should not substitute their judgments for pre-award procurement decisions unless the agency clearly acted irrationally or unreasonably.”) (citations omitted). Similarly, in E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offered guidance on the applicable standard of review: Procurement officials have substantial discretion to determine which proposal represents the best value for the government. See Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d 955, 958 (Fed.Cir.1993); cf. Widnall v. B3H, 75 F.3d 1577 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); In re General Offshore Corp., B-251969.5,
holding that board of contract appeals should defer to agencys best value decision as long as it is grounded in reason  even if the board itself might have chosen a different bidder holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that the court is not bound by the law of the case where an earlier decision of the us armed services board of contract appeals was clearly erroneous holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board