Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
In that case, the Court noted the plaintiff had a “legally binding promise” from the Government when it was awarded the contract. Id. at 578. However, when the Government decided to terminate that contract, the Court reasoned that the plaintiff was left with only the possibility that it would be awarded the contract again. Id. The Court concluded that “[i]n such a situation, it would be to create a legal fiction to find a contract existing....” Id. Accordingly, the Court found jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. Id. In more recent eases, this Court and the Federal Circuit have ruled that jurisdiction exists to review an agency’s corrective action decision. See, e.g., Centech Group, Inc., 78 Fed.Cl. at 506; Chapman Law Firm v. United States, 490 F.3d 934, 938 (Fed.Cir. 2007) ; Man-Tech Telecomm. & Info. Sys. Corp. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes requires an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances
B. holding that the courts inquiry into the reasonableness of the governments proposed corrective action was proper
C. holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure
D. holding that proper focus is reasonableness of inquiry not frivolousness
E. holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.