Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
size and complexity with the South Wing project. A contracting officer who must exercise some level of discretion to determine a contractor’s responsibility should be encouraged to base this exercise of discretion on objective, identifiable factors. Doing so does not make those factors special standards. Grimberg argues alternatively that if the eleven Comparison Chart criteria are not special standards, then the solicitation’s requirement that bidders submit three projects “of the size and complexity” of the South Wing project is improper because it is not specific and fails to put contractors on notice of what exactly was required. A valid special standard must be specific, objective, and mandatory. See In re Weldtest, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-216747.2, 84-2 CPD ¶ 612 (1984) ; In re Watch Security, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in extraordinary circumstances where a police officer neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard qualified immunity may still be available
B. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person
C. holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment
D. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing
E. holding that a solicitation provision stating that a bidder may be required to prove that they have experience in comparable work was permissive and not sufficiently specific nor objective to be a special standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.