Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
process. Assuming arguendo that a protestor has standing to bring a bid protest, it would seem that the standing requirement to challenge an override should not be any higher. Such a determination, however, does not end the court’s inquiry since panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have taken different approaches regarding the evidence required to satisfy the “substantial chance” doctrine in a bid protest ease. Compare Information Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003) (a protestor must establish “that its chance of winning the award was ‘greater than ... insubstantial ... if successful on the merits of the bid protest.’ ”); with Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed.Cir.1999) ; with Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error
B. holding the appropriate standard is that to establish prejudice a protestor must show that had it not been for the alleged error in the procurement process there was a reasonable likelihood that the protestor would have been awarded the contract this is a refinement and clarification of the substantial chance language
C. holding that a protester must show that the governments error in a bid evaluation was so significant that the government had no reasonable basis for its best value determination
D. holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
E. holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.