Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an “interested party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1); see also American Fed’n Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2001) (“We hold that standing under [28 U.S.C.] § 1491(b)(1) is limited to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract.”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has not addressed whether, in the context of a motion to set aside or enjoin an override of the automatic stay issued, under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3)(C), “prejudice” must be demonstrated to establish standing, ie., that the protestor would have a “substantial chance” of receiving the award absent the alleged error in the procu 6, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir.1996) ; cf. United States v. Int’l Bus. Machines
```
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 that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error
C. 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
D. 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
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.