Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
must also be justiciable; it must be within the competency of the court.”); Int’l Mgmt. Svcs. Inc., 80 Fed. Cl. at 9. In this case, the court is unable to provide Plaintiff with the requested injunctive relief. As discussed infra, PlaintifPs failure to appeal the April 28, 2009 SBA size determination to the OHA prior to the May 8, 2009 award to VETS, as a matter of law, created a presumptively valid contract that now cannot be invalidated by the court. Chapman, 63 Fed.Cl. at 35. When the United States Court of Federal Claims has exercised jurisdiction to review SBA and OHA size determinations, it has recognized the non-justiciability of such cases, if the contract becomes presumptively valid by virtue of an award prior to the CO being notified of an appeal to the OHA. Id. at 35-36 ; see also Int’l Mgmt. Svcs. Inc., 80 Fed Cl.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal
B. holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion
C. holding that the court had jurisdiction to review an sba size determination but plaintiffs claim was nevertheless not justiciable because the plaintiff failed to file an appeal to the oha prior to award which made the contract at issue unchallengeable
D. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review
E. holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.