Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to ... a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2012). A party is an “interested party” with standing to bring suit under' 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) if the party “is an actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2013). A bidder has a direct economic interest if the alleged errors in the procurement caused it to suffer a competitive injury or prejudice. Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) . In a post-award bid protest, the protestor
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim
B. holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense
C. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice
D. recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim
E. holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.