Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
somewhat implausible. It puts the cart before the horse. The question presented is whether the statutes in question confer standing. If the answer is that they do not — which appears to be the case — the court and the parties should never reach the merits of a particular decision, particularly where the determination of the nature of that decision requires the development of a record. Plaintiff's claim also ignores the fact that prudential standing is determined on a wholesale basis, with the court called upon to determine whether categories of claimants were intended to be conferred rights under a particular statute. 22 . Indeed, this principle of prudential standing was relied upon by at least three circuits in denying government employees the right t 51 Fed.Cl. 667, 672-73 (2001) . 24 . One looking for evidence of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction under the bid protest provisions of section 1491 to enjoin a contracting agencys termination of a contract
B. holding that where an oral contract was removed from the statute of frauds by clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law the defendant could not terminate the contract at its will only a contract of indefinite duration may be so terminated 
C. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract
D. holding that the awardee of a contract may not challenge the decision to terminate that contract by invoking the courts bid protest jurisdiction
E. holding that a denial of a bid protest without holding a hearing did not deprive a disappointed bidder of any property rights because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a government contract unless the contract actually is awarded
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.