Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The Court’s Resolution. Plaintiff is correct that 13 C.F.R. § 125.1(g) does not allow a contractor to include indirect costs, such as the REDACTED fee included in STOPSO’s proposal. AR Tab 13 at 2494 (REDACTED fee line). For that reason, the FBI contracting officer recalculated STOPSO’s “Proposal Cost/Price Fee: Total Price Summary” to exclude the REDACTED fee. AR Tab 46a, at 3476. In doing so, the contracting officer confirmed that STOPSO’s proposal was compliant and still well below Plaintiffs proposed price. Although the contracting officer could have brought this issue to the attention of STOP-SO for correction, under these circumstances, the court does riot consider the contracting officer’s decision to make the correction a material error. See Axiom Res. Mgmt., 564 F.3d at 1381 (<HOLDING>). To establish a lack of a rational basis, a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise (B) holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence (C) holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence (D) holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review (E) holding that an error by the procuring agency must be clear and prejudicial to overturn an award decision
Output (English): holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence