Opinion ID: 210574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 6 This court reviews the Court of Federal Claims' conclusions of law de novo. Glendale Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 239 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.Cir. 2001). However, within that context, the review of an agency's procurement decision is narrowly circumscribed. Prineville Sawmill Co. v. United States, 859 F.2d 905, 909 (Fed.Cir.1988); NKF Eng'g, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 372, 376 (Fed. Cir.1986). This court can only set aside an agency's action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1057 (Fed.Cir.2000). 7 Similarly, our review of the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Court of Federal Claims is also limited. The court must determine whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims, not whether the claimant will ultimately prevail. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). In doing so, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and ... indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Sommers Oil Co. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2001). [U]nless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief, the complaint should not be dismissed. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).