Federal Circuit: CICA Stay Override Challenges Do Not Require Four-Factor Injunction Test

Writing for a unanimous panel in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, Circuit Judge Leonard P. Stark concluded that a bid protestor "seeking a declaration that an agency override of a CICA stay is arbitrary and capricious need only show that, in fact, the agency's override was arbitrary and capricious." The protestor "is not also required to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of the equities in its favor, and a benefit to the public."

The dispute arose from the award of a 10-year contract to manage the National Capitol Region warehouse of the Strategic National Stockpile. GSA awarded the contract to Integrated Quality Solutions LLC in October 2023 over incumbent Life Science Logistics. After LSL filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, triggering an automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act, GSA overrode the stay weeks later.

In its Determination and Findings supporting the override, GSA stated that "urgent and compelling circumstances now exist that significantly affect the interests of the United States and do not permit waiting for the GAO decision in the protest." The Court of Federal Claims rejected that reasoning and issued declaratory relief for LSL.

The government argued on appeal that the declaratory judgment was "coercive" and functionally equivalent to an injunction, invoking the Federal Circuit's 2004 decision in PGBA, LLC v. United States. The panel disagreed, distinguishing PGBA on the ground that the trial court here did not vacate the IQS contract award or order the contract awarded to LSL.

"The Court of Federal Claims' order here did not compel the government to take or refrain from taking any action," Stark wrote. "It instead simply restored the default statutory stay."

Turning to the statutory framework, the panel held that nothing in CICA, the Tucker Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act references the traditional equitable factors. "There is no place in this statutory regime for courts to superimpose the judge-made four-factor test governing equitable relief as an additional burden on the protestor," Stark wrote.

The court also reasoned that adopting the government's position would "undesirably incentivize the government to override more (if not all) CICA stays," because, as LSL argued, "the government could simply override the stay for no reason at all and then push the burden to the bidder to make a full four-factor showing for equitable relief."

Before reaching the merits, the panel addressed jurisdiction. GSA had withdrawn the override in February 2024 after GAO sustained LSL's protest, mooting the underlying dispute. The court held the appeal fell within the mootness exception for disputes "capable of repetition, yet evading review," citing the 100-day statutory ceiling on CICA stays and the likelihood of recurrence between the same parties. LSL is the largest participant in what the record describes as "an unusually tight market" of three SNS contractors.

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation, joined the opinion. LSL was represented by Daniel Hay of Sidley Austin LLP. Evan Wisser of the Justice Department's Commercial Litigation Branch argued for the government.