Bid Protesters Beware: Don’t Forget to Brief All the Injunctive Relief Factors

In a recent bid protest decision, Noblis MSD, LLC v. United States, No. 25-1637C (Mar. 19, 2026), the Court of Federal Claims handed protester Noblis a pyrrhic victory. Noblis’s protest concerned an approximately $100 million Department of the Navy contract award to Solute, Inc. for the provision of systems engineering and networking services. While Noblis succeeded in establishing that the Navy’s evaluation of Solute’s past performance was improper, it did not brief all the prerequisite factors a court must review when considering whether to grant a permanent injunction, and so the Court declined to “order the government to halt performance of the awarded contract [or] redo any aspect of [the] procurement.”

As courts regularly explain, “an injunction ‘is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’”  IAP World Servs., Inc. v. United States, 152 Fed. Cl. 384, 396-97 (2021) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). And “[w]hen considering whether to grant permanent injunctive relief,” the Court of Federal Claims “considers: (1) whether . . . the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief; (3) whether the balance of hardships to the respective parties favors the grant of injunctive relief; and (4) whether it is in the public interest to grant injunctive relief.” Id.

In this case, Noblis satisfied the first factor, establishing that the Navy’s evaluation of Solute’s past performance was arbitrary and capricious. But, as the Court noted, Noblis’s complaint “does not specifically ask this Court to enjoin the government’s or Solute’s performance of the awarded contract.” Instead, Noblis only asked the Court to “declare the award to Solute unlawful pursuant to the [Administrative Procedure Act]’s standard of review; direct the Navy to re-evaluate proposals in accordance with the terms of the RFP and the law; and ‘[p]rovide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.’” And in its Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (“MJAR”), Noblis only repeated its complaint’s “Prayer for Relief almost verbatim” and briefly asserted, in the pleading’s introduction, that “the Navy’s award to Solute should be permanently enjoined.” Notably, Noblis “[did] not . . . brief any of the prerequisite injunctive relief factors.” Indeed, even in its reply brief, Noblis neglected to address the injunctive relief factors.

The Court ultimately concluded that this omission from Noblis’s MJAR “foreclose[d] any path Noblis might have had to obtain the contract at issue.” The Court explained that, not having received briefing from Noblis on all the injunctive relief factors, it would “not presume that any of those factors weigh in Noblis’s favor.” The lesson for protesters is clear – when litigating a bid protest before the Court of Federal Claims, be sure to clearly address each of the factors that a court must consider when evaluating a request for injunctive relief. If you don’t, you risk effectively losing a bid protest even when you can establish that the agency’s procurement action was arbitrary and capricious.