ALLTRAN EDUCATION, INC. v. United States, 1:17-cv-00517

Multiple debt-collection contractors (plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs) challenged the Department of Education’s (ED) awards under Solicitation No. ED-FSA-16-R-0009 after a GAO decision (Gen. Revenue Corp.) found ED’s evaluation unreasonable.
Continental Services Group, Inc. brought a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims; several related contractors filed parallel cases and motions for temporary restraining orders/preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo.
The Government moved to dismiss Count VII of Continental Services’ complaint; the court granted that dismissal without prejudice.
The court convened argument and solicited a draft joint order to preserve the status quo pending ED corrective action, but not all parties agreed on the draft.
Facing imminent performance by alleged awardees and possible reassignment of work to other contracting vehicles, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prevent prejudice and preserve competition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count VII should survive the Government’s motion to dismiss	Count VII states viable claims that should proceed	Government moved to dismiss Count VII (procedural attack)	Court granted dismissal of Count VII without prejudice
Whether immediate and irreparable harm exists absent injunctive relief	Allowing awardees to perform or transferring work will irreparably harm bidders and the competitive process	Government did not oppose need for record development; argued against injunction	Court found plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable injury
Likelihood of success on the merits of the bid protest	GAO’s decision indicates ED’s evaluation was unreasonable and plaintiffs likely will prevail	Government noted administrative record not yet produced, merits unbriefed	Court concluded plaintiffs had a reasonable likelihood of success given GAO’s findings
Whether an injunction is in the public interest and balances hardships	Public interest favors open, fair competition; economic harm to plaintiffs outweighs disruption from delay	Delay may disrupt parties and borrowers; but government interest in immediate performance asserted	Court held public interest and balance of hardships favor injunction and enjoined ED from allowing performance or transferring work until corrective action or agreed alternative

U.S. Ass’n of Importers of Textiles & Apparel v. United States, 413 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (sets four-factor preliminary injunction test in procurement context)
FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (weakness in one injunction factor may be overcome by strength in others)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (judicial review of agency action proceeds on the administrative record)
PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 655 (2003) (public interest in preserving integrity of procurement competition)