Heart 6 Ranch, LLC v. Zinke, Civil Action No. 2017-2711

Background

In 2013 NPS awarded ten oversnow-vehicle (OSV) contracts for Yellowstone; Heart 6 Ranch (Plaintiff) bid on south-entrance contracts but won none. One awarded contract to Four Seasons was later cancelled in October 2014.
The two daily "transportation events" tied to the cancelled Four Seasons contract were unused in 2014-15 and 2015-16. In 2016 NPS reallocated the two events, on an experimental one-season basis, by adding one event to an existing south-entrance contract and one to a west-entrance contract.
Plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) alleging the reassignment unlawfully avoided a required public solicitation and sought an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) directing NPS to award Plaintiff the replaced contract or otherwise conduct a lawful selection process.
Defendants explained the reallocation as amendments to existing contracts (not new awards), relying on NPS regulations and statute permitting minor/appropriate contract amendments and adjustments to allocations.
The district court denied the TRO, finding Plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that the public interest/balance of harms were neutral.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reallocation of two transportation events constituted a new concession award triggering a public solicitation requirement	The reassignment was a material change (new service/use — e.g., shuttle to Old Faithful) so a new competitive procurement was required	The change was a minor amendment/increase to existing contracts permitted by statute and NPS regulations; no new award occurred	Court: Not persuaded Plaintiff is likely to succeed; reallocation plausibly an amendment, not a new procurement
Whether Plaintiff has standing and whether the agency action is reviewable	Heart 6 Ranch claims injury as a losing bidder deprived of a fair procurement process	Defendants argued lack of standing, no final agency action, and that reallocations were within NPS discretion	Court: Plaintiff has at least a substantial likelihood of standing and a reviewable final action for TRO purposes
Whether Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm from lost revenue or loss of incumbent/preferred status	Lost revenue from two events and prospective loss of "incumbent" status will irreparably harm the business	Economic harms are recoverable and speculative; status loss can be remedied if Plaintiff prevails; Plaintiff delayed seeking emergency relief	Court: Plaintiff failed to show certain, great, and non-remediable harm; TRO denied on this ground
Whether balance of equities and public interest favor emergency relief	Plaintiff: legality of procurement and public benefit from Plaintiff’s services favor injunction	Defendants: disruption to current concessioners and unfairness to other unsuccessful bidders; public interest tied to legality but Plaintiff hasn’t shown likelihood of success	Court: Factors are in equipoise and do not support TRO; no injunction granted

Key Cases Cited

Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary and requires a clear showing)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (four-factor preliminary injunction test articulated)
Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (sliding-scale discussion of injunction factors)
Ethyl Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (presumption of agency regularity)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard of review)
National Mall Tours of Washington, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 862 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (bidder’s injury from an unfair procurement is redressable)
Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (standing standard for preliminary injunctions)