Svd Stars II, LLC v. United States, 18-846

SVD Stars II, LLC (SVD), incumbent under a GSA Stars II GWAC task order at Fort Belvoir, learned the Army awarded a new longer-term task order (May 25 award) to 22nd Century; SVD protested that award at GAO, triggering a CICA automatic stay.
The contracting officer issued a stop-work on the May 25 award upon notice of the GAO protest.
While the stay was in effect, the Army issued a separate short-term, direct “bridge” task order (June 12 task order) to 22nd Century to maintain IT/IM services during the protest.
SVD sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the June 12 bridge award was a de facto override of the CICA stay and that the Army failed to follow statutory override procedures (no findings or notice to GAO/SVD).
SVD moved for emergency declaratory relief, a TRO, and a preliminary injunction to enjoin performance of the June 12 task order; the government opposed.
The court denied emergency relief and a preliminary injunction, finding SVD unlikely to succeed on the merits and that other equitable factors did not favor relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether awarding a short-term bridge task order during a GAO protest constitutes a de facto override of the CICA automatic stay	The June 12 bridge order provides the same services as the protested May 25 order and therefore functions as an override; Army failed to make required override findings or provide notice	A bridge contract is a separate, self-contained contract that preserves the protested contract’s status quo and is not the functional equivalent of a stay override	The bridge award was not a de facto override; SVD is unlikely to succeed on the merits
Whether SVD would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief	Loss of skilled staff and competitive advantage from 22nd Century’s bridge performance would cause irreparable injury	Loss of personnel is not typically irreparable; incumbency advantage is speculative and both firms met GSA baseline qualifications	No irreparable harm shown
Whether the balance of hardships and public interest favor injunctive relief	Injunctive relief needed to protect SVD’s business interests and preserve competitive integrity	Injunction would increase government costs, risk duplicative payments, and is unwarranted given weak likelihood of success	Balance of hardships and public interest do not favor an injunction

Carahsoft Tech. Corp. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 325 (bridge contracts do not ordinarily amount to stay overrides)
Access Sys., Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 241 (bridge contract covering identical services held separate and not an override)
PGBA, LLC v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 196 (jurisdiction to review agency stay-override decisions)
Jones Automation, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 368 (TRO is extraordinary relief; standards summarized)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (standard for TRO)
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (preliminary injunction factors)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)