This is a post-award bid protest case. On September 6, 2002, the Department of Defense, Military Health Care System, TRICARE Management Activity (“TMA”), issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) for a contract for the handling of claims processing for certain beneficiaries under a military health care benefits program known as “TRICARE.” Plaintiff-Appellant PGBA, LLC (“PGBA”), submitted a proposal in response to the RFP, as did Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (“WPS”). On July 25, 2003, TMA awarded the contract to WPS. After unsuccessfully challenging the award before the General Accounting Office (“GAO”), PGBA filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking to have the award of the contract to WPS set aside. WPS entered the suit as intervening defendant.
In due course, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the administrative record. On March 31, 2004, the Court of Federal Claims granted-in-part and denied-in-part PGBA’s motion. Although the court found that TMA had committed errors that materially affected the bidding process adversely to PGBA, it declined to set aside award of the TRICARE contract to WPS. It did, however, rule that PGBA was entitled to recover its reasonable bid
*1221
preparation and proposal costs.
PGBA, LLC v. United States,
BACKGROUND
I.
TRICARE is a military health care benefits program that provides health care benefits to dependents of active duty service members and to retired service members and their dependents. TRICARE is administered within the Department of Defense by TMA. Until recently, the TRI-CARE system was divided into eleven geographical regions. TMA administered the eleven regions through seven Managed Care Support (“MCS”) contracts with prime contractors. The prime contractors, in turn, outsourced the claims processing through subcontracts with one of two private companies, PGBA or WPS. PGBA processed claims under five contracts for nine regions, while WPS processed claims under two contracts for the remaining two regions.
Initial Decision,
In October of 2000, Congress enacted legislation known as “TRICARE for Life.” Pub. L. No. 106-898, Div. A, Title VII, § 712, 114 Stat. 1654A-176 (2000). The legislation addressed a problem confronting individuals qualifying for both TRI-CARE and Medicare benefits — individuals known as “dual eligible beneficiaries.” Namely, prior to the enactment of TRI-CARE for Life, beneficiaries lost their coverage under TRICARE upon becoming eligible for Medicare. TRICARE for Life remedies this problem by making Medicare the primary payer and TRICARE the secondary payer for dual eligible beneficiaries. As secondary payer, TRICARE reimburses that portion of a health benefits claim not covered by Medicare. Passage of TRICARE for Life forced TMA to address the processing of the new dual eligible beneficiary claims. TMA did this by modifying the MCS prime contracts. The prime contractors in turn modified their subcontracts with PGBA and WPS. Initial Decision, at 198-99.
In 2002, TMA announced that it would restructure TRICARE under a plan known as “TRICARE Next Generation” or “T-Nex.” Under the T-Nex plan, TMA will consolidate the MCS contracts from seven contracts covering eleven regions to three contracts covering three regions. T-Nex also calls for replacing the subcontracting scheme for dual eligible beneficiaries with one standalone contract for processing all dual eligible beneficiary claims, irrespective of geographic region. This new contract is called the “TRICARE Dual Eligible Fiscal Intermediary Contract” or “TDEFIC.” TMA estimates that, when fully implemented, TDEFIC will process claims for approximately 1.7 million dual eligible beneficiaries. Id. at 199.
TDEFIC provides for a nine-month transition schedule. The purpose of the schedule is to allow sufficient time to transition the chosen TDEFIC contractor into the new system for processing dual eligible beneficiary claims. During this transition period, PGBA and WPS are to continue *1222 processing dual eligible beneficiary claims as subcontractors under the old MCS contracts. In the event more than nine months is needed to make the transition, TDEFIC allows for extension of the transition period, in which case claims processing is to continue under the old MCS contracts. The original transition dates for TDEFIC were: (1) region 11 on April 1. 2004; (2) regions 2 and 5 on June 1, 2004; (3) regions 9, 10, and 12 on July 1, 2004; (4) regions 3 and 4 on August 1, 2004; (5) region 1 on September 1, 2004; (6) regions 7 and 8 on October 1, 2004; and (7) region 6 on November 1, 2004. Evidentiary Hr’g Tr. at 67-68 (Fed.Cl. May 6, 2004) (“Hearing”). On May 12, 2004, the date of the Court of Federal Claims’ final decision, region 11 had already transitioned while regions 2 and 5 were within three weeks of transitioning. 2
II.
On September 6, 2002, TMA issued a RFP for TDEFIC, to which PGBA, WPS, and Unisys Corporation responded with proposals in February of 2003. Upon receipt of the proposals, TMA conducted an initial evaluation. 3 Thereafter, it requested and received final proposal revisions from the three offerors. TMA evaluated the proposal revisions in June of 2003. The Source Selection Authority then conducted an independent evaluation of the proposals over the course of two weeks. TMA ultimately awarded TDEFIC to WPS on July 25, 2003. In total, it took TMA approximately six months to conduct the evaluation and award the contract.
On August 8, 2003, PGBA filed a post-award bid protest with the GAO. The GAO issued an automatic stay of the award to WPS pending resolution of the protest. However, on August 16, 2003, TMA overrode the automatic stay. PGBA responded by bringing an action in the Court of Federal Claims to enjoin the override. On September 15, 2003, Judge Allegra issued an injunction dissolving TMA’s override and reinstating the automatic stay.
PGBA, LLC v. United States,
III.
On December 3, 2003, PGBA filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, praying for the following relief:
(a) A declaratory judgment that TMA’s decision to award the TDEFIC Contract to WPS is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;
(b) an order setting aside the award of the TDEFIC to WPS; and
(c) such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
*1223 (Compl. at 14.) WPS entered the case as an intervening defendant on December 9, 2003. On January 15, 2004, PGBA moved for summary judgment on the administrative record. The United States and WPS responded with their own cross-motions for summary judgment.
On March 31, 2004, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that TMA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding TDEFIC to WPS. The court determined that TMA had made several prejudicial errors in its evaluation of the technical merits of PGBA’s and WPS’s proposals. Specifically, the court found that portions of the RFP lacked clarity, resulting in uneven treatment of PGBA,
Initial Decision,
Shortly after the Court of Federal Claims filed its decision under seal, PGBA asked the court to reconsider its decision. Id. at 222. PGBA urged the court to set aside the contract and order a reevaluation (as opposed to a new solicitation, a remedy which the court previously considered and rejected). The court denied the motion, explaining that injunctions do not issue “for every violation of the law,” and that, in this case, equity did not warrant an injunction. Id. The court also rejected PGBA’s argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4), in combination with 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), required the court to set aside TMA’s award of TDEFIC to WPS because the court had found TMA’s conduct of the procurement to have been arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 222-23.
PGBA proceeded to file a second request for reconsideration, maintaining that the court was required to set aside arbitrary and capricious agency action and that, in any event, the balance of hardships in the case warranted issuance of an injunction. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the effects of granting or denying injunctive relief, the court again determined that the balance of hardships did not warrant an injunction. Accordingly, the court denied PGBA’s second request for reconsideration.
Final Decision,
Following the entry of final judgment, PGBA timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
ANALYSIS
I.
We give deference to the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to grant or deny injunctive relief, only disturbing the court’s decision if it abused its discretion.
Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States,
II.
The Court of Federal Claims exercised jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), which was enacted as part of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (“ADRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3870. ADRA repealed former 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3) and added section 1491(b). Section 1491(b) provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) [T]he Unite[d] States Court of Federal Claims ... shall have jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement. ...
(2) To afford relief in such an action, the court[] may award any relief that the court considers proper, including declaratory and injunctive relief except that any monetary relief shall be limited to bid preparation and proposal costs.
(3) In exercising jurisdiction under this subsection, the court[] shall give due regard to the interests of national defense and national security and the need for expeditious resolution of the action.
(4)In any action under this subsection, the court[] shall review the agency’s decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) (2004). Section 706 of title 5, which is part of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378 (1966), provides in relevant part as follows:
The reviewing court shall—
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
PGBA’s first argument on appeal is that once the Court of Federal Claims found TMA’s award of TDEFIC to WPS to be arbitrary, capricious, and prejudicial to PGBA, it was required, pursuant to section 1491(b)(4) of title 28 and section 706(2)(A) of title 5, to set aside the award without regard to the balance of hardships. According to PGBA, section 1491(b)(2) simply provides the Court of Federal Claims with the authority to grant injunctive relief. Continuing, PGBA argues that interpreting section 1491(b)(4) to allow courts to exercise discretion after arbitrary and capricious conduct has been found, as the Court of Federal Claims did, would render section 1491(b)(3) superfluous. That is because, PGBA reasons, section 1491(b)(3)’s instruction to consider matters of national defense and national security before reaching judgment would be unnecessary if courts already had discretion in deciding whether to issue injunctive relief.
PGBA argues that we have never held that the Court of Federal Claims has discretion with respect to setting aside arbi
*1225
trary and capricious contract awards. In addition, PGBA cites
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt,
The government and WPS (collectively, “defendants”) respond that the Court of Federal Claims correctly read section 1491(b)(4) as incorporating the arbitrary and capricious standard of review of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), not its mandate that a “reviewing court
shall
... set aside
agency
action ... found to be arbitrary [and] capricious.” Defendants argue that this interpretation is consistent with section 1491(b)(2), which gives the Court of Federal Claims discretion in fashioning relief. Defendants disagree with PGBA’s argument that such a reading would render section 1491(b)(3) superfluous. According to defendants, section 1491(b)(3) is simply a “super-priority” provision, which instructs courts to give extra consideration to issues of national defense and national security before reaching judgment in a case. Defendants argue that their interpretation is consistent with well-settled jurisprudence recognizing equitable discretion in fashioning relief in bid protest eases,
see, e.g., Cincinnati Elecs. Corp. v. Kleppe,
The parties’ contentions frame the issue well. The question before us is whether the reference in 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) to 5 U.S.C. § 706 merely incorporates the arbitrary and capricious standard of review from section 706(2)(A), or whether it means that the reviewing court must set aside any action it finds arbitrary or capricious without consideration of the relative harms of such action. For the reasons which follow, we agree with the government and WPS that section 1491(b)(4) only incorporates the standard of review of section 706(2)(A) and therefore does not de *1226 prive a court of its equitable discretion in deciding whether injunctive relief is appropriate. We thus hold that, in a bid protest action, section 1491(b)(4) does not automatically require a court to set aside an arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful contract award.
First, we think that the plain language of section 1491(b)(4) supports this interpretation. The statute states that “courts shall review the agency’s decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) (emphasis added). This indicates that courts are to employ the standards of 5 U.S.C. § 706 in reviewing an agency decision. The statute does not say anything, however, about remedying agency decisions found to be unlawful. Section 706(2)(A) of title 5, in turn, provides two standards: a standard for relief — “The reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions ...;” and a standard of review for determining when to apply the required relief — “found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” In short, when read together, sections 1491(b)(4) and 706(2)(A) compel the conclusion that section 1491(b)(4) only incorporates the arbitrary or capricious standard of review of section 706(2)(A).
This construction is consistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2), which, through use of the permissive “may,” provides the Court of Federal Claims with discretion in fashioning relief. Interpreting section 1491(b)(4) as requiring the court to enjoin all agency decisions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful, would read the discretionary language out of section 1491(b)(2) by effectively rewording the statute to read:
Courts may award any relief that the court considers proper, including declaratory and injunctive relief, except that the court must issue an injunction setting aside the contract, and except that any monetary relief shall be limited to bid preparation and proposal costs.
Additionally, interpreting the statute as allowing discretion does not render 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(3) superfluous.
See Hibbs v. Winn,
— U.S. -,
Nor is our interpretation inconsistent with this court’s precedent. As noted by PGBA, several of our decisions have quoted the mandatory “shall-set-aside” language of 5 U.S.C. § 706.
See, e.g., Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States,
PGBA cites to decisions of other circuits, as well as to Federal Circuit decisions outside the bid protest context, to support its contention that the word “shall” in 5 U.S.C. § 706 requires the reviewing court to issue an injunction once it has found arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of the procuring agency. These decisions are inapposite, however.
Forest Guardians,
from the Tenth Circuit, concerned 5 U.S.C. § 706 as applied through the Endangered Species Act, not ADRA.
Finally, there is no evidence that Congress intended to abolish the tradition of equitable discretion in issuing injunctive relief when it enacted section 1491(b)(4) in ADRA. Prior to January 1, 2001, district courts exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Federal Claims over government contract procurement challenges under
Scanwell
jurisdiction.
See Emery Worldwide,
III.
PGBA next argues that even if the Court of Federal Claims did not err in its
*1228
construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4), it did err in treating PGBA’s action as one for injunctive rather than declaratory relief. The Court of Federal Claims determined that PGBA’s requested relief “amount[ed] to a prayer for injunctive relief because [it] would bar WPS and the government from going forward with the TDEFIC as awarded and effectively mandate a new round of solicitation, proposals, evaluations, and a new contract award.”
Initial Decision,
We agree with the government and WPS that the nature of the relief sought by PGBA was injunctive. PGBA’s complaint requested that the Court of Federal Claims declare the award to WPS “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;” that the court issue “an order setting aside the award of the TDEFIC to WPS;” and that the court grant whatever other relief it deemed appropriate. The Court of Federal Claims determined that TMA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding the contract to WPS. In addition, it awarded PGBA its bid preparation and proposal costs. PGBA still claims that it is entitled to further relief in the form of an order setting aside the award and thereby stopping performance by TMA and WPS under TDEFIC. This is tantamount to a request for injunctive relief.
See, e.g., Samuels v. Mackell,
IV.
PGBA’s final argument on appeal is that even if its request for a declaration setting aside the award to WPS was properly viewed as a request for injunctive relief, the Court of Federal Claims abused its discretion in withholding such relief. In deciding whether a permanent injunction should issue, a court considers: (1)
*1229
whether, as it must, 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.
See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska,
The Court of Federal Claims denied PGBA’s request for injunctive relief in its original decision on March 31, 2004, as well as in its denial of PGBA’s first request for reconsideration.
Initial Decision,
PGBA argues that the court erred in its assessment of the relative harms and public interests associated with the determination as to whether injunctive relief should be granted. With respect to the relative harms, PGBA argues the court overstated the harm to TMA by failing to recognize that TMA exacerbated the harm by imper-missibly accelerating TDEFIC’s nine-month transition schedule. PGBA maintains that TDEFIC requires a nine-month transition period and that, while the first region (11) was originally set to transition on April 1, 2004, the automatic stay associated with PGBA’s protest before the GAO shifted the first transition date back by approximately three months. By continuing to abide by the original transition schedule, PGBA contends, TMA manipulated the schedule by accelerating the transition date in order to tip the balance of harms in its favor. PGBA similarly contends that WPS would not have suffered the harm it claims if WPS had not continued to prepare for the transition in violation of Judge Allegra’s preliminary in *1230 junction. Moreover, PGBA asserts that ultimately WPS will not incur any costs because it will be able to recover its reasonably incurred termination-for-conven-ienee costs from the government.
PGBA contends that the Court of Federal Claims further erred by understating the harms to PGBA associated with denying injunctive relief. PGBA explains that allowing TMA and WPS to continue performance of the contract will result in PGBA losing the opportunity to make a profit as well as significant employee layoffs. PGBA also asserts that it was error for the court to consider PGBA’s decision not to seek a preliminary injunction in its balance of harms calculus. PGBA states that it certainly would have sought a preliminary injunction had it known TMA would manipulate the transition schedule and that WPS would violate Judge Allegra’s preliminary injunction.
PGBA also argues that it is in the public interest to set aside an arbitrary and capricious award of a $487 million contract and that, for a variety of reasons, the court erred in ruling otherwise. First, PGBA contends the court erred by failing to consider TMA’s alternative options for processing claims during a reevaluation or resolicitation. In particular, PGBA explains that either extending claims processing under the MCS contracts or entering into sole source contracts would have ensured continued processing of claims pending the award of a new TDEFIC. PGBA further argues that the court failed to even consider the viability of a reevaluation as opposed to a resolici-tation. 8 Second, PGBA contends that the court overstated the risk of disruption of claims processing resulting from setting aside the contract. PGBA notes that Mr. Rubin testified that disruption to beneficiaries would be minimal. Additionally, PGBA argues that, at the time of the court’s decision on May 6, 2004, the risk of confusing beneficiaries was overstated, considering that only region 11 had transitioned and that the notices of the upcoming June 1, 2004 transitions for regions 2 and 5 were not to be mailed until the following week of May 11, 2004. Finally, PGBA urges that the low number of dual eligible beneficiaries in region 11 further indicates a relatively low risk of disrúption associated with setting aside the award to WPS, especially considering PGBA is an incumbent contractor and would have only needed thirty to sixty days to transition to the TDEFIC system.
For their part, the government and WPS argue that the evidence supports the Court of Federal Claims’ decision and that PGBA has failed to point to anything in the record amounting to an abuse of discretion. WPS explains that while it is true that various remedies, such as a reevaluation, were available, the court found that such remedies would unduly burden TMA and WPS and also carried associated risks to beneficiaries. The government contends that what PGBA labels as “mistakes” by the Court of Federal Claims are actually just instances where PGBA disagrees with the weight the court attributed to various factors in its equitable calculus. The defendants also dispute PGBA’s assertions that they impermissibly accelerated the contract and that WPS violated Judge Allegra’s preliminary injunction. WPS states that TMA did not impermissibly accelerate the contract but merely maintained the original schedule for transition *1231 of region 11 on April 1, 2004. In any event, WPS asserts, while the contract allowed for a nine-month transition, it did not require a nine-month transition. WPS also asserts that it did not violate Judge Allegra’s preliminary injunction, but merely undertook contract preparation activities at its own risk.
Defendants also argue that PGBA did not come forward with evidence it would suffer irreparable harm, such as evidence of lost profits or evidence that a monetary award would not remedy its damages if a resolicitation or reevaluation was not ordered. Moreover, WPS argues that PGBA’s claim of irreparable harm is significantly diminished by its failure to seek a preliminary injunction at the outset of the lawsuit.
As an initial matter, we reiterate that our review is limited to the question of whether the Court of Federal Claims abused its discretion in withholding injunc-tive relief. We do not find an abuse of discretion absent a “showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors or exercised its discretion based on an error of law or clearly erroneous fact finding.”
Int’l Rectifier,
First, the record does not indicate the Court of Federal Claims clearly erred in judging the potential harm to TMA and WPS associated with issuing an injunction. The court specifically addressed PGBA’s argument that TMA could mitigate its harm by extending the existing MCS contracts pending resolution of a reevaluation or resolicitation. The court found that, while possible, extension of the MCS contracts would create their own unique administrative burdens for TMA, such as reprinting notices to beneficiaries and consulting with appropriate members of Congress and the military.
Final Decision,
As noted, the court relied heavily on the testimony of Mr. Rubin, a government official with TMA.
Final Decision,
Second, the record also does not reflect a clear error in the court’s assessment of the potential harm to the public of issuing injunctive relief. The court acknowledged that setting aside the award posed a low risk of actual disruption of claims processing.
Final Decision,
In short, PGBA has not pointed to any evidence in the record leaving us with the definite and firm conviction that the Court of Federal Claims erred in withholding injunctive relief. PGBA does not argue that the trial court based its decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. PGBA has also not shown that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant injunction factors. Rather, PGBA’s arguments on appeal effectively ask this court to reweigh the relative harms and public interest factors and find in its favor. Such discretionary decisions are properly left to the trial court’s sound judgment. Therefore, finding no clear error in the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment in this case, we affirm the denial of injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we decide the issues before us as follows:
(1) Because 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) only incorporates the standard of review of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Court of Federal Claims had discretion in determining whether to set aside a bid award determined.to be arbitrary, capricious, and prejudicial to PGBA.
(2) The Court of Federal Claims did not err in determining that PGBA’s action was *1233 in the nature of a claim for injunctive relief.
(3) Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to withhold injunctive relief and not set aside the award of the contract to WPS.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED
Notes
. PGBA filed its first motion for reconsideration after the court issued its original order under seal. The court incorporated the denial of this motion in its March 31, 2004 opinion.
Initial Decision,
. As of the date of our decision in this case, all eleven regions were scheduled to have transitioned to TDEFIC. However, it is the circumstances that existed at the time of the Court of Federal Claims’ final decision on May 12, 2004, that are relevant to this appeal.
. The TDEFIC source selection plan divided responsibility among a contracting officer, a Source Selection Authority, a legal advisor, and a Source Selection Evaluation Board ("SSEB”).
Initial Decision,
. In
Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424
F.2d 859 (D.C.Cir.1970), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the APA provides for review of agency procurement decisions in federal district court. "Under the APA standards that are applied in the
Scanwell
line of cases, a bid award may be set aside if either: (1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.”
Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States,
. Section 706(1) does not address arbitrary and capricious agency conduct. Rather, it speaks to the situation in which an agency has improperly failed to act. It provides that the "reviewing court shall (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
. "The [United States Supreme Court] has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other.”
Steffel v. Thompson,
. Mr. Rubin testified that there was a low risk of disruption for claims processed electronically. However, he believed there was a high risk of disruption for the comparatively small number of claims processed on a paper basis.
Final Decision,
. According to PGBA, the difference between a reevaluation and resolicitation could be significant in the relative harms calculus because a reevaluation could have been conducted within a matter of weeks, whereas a resolicitation could take substantially more time.
. We note that it is not evident from the record when exactly WPS incurred its various costs. To the extent WPS incurred costs while under Judge Allegra's preliminary injunction order, they were incurred at WPS’s own risk and are irrelevant to the balance of harms analysis. For purposes of this decision, suffice it to say that not all of WPS's costs were incurred during the period of the preliminary injunction, as the injunction was only in effect for about two months — from September 15, 2003 to November 17, 2003.
See Initial Decision,