The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently rejected the argument that a plaintiff challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of a contract—commonly referred to as the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) stay—should be required to succeed under the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions. Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States.1 The Federal Circuit panel agreed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision—that a bid protester seeking to challenge an agency’s override of a CICA stay need only show that the agency’s override decision was arbitrary and capricious. In this blog, PilieroMazza explains why the Federal Circuit’s decision is positive news for government contractors who want to enforce a CICA stay and protect their position when protesting an award.
The Life Science Logistics Decision
In August 2022, the General Services Administration (GSA) awarded a contract to Integrated Quality Solutions LLC (IQS) for a new Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) program facility in the Northeastern Region to store and deploy various medical supplies for the Department of Health and Human Services. The incumbent contractor, Life Science Logistics, LLC (LSL), protested at GAO, leading the agency to take corrective action and issue a new award to IQS in December 2022. Following a second protest, which was sustained by GAO in April 2023, GSA issued a third award to IQS. LSL then filed a third protest at GAO. After this third protest, the agency attempted to override the CICA stay, claiming it was necessary to avoid a gap in coverage after the incumbent contract expired. The CICA stay is automatically triggered by a protester’s timely filing of a bid protest at GAO, i.e., within ten days of contract award or five days after the close of a requested and required debriefing, as applicable. Consequently, protesters need not seek an injunction to enjoin an awardee from beginning contract performance. CICA requires an agency to stay the award of a new contract during the pendency of a protest at GAO unless the agency can establish it is in the government’s best interest to allow the awardee to begin or continue performance of the new contract.
That is exactly what GSA attempted to do here by claiming that urgent and compelling circumstances did not permit GSA to wait for GAO’s decision in the third protest. However, LSL challenged GSA’s override at COFC, asserting that GSA’s reasoning was arbitrary and capricious, and requested a declaratory judgment or, alternatively, an injunction reimposing the CICA stay. The government argued that LSL was required to prove entitlement to injunctive relief under the four equitable factors that traditionally govern preliminary injunction motions, i.e., that the protester is likely to succeed on the merits, faces irreparable harm, the equities are in its favor, and the public would benefit from granting the requested relief. COFC rejected the government’s argument and issued a declaratory judgment that GSA’s override decision was arbitrary and capricious.
The government appealed the COFC decision to the Federal Circuit but, ten days later, GAO sustained LSL’s third protest, leading GSA to withdraw the override. At the Federal Circuit, LSL advanced two arguments. First, that the government’s appeal became moot once GSA withdrew the override and, thus, should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Second, that COFC’s declaratory judgment should be affirmed on the merits. The Federal Circuit disagreed with LSL’s first argument. Although the current CICA stay override challenge became moot once GSA withdrew the CICA stay override, the Federal Circuit applied the well-established exception to the mootness doctrine whereby jurisdiction can be exercised if an issue on appeal is capable of repetition yet evading review. On the merits, the Federal Circuit agreed with COFC’s decision to not apply the injunctive relief factors to LSL’s CICA stay override challenge, finding that “Congress explicitly imposed no burden whatsoever on the protestor in CICA” and that CICA does not allow “courts to superimpose the judge-made four-factor test governing equitable relief as an additional burden[.]” Beyond looking to the plain text and purpose of CICA, the Federal Circuit also noted that adverse consequences might arise if it were to decide otherwise, e.g., that the government could begin to override CICA stays for arbitrary and capricious reasons and force protesters to make a full four-factor showing for equitable relief. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[i]mposing this greater, non-statutory burden would assuredly doom more protests, an outcome that would sit uncomfortably next to Congress’ express choice to provide protestors an automatic stay for 100 days by doing nothing more than filing a protest.”
Why This Matters for Government Contractors
The automatic stay provisions in CICA are one of the primary benefits to filing a protest at GAO. Had the government been successful in this case, requiring contractors to succeed in satisfying the preliminary injunctive relief factors when challenging an override decision, agencies may have been more inclined to override automatic stays more frequently and challenges to those override decisions would have been much harder. Challenging an agency’s decision to override a CICA stay may still seem like an uphill battle, but the Federal Circuit’s decision has reinforced that the CICA stay is a statutory requirement that government agencies must properly implement if a contractor timely files at GAO. If an agency chooses to override the CICA stay, a protester must show only that the agency’s decision to override the stay was arbitrary and capricious, not that the protester also faces irreparable harm, the equities are in its favor, and the public would benefit from granting the relief requested. Declining to create a heightened standard for protesters seeking to challenge an agency’s CICA stay override disincentivizes the government from overriding more CICA stays and reminds protesters that the CICA stay is a statutory requirement the government must implement. A CICA stay override is not a get out of jail free card for the government—protesters remain able to challenge the government’s decision-making without having to meet a heightened standard to succeed.
If your company is considering a potential protest, understanding the CICA stay, when and how an agency can override the CICA stay, and how to challenge such an override is essential. If you have questions regarding challenges to a CICA stay override, please contact Katie Burrows, Eric Valle, Abby Finan, or another member of PilieroMazza’s Bid Protests Group.
____________________
If you’re seeking practical insights to gain a competitive edge by understanding the government’s compliance requirements, tune into PilieroMazza’s podcasts: GovCon Live!, Clocking in with PilieroMazza, and Ex Rel. Radio.
____________________
12026 WL 1012500 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
