to address the problem.”). F. Remedies. In the context of a bid protest, a permanent injunction may only be issued if the plaintiff demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that: it is successful on the merits; it will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted; the harm to the plaintiff, if an injunction is not entered, outweighs the harm to the Government if an injunction is granted; and the injunction is in the public interest. See, e.g., Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987); PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 12 tes, 60 Fed.Cl. 1, 8 (2004) (determining that a lost opportunity to compete constitutes irreparable harm); Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 634, 654 (2003) (<HOLDING>); PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 655,
recognizing that the loss of skilled employees critical to a companys performance in a specialized field may constitute an irreparable harm recognizing that a party suffers irreparable injury when it loses the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other bidders wjhen a plaintiff shows that it was excluded from the bidding process perhaps solely because of the governments improper conduct the plaintiff has satisfied requirement for irreparable injury holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate holding that lost opportunity to compete on level playing field is sufficient to establish irreparable harm