480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (standard for permanent injunction is essentially same for preliminary injunction, except actual success replaces need to show likelihood of success on merits). An action at law only allows recovery of “bid preparation costs in a suit for damages, but not loss of anticipated profits,” leaving a bid protestor irreparably harmed. Essex Electro Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 277, 287 (1983), aff'd, 757 F.2d 247 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Keco Indus., Inc. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 566, 575 n. 5, 492 F.2d 1200, 1204 n. 5 (1974) (acknowledging existence of damages remedy sometimes reason for denial of injunctive relief in federal district court); M. Steinthal & Co., Inc. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289, 1302 (D.C.Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs showing that it would be
holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction holding that owners testimony that he lost 200200 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the owner determined what his lost profits were holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice holding that availability of damages which do not include lost profits does not warrant automatic dismissal of injunction regardless of strength of claim on merits holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits