the injunction be granted.”). The Government argues that it will be harmed because collection and disposal of solid waste at Fairchild AFB is a “mission essential service” that would be interrupted unnecessarily while the Government waits to see if the contr 7 (7th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406, 412-13 (9th Cir.1975)) (“[The] public has an interest in seeing its government deal ... fairly with its citizens.”). In determining whether the government has breached its implied contract with the public, thus warranting the court’s exercise of injunctive power, the court must consider whether the government has committed a clear and prejudicial violation of a statute or regulation during the procurement process. See Central Arkansas Maint., Inc., 68 F.3d at 1342 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the court has determined that
holding that tucker act jurisdiction is founded on an implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract holding that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from an action arising from the states breach of that contract holding that only violations that amount to a breach of the governments implied contract to consider an offer fairly and honestly will support the courts exercise of its injunctive powers holding that unsuccessful bidder is awarded its bid preparation costs because the government violated its implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered 