contrary to law and lacked a rational basis. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Galen Med. Assocs., Inc., 369 F.3d at 1329; Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332-33. b. Irreparable Harm. In deciding whether to impose the “extraordinary remedy” of an injunction, the court is required to consider whether a plaintiff has an adequate remedy or would suffer irreparable harm. See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The loss of an opportunity to compete for a
holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility