and being awarded Contract No. FA4620-04-D-A003 because of the Air Force’s unlawful decision to issue Sole-Source Solicitation No. F45613-03-Q-A068, circumventing the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1)(A) by unlawfully determining that solid waste collection and disposal services were available from only one “responsible source.” In light of the size of this procurement, this was no small loss for a small business like Blue Dot. See Overstreet, 47 Fed.Cl. at 744 (“[T]he potential loss of valuable business on [a] contract ... has been found sufficient to prove irreparable harm.”). c. Balance Of Hardships. The balance of hardship element requires a consideration of the harm to each of the parties. See Parcel 49C Limited Partnership v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147, 1154 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58
holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement holding that governments regulatory violation does not itself necessarily entitle a protester to relief in such situations the board must review the conduct of the procurement with heightened scrutiny to determine if the improper taint had any actual adverse effect on the procurement process holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant holding that injunctive relief better serves public interest where government has shown no likelihood of material harm from an injunction that will remove the taint of illegality from this procurement process without interfering with the governments discretion to select its own contractors holding that as a matter of law where the procurement decision was rational a reviewing court may not award injunctive relief despite the presence of procedural irregularities in the procurement process