will not cause the Government harm, because Waste Management — Washington is currently providing the services on a month-to-month basis until this proceeding is concluded. See TR 5. Therefore, in light of the immediate and continuing harm to Blue Dot, as well as other potential small businesses, the balance of harm weighs in favor of Blue Dot. d. Effect On The Public Interest. i. The Integrity Of The Procurement Process Was Compromised In This Case. Our appellate court has emphasized “the importance of ensuring that the public’s faith in the integrity of the procurement process is not compromised[.]” Central Arkansas Maint., Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.Cir.1995) (Mayer, C. J.); see also Parcel 49C Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147, 1151 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); C.A. C.I., Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719
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 definition of procurement under the tucker act is broader than the definition of procurement contract in the fgcaa such that an agency can engage in a procurement process for the purposes of the tucker act even though it is using a cooperative agreement instead of a procurement contract to memorialize the parties agreement holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure holding that without a valid reason for cancelling the procurement  the government violated its duty to conduct a fair procurement 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