stemmed from a lack of advanced planning. In this case, the only evidence the plaintiff brings forth to prove its claim that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304(f)(5)(A) is one document written by Mr. Massey, the SBA’s Procurement Center Representative. Mr. Masseys statements, however, are unsupported by any other evidence cited to in the record. Mr. Masseys memorandum alone, without any additional supporting evidence, and especially given his role at the agency, is not sufficient to prove that the Army failed to properly plan funding for the research and development of the “Fat Boy” strap pack. Without any additional evidence, the plaintiff fails to carry its burden. See JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 364, 370 (2001), aff'd, 279 F.3d 985 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (2002) (<HOLDING>). 4. Injunctive Relief Standard Plaintiff seeks
holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process holding that statute does not remove plaintiffs burden of proving causation and reasonableness holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner recognizing the plaintiffs burden of proving a violation of 48 cfr  6301c recognizing burden