requires that “(1) the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits, (2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief, (3) the balance of hardships to the respective parties favors the grant of injunctive relief, and (4) l. 26, 36-37 (2012); Magnum Opus Techs., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 512, 544 (2010); Global Computer Enters. v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 350, 452 (2009); Red River Holdings, LLC v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 768, 791 (2009). Neither the balance of hardships to the respective parties or public interest favor injunctive relief. Any harm to SAIC would be outweighed by the harm to the government if injunctive relief were granted, and injunctive relief would not be in the best interests of national security. PGBA, 389 F.3d at 1228-29 (<HOLDING>). SAIC retorts that reevaluation is not
holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief holding that 28 usc  1491b4 does not deprive a court of its equitable discretion in deciding whether injunctive relief is appropriate  and does not automatically require a court to set aside an arbitrary capricious or otherwise unlawful contract award and affirming the denial of injunctive relief in a postaward protest despite finding that the procuring agency committed prejudicial error holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that injunctive relief is a form of equity which is generally subject to the courts discretion