Updated December 18, 2025
The Court of Federal Claims has posted its decision explaining the denial decision. See more below.
The Court finally turns to plaintiff’s requested relief: enjoining NLM from removing RFQ 1740009 from the 8(a) set-aside program. “As an experienced IT government contractor in the 8(a) business program, Vinsys [argues it] . . . will be irreparably harmed by removing this opportunity from the 8(a) business program.” Pl.’s MJAR. at 9–10. In determining whether to issue a permanent injunction, the Court considers: “(1) whether . . . the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief; (3) whether the balance of hardships to the respective parties favors the grant of injunctive relief; and (4) whether it is in the public interest to grant injunctive relief.” PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1228–29 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Given NLM properly provided written notification to SBA with its new requirement determination before recompeting the solicitation outside the 8(a) program and because NLM did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by deeming the solicitation as a new requirement, plaintiff has not succeeded on the merits of its case. See supra Sections V–VI. As a result, plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining NLM from removing RFQ 1740009 from the 8(a) set-aside program. PGBA, 389 F.3d at 1229. VII. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Vinsys IT Hub LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 14, is DENIED and the government’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED.
Updated December 10, 2025
For those watching this case closely, we share the latest insight. Details Below.
