Challenging a CICA Stay Override? The Federal Circuit Confirms You Don’t Need to Prove Irreparable Harm
In Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States,[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed that a disappointed bidder challenging an agency’s override of a Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”) stay must only show the override was arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected the government’s argument that the plaintiff must also satisfy the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and benefit to the public. The decision is a significant win for government contractors.
What is a CICA Stay?
A CICA stay is an automatic pause on the performance or award of a federal contract, triggered when a disappointed bidder files a timely protest with the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).[2] The stay preserves the status quo, preventing the agency from authorizing contract performance while the GAO evaluates the protest—a process that can last up to 100 days. Congress designed the CICA stay to be automatic, such that protestor need do nothing more than file a timely written GAO protest to trigger it.
CICA does, however, permit an agency to override the automatic stay. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3)(C), the head of the procuring activity may authorize performance of the contract notwithstanding a pending protest upon a written finding that “performance of the contract is in the best interests of the United States;” or that “urgent and compelling circumstances that significantly affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the [GAO] concerning the protest.”
Background
The Life Science Logistics, LLC (“LSL”) decision arose from a General Services Administration (“GSA”) procurement of the Strategic National Stockpile (“SNS”), which is a nationwide network of facilities for the storage and deployment of medicines, vaccines, and medical supplies, managed by the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response within the Department of Health and Human Services.
When GSA issued a solicitation for a 10-year contract to service the SNS warehouse in the National Capitol Region (“NCR Contract”), LSL and one competitor, Integrated Quality Solutions LLC (“IQS”), submitted bids. GSA awarded the NCR Contract to IQS, and LSL promptly protested at the GAO.
After GSA took corrective action, it nevertheless awarded the contract to IQS for a second and then a third time. In response to LSL’s third protest, however, GSA decided to override the stay, issuing a Determination and Findings (“D&F”) asserting that “urgent and compelling circumstances” existed and that overriding the stay was “in the best interest of the United States.”
LSL subsequently filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), alleging that the override was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The COFC ruled in LSL’s favor, issuing a declaratory judgment that the override was arbitrary and capricious.
Critically, the COFC rejected the government’s argument that LSL was required to prove entitlement to injunctive relief. The government timely appealed to the Federal Circuit, and ten days later, the GAO sustained LSL’s third protest, leading GSA to withdraw the override.
The Mootness Question: “Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review”
Because GSA withdrew the CICA stay override shortly after the COFC’s decision, LSL argued the appeal was moot and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the dispute fell within the well-established exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “[1] capable of repetition yet [2] evading review.”
On the “capable of repetition” prong, the court concluded it was “entirely reasonable to expect that the government and LSL will spar over an agency override of a CICA stay again in the future.” The court reasoned that, because LSL is the largest player in an unusually tight market, LSL will, with near certainty, bid on future SNS contracts and will, with near certainty, protest an award to one of its competitors if not selected as the winning bidder.
On the “evading review” prong, the court explained that it had already determined the issue in NIKA Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 987 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2021). CICA stays and overrides are limited by statute to a maximum duration of 100 days, and as the Federal Circuit recognized in NIKA, litigating a CICA dispute “in 100 days is unrealistic, if not impossible.”
The Merits: No Four-Factor Test Required
Turning to the central question, the Federal Circuit held that the COFC did not err when it granted declaratory relief without requiring LSL to satisfy the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions.
The Federal Circuit found “[t]here is no place in this statutory regime for courts to superimpose the judge-made four-factor test governing equitable relief as an additional burden on the protestor,” and emphasized that Congress imposed no burden whatsoever on the protestor in CICA; filing a written protest alone triggers the automatic stay. The court went on to explain that it therefore “cannot have been Congress’ intent to require a protestor whose automatic stay has been overridden by arbitrary and capricious government action to have to prove to a court – in addition to the unlawfulness of the override – that the protestor faces irreparable harm, the equities are in its favor, and the public would benefit from granting the relief requested.” The court reasoned that to hold otherwise, “would undesirably incentivize the government to override more (if not all) CICA stays.”
The Declaratory Relief Is Not “Coercive”
Finally, the government argued that declaratory relief in this context was impermissibly coercive because it functioned like a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit rejected that contention, explaining that any alleged coercive effect arose from CICA itself and not from the court’s declaratory judgment.
Key Takeaways
The Life Science Logistics, LLC decision clarifies that government contractors challenging a CICA stay override need only demonstrate that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. In reaching this conclusion, the court found that protestors are not also required to satisfy the traditional four‑factor test for injunctive relief, including showings of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. Accordingly, this decision affirmed that the automatic stay is a core component of the GAO protest process and will not be circumvented by heightened judicial standards.
For government contractors, this decision is critically important as it means that the statutory protection Congress designed to maintain the status quo during a protest cannot be easily cast aside. Had the Federal Circuit ruled otherwise, agencies may have been incentivized to override CICA stays as a matter of course, knowing that protestors would face the steep burden of proving irreparable harm and favorable equities on top of showing the override was unlawful. Such a ruling could have transformed the nature of the automatic CICA stay.
In sum, even where an agency decides to override the stay, a protestor will be able to contest the reasonableness of that decision without having to overcome additional judicially created hurdles.
[1] No. 2024-1522, April 15, 2026 (Fed. Cir.).
[2] For a more detailed discussion of the CICA stay framework, see our prior blog post, “CICA Stay Preserved: COFC Rules in Favor of Protester, Applies Equitable Tolling.”