Photo of Anuj VohraPhoto of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Christian CurranPhoto of Cherie OwenPhoto of Issac Schabes

In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief.  In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.

A timely bid protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) triggers CICA’s automatic stay prohibiting the performance of an awarded contract while a protest of that award is pending.  An agency may “override” the stay if the head of the procuring activity issues a written determination that performance is in the government’s best interests, or that urgent and compelling circumstances require performance during the pendency of the GAO protest.  The Federal Circuit has previously confirmed that Court of Federal Claims Tucker Act jurisdiction encompasses challenges to override decisions.  The central question in Life Science Logistics was what a protester needed to establish to prevail on such a challenge: in addition to demonstrating that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious, did the protester also have to meet the four-factor test for injunctive relief to have the stay reinstated?  In a win for challengers, the Federal Circuit said no. 

The Federal Circuit grounded its analysis in the text and structure of CICA, explaining that Congress established a default automatic 100-day stay following a timely protest at GAO with only limited exception: an override based on specific findings.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reasoned, if a protester demonstrated an override was arbitrary and capricious the stay should be reimposed by default, without the protester having to do anything more.  In support of that conclusion, the Federal Circuit noted CICA provides that the simple filing of a protest triggers an automatic stay and nothing in the text of CICA allows for courts to superimpose the judicially created four-factor injunctive relief test as an additional burden on protesters upon issuance of an override.

The Federal Circuit also emphasized the practical consequences of ruling otherwise, as a contrary ruling could incentivize agencies to override CICA stays on flimsy pretexts and shift the burden to challengers to make a full four-factor showing for equitable relief.  As imposing this greater, non-statutory burden would “assuredly doom more protests,” the Federal Circuit concluded that this outcome could not be squared with Congress’s express choice to provide protestors an automatic stay upon the filing of a GAO protest.

The Federal Circuit’s decision is welcome news for protesters, as this ruling preserves the integrity of the protest process and limits the government’s ability to circumvent the statutory CICA stay during the pendency of a GAO protest.

Tags: Bid Protests, government contracts
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Anuj Vohra Anuj Vohra

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of…

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of issues related to contract formation (including subcontracts and teaming agreements), regulatory compliance, internal and government-facing investigations, suspension and debarment, organizational conflicts of interest (“OCIs”), intellectual property and data rights, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

Prior to entering private practice, Anuj spent six years as a Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. At DOJ, he was a member of the Bid Protest Team—which handles the department’s largest and most complex protests—and served as lead counsel in dozens of matters representing the United States in commercial disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Read more about Anuj Vohra
Show more Show less
Photo of Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan

Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, a member of the Steering Committee for the firm’s Government Contracts Group, and former chair of the firm’s Diversity Council. Her practice involves a mix of litigation, transactional work, investigations, and

…

Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, a member of the Steering Committee for the firm’s Government Contracts Group, and former chair of the firm’s Diversity Council. Her practice involves a mix of litigation, transactional work, investigations, and counseling for corporate clients of all sizes and levels of experience as government contractors. On the litigation side, she has represented corporate clients in bid protests (agency level, GAO, ODRA, Court of Federal Claims, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as state and local bid protests in numerous jurisdictions), size and status protests before the U.S. Small Business Administration, claims litigation before the various Boards of Contract Appeals, Defense Base Act claims litigation at the Administrative Law Judge and Benefits Review Board levels, civil and criminal investigations, and she has been involved in complex commercial litigation.

Read more about Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan
Show more Show less
Photo of Christian Curran Christian Curran

Christian N. Curran is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group. His practice focuses on government contracts litigation and counseling, including bid protests, government investigations, and compliance with federal and state procurement laws…

Christian N. Curran is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group. His practice focuses on government contracts litigation and counseling, including bid protests, government investigations, and compliance with federal and state procurement laws and regulations.

Christian has broad experience in the government contracts arena, including bid protest litigation at both the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, contract claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, prime-sub disputes, internal investigations, mandatory disclosures, transactional due diligence, Defense Contract Audit Agency audits, and compliance assessments. He also has experience in both traditional litigation and alternative dispute resolution forums, including international arbitration and mediation, and administrative proceedings before various government agencies.

Read more about Christian Curran
Show more Show less
Photo of Cherie Owen Cherie Owen
Read more about Cherie Owen
Photo of Issac Schabes Issac Schabes

Issac D. Schabes is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where he is a member of the Government Contracts Group.

Prior to joining the firm, Issac clerked for the Honorable Matthew H. Solomson on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and…

Issac D. Schabes is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where he is a member of the Government Contracts Group.

Prior to joining the firm, Issac clerked for the Honorable Matthew H. Solomson on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Honorable Robert N. McDonald on the Maryland Court of Appeals. Issac received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, where he graduated Order of the Coif and served as an executive editor for the Maryland Law Review. He received numerous awards, including the Judge Simon E. Sobeloff Prize for Excellence in Constitutional Law. During law school, Issac was a member of a low-income taxpayer clinic team that successfully appealed an IRS assessment resulting in a substantial tax liability reduction, and also interned for the Honorable Beryl A. Howell, Chief Judge, on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Honorable Marvin J. Garbis on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Read more about Issac Schabes
Show more Show less
Related Posts
February 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: GAO Finds Failure to Acknowledge IFB Amendment Was Fatal
April 13, 2026
January 2026 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: GAO Sustains Protest on Multiple Grounds Highlighting Unequal Treatment of Offerors
April 9, 2026
Worried Three’s a Crowd? Decline Intervention at Your Own Peril
February 10, 2026