Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): are “so implausible as not to be the product of rational decisionmaking.” Unlike PGBA, this Court cannot conclude that the Government’s assertion that a delay in this procurement could lead to a void in coverage of items being procured is “completely without foundation.” Id. At 662. Given that the product being acquired is critical to protect the nation’s aircrew against chemical, biological and nuclear threats, and that the Air Force has determined it to be an urgent requirement with no slack time available in the procurement schedule, the Court deems it prudent to deny injunctive relief. Where a solicitation addresses issues of national defense, as it does here, the importance of this factor is inflated. See CSE Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 230 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States, 51 
 Holding statements: (A) holding injunctive relief proper if proved at trial by a fair preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that a court may deny a request for injunctive relief in a summary judgment proceeding if it is clear the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for an injunction (C) holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer (D) holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief (E) holding that national security concerns and the balance of the equities tipped the scales decisively against injunctive relief in a case where a contract for firing range renovations if delayed would raise national defense concerns
Output (English): holding that a court may deny a request for injunctive relief in a summary judgment proceeding if it is clear the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for an injunction