Posted

Automatic Stay, Manual Override: COFC Rejects CICA Stay Override Challenge in Threat Tec

by

When a contractor files a protest at the Government Accountability Office, the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) normally hits the pause button on the procurement. Performance of the challenged contract is automatically stayed, sometimes for up to 100 days, while GAO considers the protest. But agencies have one powerful tool to keep work moving: a CICA stay override.

In Threat Tec, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 26-150C (Feb. 9, 2026, reissued March 10, 2026), the Army exercised that authority after awarding a sole-source bridge contract to Chitra Productions. Threat Tec had already filed a GAO protest challenging the procurement, which triggered the automatic stay. The Army concluded that continuing performance was necessary and overrode the stay. Threat Tec quickly turned to the Court of Federal Claims seeking a preliminary injunction to restore the pause.

The resulting decision provides a useful primer on how the Court evaluates challenges to CICA stay overrides. It also highlights several practical pitfalls for protesters, including the importance of evidentiary support for injunction motions, the need to establish standing and the difficulty of overturning an override decision under the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.

The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for preliminary injunction, ruling that:

  1. The Preliminary Injunction Motion Failed Due to Lack of Evidentiary Support: The Court emphasized that a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must support factual assertions with admissible evidence. Threat Tec initially relied only on allegations in its complaint and unauthenticated documents. While the plaintiff later submitted declarations addressing the merits and irreparable harm, those declarations were filed with the reply brief rather than the opening motion. The Court declined to consider them, noting that evidentiary support should have been provided at the outset​.
  2. Threat Tec Failed to Demonstrate Standing: The Court also questioned whether Threat Tec had standing to challenge the procurement. The Army awarded the bridge contract under the Small Business Innovation Research Phase III framework. The government presented evidence that neither Threat Tec nor its joint venture partner was eligible for such a contract. Because Threat Tec failed to show that it could have received the contract under the procurement framework the Army actually used, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had not established the direct economic interest necessary for standing. The Court also rejected Threat Tec’s claim that the Army could theoretically have chosen some other procurement framework under which Plaintiff would have been qualified, noting that the question is not whether the Army chose its only option or its best option, but whether the option it actually chose was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
  3. The Army’s CICA Stay Override Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious: Turning to the merits, the Court applied the traditional four-factor framework used to review CICA stay overrides. The Court explained that agencies must consider factors such as whether significant adverse consequences would result from maintaining the stay, whether reasonable alternatives exist, the comparative costs and benefits of proceeding, and the impact on competition and procurement integrity. The Army’s override decision followed this framework and concluded that continuing performance was necessary to maintain mission continuity and mitigate operational risks. The Court found that the agency’s reasoning had a rational basis and that Threat Tec’s arguments largely amounted to disagreements with the Army’s judgment rather than proof of arbitrary decision-making.
  4. Several Legal Theories Were Insufficiently Developed: Threat Tec also advanced several legal theories, including allegations of procurement integrity violations related to a former employee, but failed to substantively address key legal questions or factual issues surrounding those claims. The Court concluded that these undeveloped arguments were insufficient to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Because Threat Tec failed to demonstrate either standing or a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court denied the request for injunctive relief.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. CICA Stay Override Challenges Require Evidence, Not Allegations: Requests for injunctive relief must be supported by sworn declarations or other admissible evidence. Courts will not rely on bare allegations in a complaint when evaluating preliminary injunction motions.
  2. Standing Can Be a Major Hurdle in Bridge Contract Protests: A protester must demonstrate that it could realistically compete for the contract under the procurement framework the agency used. If the protester was not eligible to receive the award, standing may stop the case in its tracks.
  3. CICA Stay Overrides Are Reviewed Under a Highly Deferential Standard: Courts review override decisions under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Disagreement with the agency’s judgment is rarely sufficient to overturn the decision.
  4. Legal Arguments Must Be Fully Developed: Conclusive allegations, such as those regarding procurement integrity issues, are unlikely to succeed unless supported by clear legal analysis and evidence.
  5. Reply Briefs Are Not the Place to Introduce Critical Evidence: Courts frequently decline to consider new declarations or evidence submitted for the first time in a reply brief.