With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the JOC procurement in order to maintain its viability in Italy.” PL’s Mot. 30. Mr. Hagner explained that BBSSI’s exclusion from the JOC competition has impacted its financial viability in Italy, as well as its “ability to operate elsewhere,” thereby requiring BBSSI to undertake administrative changes to ensure that it can remain competitive and can maintain oversight and control over its existing contracts. Hagner Deck ¶ 15; see also id. (noting that “there is no real prospect for alternatives for this kind of work on the market in Italy”). BBSSI’s loss of work flow and dependency upon the work encompassed by the JOC solicitation in order to maintain its viability in Italy constitute irreparable injuries. See Cardinal Maint. Serv., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 98, 110 (2004) (<HOLDING>); accord PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl.

A: holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law
B: recognizing that a party suffers irreparable injury when it loses the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other bidders wjhen a plaintiff shows that it was excluded from the bidding process perhaps solely because of the governments improper conduct the plaintiff has satisfied requirement for irreparable injury
C: holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury
D: holding that lost opportunity to compete on level playing field is sufficient to establish irreparable harm
B.