With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contrary to law and lacked a rational basis. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Galen Med. Assocs., Inc., 369 F.3d at 1329; Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332-33. b. Irreparable Harm. In deciding whether to impose the “extraordinary remedy” of an injunction, the court is required to consider whether a plaintiff has an adequate remedy or would suffer irreparable harm. See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The loss of an opportunity to compete for a

A: holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law
B: holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction
C: holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction
D: holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy
B.