With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". public interest is served by a grant of injunctive relief.” Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029, 1037 (Fed.Cir.2009). See also PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1228-29 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987)). In that SAIC has not prevailed on the merits of its substantive claims, the first hurdle prerequisite to injunctive relief, inquiry is over. Nevertheless, that deficit aside, if an offeror is improperly deprived of a level playing field or excluded from the bidding process, the contractor is irreparably injured because no adequate remedy exists to make up for the contractor’s potential loss of business. BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 677, 696 (2012) (<HOLDING>); see also BINL, Inc. v. United States, 106

A: holding that lost opportunity to compete on level playing field is sufficient to establish irreparable harm
B: holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm
C: holding that even a temporary deprivation of first amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm
D: holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury
B.