With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Fed.Cir.2004); Spherix, Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 497, 505 (2004). 1. A Permanent Injunction Regarding Sole-Source Solicitation No. F45613-03- QA068 And Contract No. FA4620-04- D-A003 Is Warranted. a. Success On The Merits. For the reasons previously discussed, the record in this case supports by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs claim that the Air Force’s decision to issue Sole-Source Solicitation No. F4561303-Q-A068 and award Waste Management— Washington Contract No. FA4620-04-DA003 wa tract and secure any resulting profit has been recognized as “significant harm” to issue an injunction. See United Int’l Investigative Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 312, 323 (1998); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); International Res. Recovery, Inc. v. United

A: holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief
B: holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury
C: 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
D: holding that even when likelihood of success has been established the absence of irreparable injury standing alone makes preliminary injunctive relief improper
A.