The protester filed a GAO protest, which triggered the CICA automatic stay. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) overrode the stay. The protester filed suit in the COFC, seeking an injunction to halt the stay override. The court denied the protester's motion for a preliminary injunction because the protester failed to show that the override was arbitrary and capricious, and its delay in filing suit undermined its claim of irreparable harm.
Active Deployment Systems, LLC v. United States, United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 26-510
• Background - FLETC operates training facilities for federal law enforcement personnel. Following Executive Order 14159, which directed a significant increase in Customs and Border Protection agents to enforce immigration laws, Congress appropriated $285 million for FLETC to train new personnel. FLETC issued a solicitation for temporary training facilities and awarded the contract to Greenlight. The protester filed a GAO protest on March 16, 2026, triggering CICA's automatic stay. Two days later, FLETC issued a determination and findings (D&F) to override the stay based on urgent and compelling circumstances. The protester then filed this lawsuit seeking to reinstate the stay.
• Urgent and Compelling Need - Under CICA, agencies may override the automatic stay only if they determine there are "urgent and compelling circumstances that significantly affect interests of the United States" that will not permit waiting for the GAO's decision. The protester argued FLETC's failed to adequately explain why urgent and compelling circumstances existed. The court found FLETC's D&F rational because it addressed the agency's legal obligations, existing capacity constraints, alternative accommodations, and potential costs of delay. Executive Order 14159 required hiring more agents; FLETC was statutorily required to provide safe housing for trainees, and existing facilities could not accommodate 500 additional trainees per day.
• Agency Justification - The protester contended FLETC relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider and failed to address important aspects of the problem. Specifically, the protester argued the Executive Order and OMB Circular did not mandate immediate action and that declining border encounters showed no urgent enforcement need. The court disagreed. FLETC properly considered its statutory duty to provide safe housing for trainees, the Presidential directive to significantly increase CBP agents, and Congressional appropriations for that purpose. The agency also considered alternatives like hotels and short-term rentals, but found they would not meet security or operational requirements. The court rejected the protester's suggestion that training could move to other FLETC facilities. The court emphasized that declining border encounters do not eliminate CBP's enforcement obligations or eliminate the need to train newly hired agents.
• Irreparable Harm - The protester argued it would suffer irreparable harm because the solicitation allowed offerors to design their own solutions, meaning Greenlight's site preparation and infrastructure work would be incompatible with the protester's design and difficult to reverse. The court acknowledged this harm was real. However, the court significantly discounted this harm because of the protester's delay. The protester received notice of the override on March 19, 2026, and knew construction had to be complete by May 1, 2026. Yet the protester waited until April 2—14 days later—to file suit, allowing 33% of the remaining construction time to elapse. The court stated that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
---