ATI seeks emergency order to end year-long ban from federal contracting

ATI Government Solutions, the tribally-owned firm that has battled the Small Business Administration for more than a year, wants a federal judge to immediately lift the company's suspension from government contracting and to make SBA explain under oath why it imposed the ban in the first place.

In a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed Oct. 30, ATI argues that SBA suspended the company based on a single YouTube video and has still not presented any evidence of wrongdoing.

SBA suspended ATI from the 8(a) program and from all Federal Acquisition Regulation-based contracting in October 2025, a day after conservative activist James O’Keefe released a video he claimed depicts an ATI employee describing the company as a pass-through for other contractors.

ATI says the video was heavily-edited and that the person O’Keefe portrayed as an ATI executive was a short-term, part-time data-entry employee.

SBA lifted the 8(a) suspension in June after an SBA administrative judge found the agency had made no effort to back up the video’s claims. But the agency kept the broader FAR suspension in place and extended it for another six months on Oct. 21.

The motion escalates the lawsuit ATI filed against SBA in September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ATI also is asking Judge Ana Reyes to hold an evidentiary hearing with testimony from SBA officials.

Under ATI’s proposed orders, SBA would have to lift the suspension and remove ATI’s exclusion from SAM.gov.

SBA would also be prohibited from any action that amounts to de facto debarment. ATI is asking for a 14-day temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction lasting through the rest of the case.

The filing offers a harsh critique of SBA’s behavior over the last year and the efforts ATI has taken to clear its name.

ATI says SBA could have taken several reasonable steps after the release of the video. Those would have included assessing the reliability of the video, asking ATI to respond to O’Keefe’s accusations, or launching its own investigation.

“If the SBA had done any of those things, it would have learned then what it surely knows now: the accusations in the videos are without merit, false, and entirely unsupported by evidence,” ATI writes in its motion.

ATI argues that SBA abdicated its duties under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

"SBA did not provide notice or a hearing prior to the suspension, and to this day—more than a year later—has never provided ATI with a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the company writes.

ATI’s attorneys say they could find no other examples of SBA suspending a contractor on nothing more than “unsubstantiated third-party allegations” and without providing a chance for the suspended company to answer questions or provide evidence.

The filing names several contractors that settled fraud allegations with the government but were never suspended.

For example, TriMark paid a record $48.5 million in 2022 to resolve claims involving set-asides for service-disabled/veteran-owned contracts ATI’s attorneys say searches of SAM.gov turned up no suspension or debarment for any of them.

ATI argues the disparate treatment is arbitrary and capricious and claims it is likely to win its lawsuit.

ATI says the suspension has been devastating. Nearly all of the company's 67 employees have been laid off.

Contracts terminated since the suspension made up more than 90% of its monthly revenue, and it has lost close to $130 million in previously awarded contracts and a projected $500 million in prospective business across ATI and its sister companies.

SBA must respond to ATI’s motion by 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday (today), according to the court's docket.