FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 4, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 7- 11 82 7 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 86 1- CV-PC H DW IGHT JOHANNES DOW NS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Ma rch 4 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, BLACK an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, Dwig htJo ha nn es Down s (“ Down s” ), se ek s re vi ew of th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Def

en da nt -Ap pe ll ee, the Uni te d St at es , anddi sm is sa l o f Down s’s cl ai m forne gl ig en ce u nd er the Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act , 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46 , 26 71 –8 0 (2 00 6) . Se e Dow ns v. Uni te d Sta tes , No. 06 -2 08 61 , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 (S.D. Fla . Mar. 2 0, 20 07 ). Down s as se rts th atth e Uni te d S ta te s Army Co rp s o f Eng in eers (“ Co rp s” ) ne gl ig en tl y

un de rto okit s dut y

to en su re the qu al it y

of f il l m at eri al us edin th e Mi am i Be ach re-n ou ris hm en t p ro ject i n t he 19 70 s an d 1 98 0s an d n eg li ge nt ly fai le d t o warn abo utkn ownpo te nt ia l d an ge rs th atres ul te d fr om it s ac ti on s, th ereb y pro xi m at el y

cau si ng Down s’s i nju rie s wh enhe do ve in to th e Mi am i Be ach su rf an d s tru ckhi s h eadon a “ba sk etba ll -s iz ed ” ro ck , ren de rin g h im a qu adrip le gi c. Down s s ue d u nd er the Fed eral TortCla im s Act(“ FTCA”). Th e di st ric t co urt d is m is se d the cas e as , in te r a li a , fal li ng un de r th e d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to th e FTCA. The is su e b efo re u s i s wh ethe r th e Loc al Co op erat io n Ag reem en t wi thDade Co un ty (“ LCA”) u nd er wh ic h t he Co rp s ac te d es tabl is he d am an da to ry

du ty tha t p recl ud es ap pl ic at io n o f th e d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on , th us subjec ti ng th e Uni te d S ta te s t o s ui t u nd er the FTCA fo r th e al le ge d n eg li ge nc e. Becaus e we co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t t he di st ric t

2co urt i m

pr op erl y ap pl ie d F lo rid a la w inco ns tru in g t he Co rp s’ con tra ctua l dut ie s, we rev ers e an d re m an d fo r rec on si de rat io n i n l ig htof t hi s o pi ni on . I. BACKGROUND On a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, al l fa ct s ar e rea d i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 ; se e a ls o Po wer s v. Un it ed St at es , 99 6 F .2d11 21 , 11 25 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ Bec au se we rev ie w her e th e d is tri ct co urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai nt s fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , we acce ptth e p la in ti ffs ’ factua l al le ga ti on s as tru e.”). The fact s h ere are t he refo re p res en te d i n t ha t l ig ht . On Ap ril 8, 2 00 3, Do wns do ve he ad fir stin to th e o cean inth e are a o f Mi am i Bea ch , Mia m i-Da de Co un ty, Fl or id a, be twee n 7 0t h a nd73 rdStr eet s. He s tru ck hi s h eadon a ro ck

in th e wat er, wh ic h h e ap pr ox im at es to be th e si ze o f a ba sk etba ll . Down s b ro ke hi s n eckan d was ren de reda qu adrip le gi c. The areaof t he be ach wher e th e in ci de ntoc cu rredwas p artof alar ge reno ur is hm en t p ro

ject i n t he 19 70 s an d 1 98 0s th atwas d es ig ne d t o c urb e ro si on of th e b each , The Dad e Co un ty Beach Nou ris hm en t an d Hu rri can e Su rg e Pro te ct io n Pro ject ( “ Dad e Pro

ject” ). The Dad e Pro

ject was au th or iz edby Con gr es s an d ex ecu te d b y

th e Co rp s t hr ou gh anag reem en t wi th th e co un ty. The LCA b etween Dad e Co un ty andth e Co rp s s etforth th e res pe ct iv e res po ns ib il it ie s o f eac h p art y . 3The di stric t co urt o pi ni on ou tl in es de ta il s o f th e p ro ject. Se e Dow ns , 20 07 U.S. Dis t. LEXIS 1 90 23 , at * 4– 7, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 2– 3. We des cri be th e pr ojec t i n b rie f, he re. The Dade Pro ject i nv ol ve d d red gi ng fil l m at eri al fro m ot he r area s an d fi ll in g t he be ach area , in cl ud in g t he su rf zo ne , with app ro xi m at el y ni ne ve rti cal feetof m at eri al . The LCA co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g c laus e reg ard in g t he fil l m at eri al to be us ed : “ The pa rti es m utua ll y ag ree t ha t o nl y

su it ab le m at eri al wil l b e u se d fo r pr ojec t b each fil l, s uc h s ui tabl e m at eri al be in g d efi ne d a s n on ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach .” (R. 1 at 8 .) The Co rp s co nt ract edwith p riv at e co m pa ni es to co m

pl et e th e work. Fo r th e se ct io n o f be achat i ss ue in th is cas e, th e Co rp s co nt ract edwith C on stru ct io n Agg reg at es Co rp or at io n (“ CAC”) . Und er the term s o f th e co nt ract , in cl ud in g m od ifi cat io ns m ad e dur in g t he pro ject, ap pr ox im at el y

fiv e p erce ntof r oc k b y vo lu m e, ran gi ng in si ze fr om two to ten in ch es in di am et er, wo ul d b e in te rs pe rs ed in th e m at eri al de po si te d o n t he be ach . The co nt ractrequi redCAC t o re m ov e al l su ch roc k t o ade pt h o f twe lv e in ch es . CAC was t o d es ig n t he m etho d o f rem ov al . Afte r fu rth er n eg ot ia ti on , th e Co rp s al lo wedCAC t o b ury th e ro ck in st eadof rem ov in g i t. Down s b ro ug htsu itag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r ne gl ig en ce p ur su an t t o t he Fed eral TortCla im s Act , 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46 , 26 71 –8 0, al le gi ng th atth e Co rp s 4vi ol at edth e LCA whe n i t n eg li ge nt ly fill edth e b each areawith ro ck s an d tha t t he

ag reem en t wi th CAC was in su ffi ci en t b ecau se itdi d n otrequi re re m ov al of a ll of th e p ot en ti al roc ks , in cl ud in g tho se un de r two in ch es in di am et er an d t ho se be lo w th e to p t welv e in ch es of t he fil l. In a dd it io n, Do wns all eg edth atde sp it e th e 1 Co rp s’ kn owl ed ge of t he da ng er o f th e ro ck s, i t fa il edto tak e act io n t o c orrectth e kn own dang er an d fa il edto warnth e p ub li c o f th e d an ge rs pre se nt edby the roc ks . He al so all eg edth atth e Co rp s v io la te d t he Cle anW at er Act , 33 U.S.C. § 1 25 1, et se q. (20 06 ), be cau se roc ks are co ns id eredpo ll ut an ts withi n t he m ean in g o f th e Act. Init s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, the go ve rn m en t as se rte d t ha t i t was en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t b ecau se (1) itis imm un e fro m su itun de r th e Fl oo d Co nt ro l Actof 1 96 8; (2) itis imm un e fro m su itun de r th e in de pe nd en t co nt ract or ex cep ti on to th e FTCA; an d (3 ) itis imm un e fro m su itun de r th e d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to th e FTCA. The di stric t co urt fi rs t fo un d t ha t the Flo odCo nt ro l Actdo es no t ap pl y to th e wat ers wher e Down s was in jure d a ndals o c on cl ud edth atth e Cl ean W at er Act do es no t p rev en t t he go ve rn m en t fr om av ai li ng it se lf o f th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n
Downs originally filed this action aga i n s t the C orps. The parties later stipul ated that the 1 United States should be substituted as the properly named pa

rty . (R. 17 at 1.) 5ex cep ti on in th is cas e. The d is tri ctco urt t he n c on cl ud edth atth e in de pe nd en t

co nt ract or

ex cep ti on an d t he di sc ret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e FTCA pr ecl ud e Down s’s cl ai m s. In do in g s o, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he LCA is a co nt ractan d t ha t, as su ch , du ti es enum erat edinitcanest ab li sh m an da to ry du ti es th e n eg li ge ntpe rfo rm an ce o f whi ch subjec t t he Uni te d S ta te s t o s ui t u nd er the FTCA. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d, h owe ve r, th atth e dut y at i ss ue in th is cas e—t o en su re tha t t he fil l m at eri al us edwas m ad e o f “ su it ab le m at eri al be in g d efi ne d a s no n- ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach ”—wa s “ an im po ss ib le go al ” th atm ad e anin te rp ret at io n o f th e ag reem en t t o m ean th e Co rp s was requi red“ to en su re the ab se nc e o f al l ro ck s” “ ab su rd ” an d tha t, as a “ on e-l in e pr oh ib it io n . . . co nt rad ic te d b y nu m ero us ot he r do cum en ts in a co m pl ex go ve rn m en ta l p ro

ject,” it“ [d id ] no t p res cri be a fi xe d andasc ert ai nabl e st an da rd ” su ffi ci en t t o “ de pr iv e th e g ov ern m en t o f di sc ret io n i n d eal in g wi th th e ro ck pr ob le m .” Dow ns , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 8, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at *9 –1 0. Hav in g fo un d t ha t t he LCA lef t d eci si on s ab ou t wh atroc k c ou ldrem ai n i n th e fi ll m at eri al to th e d is cret io n o f Co rp s emplo y ees , th e d is tri ctco urt wen t o n t o 2

The district court also conclude d that the Corps’ Gene ra l De sign Memorandum for the 2 Miami Be ach re- nourishment projec ts and its addenda and the State of Florida ’s permit for the Dade Project did not mandate the absenc e o f ro ck s i n the fill materia l. These conclusions wer e not appea led. 6co nc lu de th atth is di sc ret io n was of t he type th atth e d is cret io nary fun ct io n ex cep ti on is de si gn edto pro te ct . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon so ve rei gnimm un it y an d e nt eredfin al jud gm en t fo r th e g ov ern m en t. Down s o nl y

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on reg ard in g t he di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on of t he FTCA. To th e ex te ntDown s at te m pt edto su e th e Co rp s on th e g ro un d t ha t i t n eg li ge nt ly con tra ct edforservi ces or n eg li ge nt ly sup erv is ed th e work o f CAC, the di stric t co urt’s d is m is sa l s ta nd s. Do wns cla im s t ha t t he su it ari se s und er the du ti es crea te d b y th e te rm s o f th e LCA an d re ta in edby the Co rp s. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t t he se du ti es m etth e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . Inth is ap pe al , th e g ov ern m en t ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th at th e LCA is a co nt ractth atest ab li sh es du ti es of t he type im pl ic at edby the FTCA. Down s ar gu es th atth e co nt ractest ab li sh es su chdu ti es an d t ha t t he co nt ractterm in qu es ti on is su ffi ci en tl y

cle ar t o c reat e a m an da to ry du ty. The ul ti m at e que st io n o n app eal is whet he r th e d is cret io nary fun ct io n ex cep ti on to th e FTCA b ars Down s’s s ui t ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e al le ge d fai lu re o f th e Co rp s t o e ns ur e th ata ba sk etba ll -s iz edroc k was rem ov edfro m be ach fil l m at eri al us edin th e Dad e Pro ject. We con cl ud e th atvo lu nt ari ly-ent ered co nt ract s can e st ab li sh bi nd in g dut ie s t ha t s ub ject t he go ve rn m en t t o s ui t u nd er the 7FTCA, an d t ha t t he LCA is th e type o f co nt ractth atcancrea te a m an da to ry du ty un de r th e FTCA. Howev er, b ecau se we als o c on cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred in it s co ns tru ct io n o f th e co nt ractun de r Fl or id a law, we rev ers e th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d re m an d thi s ca se forth e d is tri ctco urt t o app ro pr ia te ly ap pl y Flo rid a law, con st ru e th e co nt ractterm in qu es ti on , andde te rm in e if th e Co rp s re ta in edan y

di sc ret io na ry

du ty the ex erci se of wh ic h t he go ve rn m en t wo ul d ha ve expe ct edto in cl ud e p ol ic y co ns id erat io ns withi n t he m ean in g o f th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . W e d o n otco ns id er the m eri ts of Do wns ’s un de rlyin g t ort cl ai m

be cau se th atis su e is no t b efo re u s o n app eal . The o nl y is su e pr op erl y be fo re u s i s t he di st ric t co urt’s jur is di ct io na l an al y si s re ga rd in g t he di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on .

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Thi s co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e Fed eral TortCla im s Act de no vo . Ochr an v. Uni te d Sta tes , 11 7 F .3d49 5, 4 99 –5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); Pow er s , 99 6 F .2dat 11 23 ; se e a ls o Bu rl is on v. McDon ald’ s C or p. , 45 5 F .3d12 42 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a fed eral st atut e is rev ie wed de no vo ); W exl er v. Ander so n , 45 2 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (d is tri ctco urt co nc lu si on s o f la w are re vi ewed de no vo ). Int erp ret at io n o f co nt ractlan gu ag e is a 8qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Bra gg v. Bil l Hea rd

Ch evr ol et

, Inc
. ,37 4 F.3 d 1 06 0, 1 06 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . A dis tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ta te st atut e al so is rev ie wed de no vo . Bla sl an d, Bo uc k & Lee, In c. v. Ci tyof N. Mia mi , 28 3 F.3 d 1 28 6, 1 29 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . III. ANALYSIS A. Th e Dis cr et io na ryFun ct io n Exc ep ti on , 28 U.S.C. § 26 80 (a ) The FTCA waiv es th e U.S. go ve rn m en t’s s ov erei gn imm un ity fro m su itin fed eral co urts forth e n eg li ge ntact io ns of i ts em pl oyees. Se e 28 U.S.C. §1 34 6( b) (2 00 6) . It s ub

jects th e Uni te d S ta te s t o l iabi li ty for t orts in ge ne ral ly the same m an ne r an d t o t he same ext en t as pri va te in di vi du al s u nd er l ik e ci rcu m st an ces . 28 U.S.C. § 2 67 4. Th e wai ve r is li m it edby sev eral ex pl ic itex cep ti on s, i nc lu di ng th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on at i ss ue in th is cas e. The d is cret io na ry fun ct io n ex cep ti on pre cl ud es go ve rn m en t l iabi li ty for “ [a]ny cl ai m ba se d upo n . . . th e ex erci se or p erfo rm an ce o r th e fai lu re t o e xe rci se or p erfo rm a di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on or duty

on th e p artof afed eral ag en cy or a n e m pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t, wh ethe r orno t t he di sc ret io n i nv ol ve d b e ab us ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 26 80 (a). The Supr em e Co urt h as enun ci at eda two -p arttes t fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r a go ve rn m en t em

pl oyee’s act io n o r omiss io n fa ll s wi th in th e d is cret io nary fun ct io n 9ex cep ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga ub er t , 49 9 U.S. 3 15 , 32 2– 23 , 11 1 S . Ct. 1 26 7,

12 73 –7 4, 1 13 L. Ed. 2d33 5 (1 99 1) ; Aut er y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 99 2 F .2d15 23 , 15 26 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Firs t, the co urt i s t o c on si de r th e n atur e o f th e co nduc t an d de te rm in e whe th er i t i nv ol ve s “ anele m en t o f jud gm en t o r ch oi ce.” Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at 3 22 , 11 1 S . Ct. at12 73 (qu ot in g Berk ov it z v. Un it ed

St at es , 48 6 U.S. 5 31 , 53 6, 1 08 S. Ct. 1 95 4, 1 95 8, 1 00 L. Ed. 2d53 1 (1 98 8) ); Pow er s , 99 6 F .2dat 1 12 4. Seco nd , if the co nduc t atis su e in vo lv es th e ex erci se of ju dg m en t, the co urt m us t de te rm in e whe th er tha t ju dg m en t i s g ro un de d i n c on si de rat io ns of p ub li c p ol ic y . Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 2– 23 , 11 1 S . Ct. at12 73 –7 4. On ly the n d oe s t he di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on ap pl y . Id
. Gov ern m en t co nduc t d oe s n otin vo lv e anele m en t o f jud gm en t o r ch oi ce, an d t hu s i s n otdi sc ret io nary , if “ a ‘fede ral st atut e, reg ul at io n, o r po li cy sp eci fic al ly pres cri be s a c ou rs e o f act io n fo r anem pl oyee to fol lo w,’ be cau se ‘ th e em pl oyee ha s n o ri gh tfu l o pt io n b utto adhe re t o the di rect iv e.’” Id. at 3 22 , 11 1 S . Ct . at 1 27 3 (q uo ti ng Berk ov it z , 48 6 U.S. at53 6, 1 08 S. Ct. at19 58 –5 9) ; se e a ls o Pow er s , 99 6 F .2dat 1 12 4 (p ro vi di ng ex am pl es of c as es in whi ch th e rel ev an t st atut e o r po li cy

was fo un d t o p res cri be a sp eci fic co ur se of a ct io n) . Co nt ract s v ol un ta ril y

en te redin to by the fed eral go ve rn m en t ca n e st ab li sh du ti es th e b reac h o f whi ch are ac ti on ab le un de r th e FTCA. The di st ric t co urt 10ou tl in edcas es fro m nu m ero us cir cu it s wh ere c ou rts “ ha ve reco gn iz edth atth e go ve rn m en t’s v ol un ta ril y ass um edco nt ractua l o bl ig at io ns canim po se no nd is cret io na ry

du ti es on go ve rn m en t em pl oyees.” Dow ns , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*1 7, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 6. We agre e wit h the se co urts an d fin d t ha t t hi s co nc lu si on co m po rts with o urpre ced en t. In And re ws v. Uni te d Sta tes , 12 1 F .3d14 30 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ), we su gg es te d th atco nt ractua l o bl ig at io ns m ay im po se m an da to ry

du ti es up on anag en cy

or i ts em pl oyees. Se e And

re ws , 12 1 F .3dat 1 43 9– 41 . There , we app ro ve d o f th e d is tri ct co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t p ur su an t t o was te m an ag em en t co nt ract s, the Navy had m an da to ry

du ti es th atren de redth e d is cret io nary fun ct io n e xc ep ti on in ap pl ic ab le . Id
. at14 40 –4 1. Si m il arl y , in Och ra n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 11 7 F .3d49 5 (1 1t h C ir. 19 97 ), we ag reedth atwher e th e g ov ern m en t en te rs in to a sp eci al rel at io ns hi p b y vo lu nt ari ly und ert ak in g ast at e-l aw du ty, a cl ai m un de r th e FTCA can be pu rs ue d. Och ra n , 11 7 F .3dat 5 05 . W e wen t o n t o s ay th atth e d is cret io na ry

fun ct io n ex cep ti on st il l ap pl ie s an d b ars su itag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s “ if t he di sc ha rg e o f th is st at e-l aw du ty inv ol ve s ju dg m en ts gro un de d i n c on si de rat io ns of p ub li c po li cy .” Id
.

“ ‘T he pu rp os e o f th e [d is cret io na ry fun ct io n] ex cep ti on is to pre ve ntjud ic ia l se co nd -g ue ss in g o f le gi sl at iv e an d a dm in is tra ti ve de ci si on s g ro un de d i n s oc ia l, 11eco no m ic , andpo li ti cal po li cy th ro ug h t he m ed iu m

of a n a ct io n i n t ort.’” Id
. at 49 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (qu ot in g Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 3, 1 11 S. Ct . at 1 27 3) . Decis io ns th atin vo lv e th es e co ns id erat io ns fal l wi th in th e ex cep ti on . Id
. The co urt i s n otto “ fo cu s o n t he subjec ti ve in te ntof the go ve rn m en t em pl oyee orin qu ire whet he r th e em pl oyee actua ll y

weig he d s oc ia l, ec on om ic , andpo li ti cal po li cy co ns id erat io ns be fo re ac ti ng . [Ins te ad , th e co urt i s t o] ‘ fo cu s o n t he na tu re of th e act io ns tak enan d o n wh ethe r th ey are s us cep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s.’” Id
. at 50 0 (q uo ti ng Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 5, 1 11 S. Ct. at12 75 ). “ [I]t is no t re le va nt whe th er the go ve rn m en t em pl oyee infactm ad e a p ol ic y jud gm en t . . . .” Id
. at 50 1. “ [T]he b ur de n o f pr oduc ti on of t he po li cy co ns id erat io ns th atm ig ht in flu en ce the ch al le ng edco nduc t [i s] on th e Gov ern m en t.” Id
. at 5 04 n.4 . A po li cy , st atut e, reg ul at io n, o r co ntractth atin di cat es anem pl oyee “ sh al l” do so m ethi ng m ay

lea ve roo m

forpo li cy -b as edjud gm en ts th atfal l wi th in th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . Id
. at50 0– 01 . For e xa m pl e, in Och ra n we ex pl ai ne d t ha t al th ou gh anAss is ta ntUni te d S ta te s At to rn ey (“ AUSA”) “sh al l m ak e th e n eces sary

an d app ro pr ia te arran ge m en ts to en ab le vi ct im s an d wi tn es se s to rece iv e rea so nabl e p ro te ct io n a ga in stth reat , harm an d i nt im id at io n fr om

a su sp ect edoff

en de r,” the di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on ap pl ie s b ecau se th e AUSA ret ai ns th e au th or it y to de te rm in e if an

y act io n i s “ ne ces sa ry

an d 12ap pr op ria te ,” no t o nl y wh ic h act io n i s re as on ab le an d wh en itsh ou ldtak e p la ce.

Id
. at 5 00 (qu ot in g AUSA g ui de li ne s (e m ph as is ad de d) ). On the ot he r ha nd , a pr ov is io n m ay

lea ve roo m

forth e ex erci se of “ ch oi ce o r jud gm en t” in th e di sc ha rg e o f du ti es bu t n otfal l wi th in th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . Id
. at 50 1. By exam

pl e, AUSA gu id el in es st at e th at“ in fo rm at io n o n t he pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t i nt im id at io n a ndha ras sm en t an d t he rem ed ie s t he refo re sh al l r ou ti ne lybe made a va il ab le to vi ct im s an d wi tn es se s” ; t he du ty to i nf orm a vi ct im or wi tn es s i s no t p ro te ct edby the di sc ret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on be cau se th e AUSA do es no t ret ai n d is cret io n o ve r whe th er t o i nf orm , andth ere a re n o p ol ic y co ns id erat io ns th atm ig htin flu en ce wh en an d ho w to in fo rm . Id
. at 5 00 , 50 4 (q uo ti ng AUSA gu id el in es (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Ther efo re, “ if ago ve rn m en t o ffi ci al in pe rfo rm in g hi s . . . du ti es m

us t ac t wi th ou t re li an ce upo n a fi xed or rea di lyas cer ta in ab le st an da rd , th e d eci si on he m ak es is di sc ret io nary an d wi th in th e d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on .” Powe rs , 99 6 F .2dat 1 12 4 (c it at io ns an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If th e st an da rd , ho wev er, i s cl ear, t he go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al m ay m ai nt ai n d is cret io n o ve r ho w to m eetth atst an da rd , witho utret ai ni ng di sc ret io n ov er wh ethe r or

no t t o d o s o.

“ [W] he th er d eci si on s . . . fal l wi th in th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on tu rn s . . . on whet he r th e jud gm en ts in vo lv edare g ro un de d i n p ol ic y 13co ns id erat io ns .” Och ra n , 11 7 F .3dat 5 01 . Pol ic y jud gm en ts canin cl ud e, fo r ex am pl e, co ns id eri ng th e st ren gt h o f th e fed eral in te res t i n u nd ert ak in g t he act io n an d b ud ge ta ry

co ns id erat io ns . Id
. at 5 01 –0 2. “ [B]ecau se bu dg et ary co ns tra in ts are a lm os t al way s i m

po rta ntto go ve rn m en t d eci si on s, [h owe ve r, ] no t ‘eve ry ch oi ce [t ha t i m

pl ic at es su ch co ns tra in ts ] is a po li cy jud gm en t s hi el de d fr om li ab il it y th ro ug h t he op erat io n o f th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on .” Id
. at 5 02 . Thu s, “ [t]he rel ev an t i nqui ry in th es e cas es is whet he r th e g ov ern m en t ex pe ct s t he em pl oyee who is m ak in g t he ch oi ce i n que st io n t o c on si de r th e p ol ic y im pl ic at io ns of th atch oi ce.” Id
. B. Th e LCA The go ve rn m en t as se rts th atth e LCA is no t t he type o f co nt ractth atcan es tabl is h m an da to ry

du ti es act io nabl e u nd er the FTCA. The g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atlo cal en ti ti es m ay

be requi redto gi ve ass ur an ces to th e fed eral go ve rn m en t be fo re ce rta in pro

jects are u nd ert ak en , th atco op erat iv e ag reem en ts su ch as t he LCA are n ot“ typic al go ve rn m en t co nt ract [s ], ” an d t ha t the Co nt ract s Di sp ut e Act do es no t g ov ern co op erat iv e ag reem en ts , so “ th is Co urt wo ul d b e h ard -p res se d t o ho ldth atth e Co rp s ‘has no rig ht fu l o pt io n b utto adhe re t o t he [LCA]. ’” (Br. of App el le e 3 1.)

14The di stric t co urt fo un d:

Bo th th e Co rp s an d Dad e Co un ty vol un ta ril y , andin co ns id erat io n fo r th e ot he r’s act io ns , ent eredin to th e lo cal co op erat io n a gr eem en t. In de ed , th e go ve rn m en t ev enackno wled ge s t ha t, wh il e lo cal co op erat io n a gr eem en ts are n otgo ve rn edby feder al acqui si ti on reg ul at io ns , th ei r en fo rceabi li ty has be enreco gn iz edby Con gr es s. . . . As anen fo rceabl e ag reem en t . . . th e [LCA] was th eref

or e a co nt ractcap ab le of m an da ti ng sp eci fic act io n, as co nt em pl at edin th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . Se e Dow ns , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 1– 22 , 20 07 W L 84 21 36 , at * 7. W e fi ndth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s t ha t t he LCA creat eda bi nd in g c on tra ct im pl ic at edby the FTCA pe rs ua si ve an d o n t ha t b as is ne edno t fu rth er co ns id er the go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he re ar e d iff eren t t y pe s o f co nt ract s o r ag reem en ts th at , by de fin it io n, h av e v arying weig htun de r th e FTCA. C. Th e Co rp s’Dut ies Un de r the LCA The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he du ty at is su e—t o e ns ur e th atth e fi ll m at eri al us edwas m ad e o f “ su it ab le m at eri al be in g d efi ne d a s n on -ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach ”—“ [d id ] no t p res cri be a fi xe d a nd as cert ai nabl e st an dard ” th at“ de pr iv e[d ] th e g ov ern m en t o f di sc ret io n i n d eal in g
15wit h t he roc k p ro bl em .” Id
. , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 9, 2 00 7 WL

84 21 36 , at * 10 . The co urt d et erm in edth atth e Co rp s re ta in edful l d is cret io n abo ut wha t ty pe of r oc ks an d h ow m an y co ul d re m ai n i n t he fil l m at eri al . The d is tri ct co urt re ach edth is co nc lu si on by firs t l oo ki ng at the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e co nt ract an d s ta ti ng : “ On t he on e h an d, t hi s ap pe ars to be st rai gh tfo rwardlan gu ag e requi rin g tha t t he go ve rn m en t o nl y us e n on -ro cky

m at eri al s. To th e ex te ntth e go ve rn m en t d idin factpe rm itth e in cl us io n o f ro ck s wi th in th e fi ll , itranafo ul of th is m an da to ry

lan gu ag e. On the ot he r ha nd , th e co nt ractdo es no t s pe ci fic al ly pr es cri be a m etho d fo r en su rin g t he ab se nc e o f ro ck s i n t he fil l.” Se e id
. , 20 07 U.S. Dis t. LEXIS 1 90 23 , at * 23 , 20 07 W L 84 21 36 , at * 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n an al y zedpa ro l ev id en ce t o c on cl ud e th atth e te rm s o f th e LCA co ul d n otm ean th at al l ro ck s h adto be rem ov edfro m th e fi ll . In st eadof s tri ct ly int erp ret in g t he m ean in g o f “ no n- ro cky , san dy m at eri al ,” th e d is tri ctco urt an al y zedth e co nt ractterm on ly to d et erm in e if

itrequi redth e rem ov al of al l ro ck s, the in te rp ret at io n s ug ge st edby D own s. At t he go ve rn m en t’s ur gi ng , th e d is tri ctco urt “ read[th e LCA] in t he co nt ex t o f th e en ti re Dad e Pro ject,” id
. , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 6, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 9, an d co nc lu de d t ha t “ [w]ith th es e fac ts in m in d, t he lo cal co op erat io n a gr eem en t ca nn ot be readin a way

th atwou ldrequi re the Co rp s t o e li m in at e an y an d a ll roc ks ,” id
. , 1620 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 9, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 10 . The co urt

co ns id eredth e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce re le va ntto it s d eci si on :

• The Co rp s t ol d C on gr es s wh enin it ia ll y reque st in g fu nd s fo r th e reno ur is hm en t p ro

ject t ha t i t wo ul d u se all th e m at eri al dre dg ed , in cl ud in g ro ck s.

• The vo lu m e o f fi ll m at eri al requi redm ak es itun reas on ab le or h ardto im ag in e th atall roc ks were t o b e rem ov ed .

• Dad e Co un ty w orke d wi th th e Co rp s t o re m ov e ro ck s an d “ di d n otall eg e an y fai lu re o n t he pa rt o f th e Co rp s t o o bs erv e th e te rm s” of t he ag reem en t.

• Acco rd in g t o Do wns ’s exp ert , itwas n otpo ss ib le to rem ov e al l ro ck s fo ur in ch es or s m al le r. Id
. , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 6– 29 , 20 07 W L 84 21 36 , at * 9– 10 . Ult im at el y , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t th e o ne -li ne pro hi bi ti on of r oc ky m at eri al s i nc lu de d i n t he lo cal co op erat io n ag reem en t ca nn otalo ne serve to m an da te act io n wh enitis co ntrad ic te d b y nu m ero us ot he r do cu m en ts in a co m pl ex go ve rn m en ta l p ro

ject. Vi ewin g t he la ng ua ge of t he [LCA] in th atco nt ex t, i t d oe s n otpre sc rib e a fi xe d a nd as cert ai nabl e st an dardby stat in g t ha t t he be ach fil l wo ul d c on ta in on ly non
17ro cky m at eri al . Thu s, the [LCA] di d n otde pr iv e th e g ov ern m en t o f di sc ret io n i n d eal in g wi th th e ro ckpro bl em . Id
. , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 9, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 10 . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s an al y si s d oe s n ot co m po rt wi th Flo rid a co nt ractlaw; th e co urt s ho ul d n otha ve turn edto paro l ev id en ce b efo re fi nd in g the co nt ractterm am bi gu ou s, an d h adth e co urt fo un d t he te rm am bi gu ou s, i t s ho ul d h av e li m it edit se lf t o d efi ni ng th e te rm in st eadof effe ct iv el y

rem ov in g i t. Ad di ti on al ly, th e co urt erredwhen itfou ndth ata co nt ractua ll y

de fin eddu ty tha t m

us t b e el uc id at edwith p aro l ev id en ce equa te s t o th e ab se nc e o f an y

m an da to ry

du ty at al l. 1. M is us e o f pa ro l ev id en ce The di stric t co urt fi rs t erredby usi ng pa ro l ev id en ce t o d et erm in e th atth e te rm “ no n- ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach ” is am bi gu ou s (o r, as th e co urt i nd ic at ed , an i m po ss ib le go al an d t he refo re n ota du ty atall ). Und er Fl or id a la w, a con tra ctterm m us t b e am bi gu ou s o n i ts face be fo re a co urt ca n re so rt t o p aro l ev id en ce t o d efi ne th atterm . J.M. Mon tg ome ryRoo fi ng Co . v. Fred

Howl an d, In c. , 98 So . 2d48 4, 4 85 –8 6 (F la . 19 57 ) (“ The rul e in hi bi ts th e u se of p aro l ev id en ce t o c on tra di ct , vary , def eat , or m od ify a com

pl et e an d

18un am

bi gu ou s wri tt enin st ru m en t, o r to ch an ge , addto , or s ub tra ctfro m it , or a ffec t it s co ns tru ct io n.” ). The d is tri ctco urt n ev er m ad e th is faci al de te rm in at io n. Nev ert he le ss , we con cl ud e th atth e te rm is faci al ly am

bi gu ou s u nd er Fl or id a la w bec au se itis subjec t t o v arying in te rp ret at io ns . Se e Fri ed man v. Va. Metal 3 Pro ds . Cor

p. , 56 So . 2d51 5, 5 17 (Fl a. 19 52 ) (“ The term ‘ am bi gu ou s’ m ean s su sc ep ti bl e o f m or e th anon e m ean in g.” ). Paro l ev id en ce thu s was ne ed edto el uc id at e th e te rm . Onc e th e d is tri ctco urt und ert oo k t o d efi ne th e te rm us in g e xtrin si c ev id en ce, i t erredwhen itst art edwith t he pre su m pt io n t ha t t he term

was t o m ean th atth ere wer e n o ro ck s atall in th e fi ll m at eri al . The co urt es se nt ia ll y de fin edth e te rm an d t he n u se d p aro l ev id en ce t o fi ndth atth e d efi ni ti on was u nr eas on ab le an d th eref or e cre at edno du ty at al l. In st ead , th e co urt s ho ul d h av e an al y zedon ly wha t th e te rm m ean t.

Downs asser

ts that the phrase “non-r ocky , sandy m aterial simil ar to that of the exis ting 3 beac h” unambiguously means the elimination of all rocks from the fill materia l. Neither this entire phrase nor terms within it are define d further in the L CA and the words used are not subject to clea r and plain meaning . For example, turning to but one source for the common meaning of “roc ky ,” we note The American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word: “Consist i n g o f, co ntaining, or abounding in rock or rocks.” The Ame r i can Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1124 (Ne w College ed. 1976). Even this definition contains terms that are not clea rly define d, including “conta ining,” “consisting of,” and “abounding .” We find that all such terms are insufficiently concr ete to clea

rly define a quantity , particula rly “zero.” Fur

thermore , the rec ord itself demonstrates the ambiguity of “non-rocky”; it is rife with r efe renc es to dif fer ent siz ed rocks, from those smaller than one inch in diame ter to those “ba sketball sized” or larg er. 19Ult im at el y , th e d is tri ctco urt s ai d t ha t t he re was no “ no n- ro cky , san dy

m at eri al ” requi rem en t atall be cau se , am on g o th er thi ng s, the dre dg in g e qu ip m en t us edat the ti m e m ad e rem ov al of a ll roc ks equa l t o o r sm al le r th anfou r in ch es in di am et er i m

po ss ib le . Dow ns , 20 07 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 19 02 3, at*2 7, 2 00 7 WL 84 21 36 , at * 9. We th in k i t ap pr op ria te forth e d is tri ctco urt t o h av e co ns id ered pr of es si on al st an da rd s o f th e ti m e whe n c on stru in g t he co nt ractterm , se e Underwo od

v. Underwo od , 64 So . 2d28 1, 2 88 (Fl a. 19 53 ) (“ Inth e co ns tru ct io n o f writ te n c on tra ct s i t i s t he du ty of th e co urt, as ne ar as m ay be , to pl ace i ts el f in th e si tu at io n o f th e p art ie s, an d fr om a co ns id erat io n o f th e su rro un di ng cir cum st an ces , th e o ccas io n, an d app aren t o bjec t o f th e p art ie s, t o d et erm in e th e m ean in g a nd in te ntof t he lan gu ag e em pl oyed.” (e m

ph as is an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ), bu t s uc h e vi de nc e sh ou ldno t h av e b een us edto readou t t he term al to ge th er. W it ho utweig hi ng th e ev id en ce, we al so no te th atth e rec or d re fle ct s th atroc ks co ul d h av e b een rem ov edfro m th e fi ll m at eri al by m ean s o th er tha n th ro ug h t he dre dg in g p ro ces s, s uc h a s b y pa ss in g t he m at eri al th ro ug h s cree ns , gr at in g t he san d, o r cru sh in g t he roc k, an d t ha t o n s umm ary jud gm en t t he di st ric t co urt m us t v ie w all pe rm is si bl e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . In ad di ti on , Flo rid a la w exp li ci tl y st at es th atev id en ce fr om be fo re th e d at e o f th e co ntractin qu es ti on can no t b e u se d t o c on st ru e th e ag reem en t. 20Mon tg ome ryRoo fi ng , 98 So . 2dat 4 85 . There fo re i t was im pr op er fo r th e d is tri ct co urt t o c on si de r th e Co rp s’ earl ie r st at em en ts to Co ng res s ab ou t t he pro po se d co nt en t o f fi ll m at eri al . Fin al ly, up on rem an d, t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d c on si de r al l wor ds in th e d is pu te d c on tra ctterm , in cl ud in g “ si m il ar t o tha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach ,” whi ch , subjec t t o e xa m in at io n o f paro l ev id en ce, m ay pro vi de a m eas ur ab le st an da rdforth e Co rp s’ du ty. Se e Excel si or Ins . Co. v. Po mon a Pa rk Bar &Pack ag e Sto re , 36 9 S o. 2 d 9 38 , 94 1 (F la . 19 79 ) (“ Eve ry pro vi si on in [th e] co nt ractsh ou ldbe gi ve n m ean in g a ndeffec t . . . .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). 4 2. Co nt ractam bi gu it y do es no t m ean th e ab se nc e o f a dut y Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt erredby con fla ti ng am bi gu it y of t he term s cr eat in g th e Co rp s’ du ty w it h wh ethe r orno t t he Co rp s h ada du ty at al l. Am bi gu ou s

The district court also conclude d that beca use “the contra ct does not specific ally presc ribe 4 a method for ensuring the absenc e of rocks in the fill,” it fails to meet the specific ity require ment for liability under the FTCA. Downs , 2007 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 19023, at *23, 2007 WL 842136, at *7 We disa gree . A define d safe ty or other construction standa rd ca n cre ate a mandatory duty to me et that standard, by whateve r mea ns. This reasoningis consistent with our decision in Ochran , cited above , wher ein we said that a gover nment policy to provide information to witnesses and victims cre ated a sufficie ntly

mandatory duty to establish liabilit y under the FTCA e ven though when a nd how to provide that information was left to g overnme nt employee discretion. Ochran , 117 F.3d at 500, 504. Simi larly , in ARA Leisure Servic es v. Un i t ed States , 831 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit held t hat a National Park Service standard tha t require d that park r oads “c onform to the orig inal grade s and alignments” and be “firm, [and] of uniform cross se ction” wa s sufficie ntly specific to cre ate a mandatory duty , even without delineating the means by which the roads wer e to be maintained. ARA Leisure Serv s. , 831 F.2d at 195.

21co nt ractterm s d o n otob vi at e co nt ractdu ti es . By th e te rm s o f th e co nt ract , th e Co rp s h ada du ty to en su re tha t al l fi ll us edforth e p ro ject was “ no n- ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach .” The d efi ni ti on of “ no n- ro cky , san dy m at eri al si m il ar t o t ha t o f th e ex is ti ng be ach ,” as anam bi gu ou s t erm , is subjec t t o th e co urt’s re vi ew of

pa ro l ev id en ce. The du ty to en su re tha t the be ach fil l was of th is so rt, h owe ve r, is cle ar. A co nt ractua l dut y do es no t ce as e to ex is t b ecau se th e te rm s o f th atdu ty are am bi gu ou s an d re qu ire elu ci da ti on by paro l ev id en ce. Nor is anam bi gu ou s t erm

by defi ni ti on in su ffi ci en tl y sp eci fic to est ab li sha m an da to ry du ty tha t s ub

jects th e g ov ern m en t t o s ui t u nd er the FTCA. Rathe r th anread in g- 5
ou t t he Co rp s’ con tra ctua l dut y , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e d et erm in edth e ex act pa ram et ers of t he du ty; if t he du ty w as su ffi ci en tl y sp eci fic , “ em

bo dyin g afix edor read il y asc ert ai nabl e st an da rd ,” se e Aut er y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 99 2 F . 2d15 23 , 15 29 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) , to subjec t the go ve rn m en t t o s ui t; an d wh ethe r ex erci se of t he

To the extent parol evidenc e evide nces a clea r, quantifiable standard for the fill material, 5 the contra ct establishes a mandatory duty . Hy pothetically , for example, if on rema nd parol evidenc e shows that the parties agree d that the term “non-r ocky , sandy materia l, simil ar to that of the exis ting beac h” mea

ns that the fil l materia l was to be no more than 5% rock by volume with no individual rocks larg er than 4 inches in diam et er , then the standard is sufficie ntly specific to establish a mandatory

duty . 22co nt ractua l dut y in vo lv edpo li cy -b as eddi sc ret io n o f th e type i m pl ic at edby the di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . 6

IV. CONCLUSION Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d d is m is sa l o f th e p la in ti ff’s cas e fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on m eri ts rev ers al . The d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atth e LCA is a co nt ractbe twee n t he Co rp s an d Dad e Co un ty andth atsu ch co nt ract s ca n es tabl is h m an da to ry

du ti es th atim

pl ic at e li ab il it y

un de r th e FTCA. The di st ric t co urt erred , ho wev er, wh enitco nc lu de d t ha t am bi gu ity ina co nt ractterm

equa te s to go ve rn m en t d is cret io n t o d eci de whet he r orno t t o a dh ere t o t ha t t erm . The di st ric t co urt al so erre d wh enitco ns tru edth e co ntractterm in qu es ti on us in g p aro l ev id en ce wi th ou t fi rs t d et erm in in g t he term was a m bi gu ou s, an d fu rth er erred whe n i t fa il edto fol lo w Flo rid a co nt ractlaw i n app lying pa ro l ev id en ce t o i ts
We note that the policy analysis previously conducte d by the district court is not applicable 6 to this particula

r inquiry becaus e i t is based on the district court’s deter mination that the Corps reta ined discretion to deter mine what ty

pe of fi l l m at er ial could be used. In addition, the district court’s policy conclusions rele vant to the independe nt con t rac tor exception to the FTCA do not implicate the matters appea led. Finally , the district court’s analy sis does not indicate what specific policies may have been im p l i ca t ed in the C orps’ decisionmaking, which l imits this court’s ability to revie w its conclusions. Although the district court noted that “[c]ourts have consistently rec ognized that the policy d ec i s i o n s in beac h erosion projec ts war rante d protec tion under the discretionar

y function exception,” the case s cited arelimit ed to those whe re the design plans wer e left entirely in the hands of the Corps, not in situations like this one wher e rele vant elements of the design wer e described by statute, regulation, policy , or contra ct. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. v. United States , 115 F.3d 1415, 1422 ( 9th Cir. 1997). 23an al y si s. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d re m an d t hi s cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt. Onrem an d, af te r ap pr op ria te ly usi ng pa ro l ev id en ce t o co ns tru e th e co nt ractterm un de r Fl or id a la w, th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d d et erm in e if th e Co rp s’ du ty, so de fin ed , was s uf fic ie nt ly spe ci fic to subjec t t he go ve rn m en t t o su it . If so , th e d is tri ctco urt t he n s ho ul d d et erm in e whe th er ex erci se of t he co nt ractua l dut y

in vo lv edpo li cy -b as eddi sc ret io n o f th e type i m pl ic at edby the di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . REVERSED AND REMANDED.

24