Opinion ID: 186638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Earlier Bobcat Conformance.

Text: 31 If all of the power equipment operator positions that Mistick requested had been conformed to other power equipment operator positions, our task would be straightforward and complete. But, as Mistick notes, the bobcat operator classification Mistick requested — a power equipment operator position — was conformed to the drywall finisher classification. Because the Administrator was willing to conform the bobcat operator classification to a non-power equipment operator position, Mistick argues that the Administrator acted arbitrarily in refusing to consider conforming Mistick's other requested classifications to non-power equipment operator positions. 32 Where an agency departs from established precedent without a reasoned explanation, its decision will be vacated as arbitrary and capricious. Ramaprakash v. FAA, 346 F.3d 1121, 1130 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 71 F.3d 897, 901 (D.C.Cir.1995)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Viewed out of context, allowing the bobcat operator classification to be conformed to a non-power equipment operator classification might appear to be not only a departure from Tower Construction, but an unexplained departure from the Department's decision to not consider non-power equipment operator classifications in reviewing Mistick's proposed classifications. 33 But the Department did offer a reasoned explanation why the bobcat classification was not conformed in accordance with Tower Construction. After the Authority agreed to conform the bobcat classification to the wage rate of a drywall finisher, Mistick, acting on counsel, chose not to protest that determination. The Administrator, and the Board, noted that had Mistick protested the wage rate assigned to the bobcat classification, we would have given further consideration to any evidence that the rate approved did not bear a reasonable relationship with the other power equipment operator rates. Mistick Constr., slip op. at 8, 2003 WL 21488362 at . Had Mistick protested the bobcat rate, there is a likelihood that the Department would have required that bobcat operators be paid a higher wage rate reasonably related to the wage rate paid to an existing power equipment operator. 34 Mistick argues that once the Department created the bobcat classification and its corresponding relatively low wage rate, it had a duty to consider whether Mistick's six other new classifications bore a reasonable relationship, see 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3), to the bobcat classification. Given that the bobcat classification is a power equipment operator classification and assuming therefore that it was a proper subject for comparison under Tower Construction, Mistick argues that the Department's failure to compare the six new classifications to the newly conformed bobcat classification was itself arbitrary. 4 35 An agency's failure to respond meaningfully to the evidence renders its decisions arbitrary and capricious. Unless an agency answers objections that on their face appear legitimate, its decision can hardly be said to be reasoned. Tesoro Alaska Petro. Co. v. FERC, 234 F.3d 1286, 1294 (D.C.Cir.2000) (citing Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 648 (D.C.Cir.1973); City of Vernon v. FERC, 845 F.2d 1042, 1048 (D.C.Cir.1988)). Despite Mistick's request to do so, the Department did not consider whether the six new classifications Mistick requested bore a reasonable relationship to the bobcat classification. Instead, the Department concluded that three procedural grounds prevented it from looking at the bobcat classification: (1) the bobcat conformance in no manner `amended' the general wage determination, as the 1996 Wage Determination continues to list only three classifications of power equipment operator and not the new bobcat classification requested by Mistick for this project; (2) [c]onforming the disputed classifications rather than `amending' the existing wage determination is consistent with the language of the [conformance] regulation[s], which require[] that a class of laborers or mechanics `which is not listed in the wage determination and which is to be employed under the contract shall be classified in conformance with the wage determination,' and contemplate that the wage rate proposed for the classification must `bear[] a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage determination;' and (3) [e]ven assuming that the wage determination effectively is amended in some manner, . . . [w]e consider [the 1996 Wage Determination] as it existed on the date of the request until all conformance issues associated with the request are resolved. Mistick Constr., slip. op. at 9, 2003 WL 21488362 at -8 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)). 36 There is some textual support for Mistick's suggestion that the conformed bobcat rate is now another wage rate to which proposed wage rates should be compared. The conformance regulations indicate that after a requested wage rate has been classified in conformance with the wage determination the contracting officer shall approve it as an additional classification. 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A) (emphasis added). But Mistick's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A) is not the only possible interpretation of that regulation. The Department notes that § 5.5 speaks of conforming a new classification to classifications and wage rates found  in the wage determination.  29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3) (emphasis added). The text of the regulation thus reasonably can be read to suggest that a new classification should only be compared to classifications appearing in the original wage determination and does not require that requested classifications be compared to classifications previously created through the conformance process. 37 Even though Mistick's interpretation may be possible, it is not the Department's interpretation of its own regulation. We can reject the Secretary's interpretation only if it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Twentymile Coal, 411 F.3d at 260 (quotation marks omitted). Nothing about the Department's reading of its regulation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the text of the regulation. Accordingly, the Department did not act arbitrarily under the conformance regulations in refusing to compare Mistick's six requested classifications to a classification previously determined through the conformance process.