Opinion ID: 221079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Federal Facility Agreement Provisions

Text: The majority opinion concludes, and I agree, that the provisions in the agreement were not sufficiently specific to render them mandatory requirements. See Majority Opinion, p. 1030-31. The majority then proceeds to consider whether the discretion conferred upon the Navy was based on considerations of public policy. See id., p. 1030, citing Terbush v.United States, 516 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2008). In Terbush, we recognized a clear distinction between decisions involving routine maintenance, that do not involve policy considerations and more extensive undertakings that do implicate policy considerations. See id. at 1133-34. We cited as examples of routine maintenance snow removal and removing mold from a commissary meat department. See id. In contrast, we observed that repairing [a] roadside wall involved balancing several policy considerations. Id. at 1134. The majority opinion concludes that the outcome of this case is dictated by Marlys Bear Medicine v. United States, 241 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2001). See Majority Opinion, pp. 1032-33. However, the majority's conclusion is irretrievably tainted by the impermissible factfinding reflected in its statement of facts. To support its conclusion, the majority opinion relies on the Navy's failure to have [the contractor's health and safety plan] reviewed by the Navy's own [industrial hygienist] or other competent person and the failure of the Navy's [Quality Assurance Officer] to inspect any air monitoring ... Majority Opinion, p. 1033. However, as the majority previously noted, the district court made no findings regarding whether the Navy Manual required use of a Navy hygienist or whether use of the contractor's hygienist would satisfy the requirement. Rather than acknowledging that the lack of findings precludes appellate review, and remanding for appropriate findings, the majority engages in appellate factfinding to conclude that the Navy failed to meet its obligations to review the contractor's health and safety plan. See Majority Opinion, pp. 1029-30. I cannot co-sign this blatant departure from the confines of appropriate appellate review.