Opinion ID: 1952246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DPW Director as Contracting Officer

Text: By the same logic, we reject the argument that Francis had authority to bring this suit in her capacity as contracting officer. The legislative history demonstrates the Council's clear desire to avoid any such possibility in favor of centralizing control in the Director of DAS. Indeed, Francis's statutory argument based on her status as contracting officer is even weaker than her contention based on her status as DPW Director or as agent of the Mayor, since D.C.Code § 1-1181.5(b)(2) expressly subjects contracting officers to the authority and review of the DAS Director. Not long ago, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the very kind of argument Francis makes here. In Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 115 S.Ct. 1278, 131 L.Ed.2d 160 (1995), the Director of the Office of Worker's Compensation Programs for the United States Department of Labor sought judicial review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board in a case decided under the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50 (1994). The Supreme Court did not permit the review; the Court held that it would be contrary both to established case law and to public policy to recognize that an agency's policy interest could give rise to standing in the absence of a specific statutory grant of authority. See Newport News, 514 U.S. at 132-134, 115 S.Ct. at 1286-87. To acknowledge the general adequacy of such an interest would put the federal courts into the regular business of deciding intrabranch and intraagency policy disputes  a role that would be most inappropriate. .... ... Every statute proposes, not only to achieve certain ends, but also to achieve them by particular means  and there is often a considerable legislative battle over what those means ought to be. The withholding of agency authority is as significant as the granting of it, and we have no right to play favorites between the two. Id. at 129-130, 136, 115 S.Ct. at 1284-85, 1288. We agree. It is clear to us, from the language of the Procurement Practices Act and its legislative history, that the Council meant to withhold the power to seek judicial review of CAB decisions from everyone but DAS.