Opinion ID: 616409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Status of Rainforest Kids and Genett

Text: The key factor governing whether an entity providing services to the United States is an independent contractor is whether the contractor, rather than the government, exercises day-to-day supervision and control of its own activities. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976) (A critical element in distinguishing an agency from a contractor is the power of the Federal Government `to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor.'  (quoting Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973))); id. at 815, 96 S.Ct. 1971 (holding that independent contractor status under the FTCA turns on whether [the contractor's] day-to-day operations are supervised by the Federal Government); see also Williams, 50 F.3d at 307 (finding independent contractor status based on a comprehensive instrument providing that [the contractor] was responsible for the maintenance of the Premises and the daily operations of the Premises); Larsen v. Empresas El Yunque, Inc., 812 F.2d 14, 16, 14 (1st Cir.1986) (holding that the independent contractor defense applied where responsible party ran the day-to-day operation of [a] restaurant that was located on premises owned and controlled by the United States). Appellants appear to acknowledge that Genett and Rainforest Kids were independent contractors and, indeed, there can be no serious dispute as to that status. Attachment I of the childcare center's licensing agreement specified that [t]he Provider, i.e., Rainforest Kids' board of directors, is not an employee or agent of the Government, and that, with certain exceptions, decisions and responsibilities with respect to program, levels of enrollment, fees, tuition, hiring, policy making, and any and all other aspects of the operation and conduct of the Center's business shall be the exclusive right, prerogative, and responsibility of the Provider. Docket 50-2, at 6, § 5 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Genett contract stated that it was governed by performance-based specifications, and the document explained that, under a performancebased contract, the contractor, rather than the Government, determines its own optimal work schedules, frequencies, resource allocations, and performance methods for meeting the Government's quality requirements. Docket 50-4, at 12, § 3.B. (emphasis omitted). The Genett contract also stated that  [i]t is the policy of GSA that Government direction or supervision of the contractor's employees, either directly or indirectly, will not be exercised . Docket 50-4, at 13, § C.4; see also id. at 53, § B.1 (stating that [n]either GSA employees nor other Government employees are authorized to exercise either direct or indirect supervision over the contractor's employees). Thus, under the terms of the agreements, the two service providers were independent contractors with control of and responsibility forthe day-to-day management and supervision of their respective operations. The government argues that such responsibility logically extends to the scheduling of lawn mowing and outdoor playtime so as to avoid obvious hazards to the Rainforest Kids children. Appellants, however, argue that notwithstanding Rainforest Kids' and Genett's independent status, the United States could not properly delegate such coordination to the contractors. They argue, in effect, that the United States lacked the discretion to leave the responsibility for ensuring safety in the hands of the contractors. In addition, they appear to argue that the government did not, in fact, delegate such authority to the contractors. On the one hand, appellants' arguments appear inconsistent with the basic premise of the independent contractor defense, i.e., that the government may not be held liable for injury caused by the acts or omissions of independent contractors' employees in the day-to-day discharge of the duties the contractors were hired to perform. On the other hand, we think it possible for the government to hire independent contractors while retaining responsibility for a discrete aspect of their operations, including, for example, safety measures. See, e.g., Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the government had retained responsibility for safety even though an independent contractor was responsible for maintenance at a naval commissary). The government argues that it made no such safety carve-out in this case, and that the discretionary function exception protected its judgment to delegate the responsibility to Genett and Rainforest Kids. Before considering the nature of that exception and its application here, we look at whether responsibility for safety was included in the delegation of authority to the contractors.