Opinion ID: 616409
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contractual Requirements

Text: We already have rejected appellants' argument that the government retained responsibility for safety in its agreements with Rainforest Kids and Genett. See supra Section II.B.2. We see no basis on which the government's chosen allocation of authority could be deemed improper. Where no federal law or policy limited the government's discretion to delegate the coordination of schedules, or other lawnmowing safety precautions, to the independent contractors, the United States had the flexibility to craft the balance of authority in the contracts as it saw fit. See, e.g., Muniz-Rivera v. United States, 326 F.3d 8, 16 (1st Cir.2003) (noting that, in a case involving flooding of federally supported housing, no applicable statute, regulation, or policy directed the manner in which the supervision is to be carried out nor specif[ied] the taking of the actions that the plaintiffs claim would have prevented their plight); Bolduc, 402 F.3d at 61 (Where ... the government actors in question have latitude to make decisions and choose among alternative courses of action, the conduct is discretionary.). Indeed, the decision to assign independent contractors the responsibility for safety, in particular, has been found to be within the government's discretion. See, e.g., Wood, 290 F.3d at 40 (noting that delegation of safety issues to a contractor reflected a judgment that in obtaining the `best value' for the American taxpayer, worker safety should be a primary concern of the contractor); Shuman v. United States, 765 F.2d 283, 294-95 (1st Cir.1985) (endorsing dismissal of FTCA claim based on discretionary decision to delegate safety responsibility to independent contractor); cf. Shansky v. United States, 164 F.3d 688, 693 (1st Cir.1999) ([T]here is no principled basis for superimposing a generalized `safety exception' upon the discretionary function defense.); McMichael, 751 F.2d at 307 (finding that government inspectors' failure to enforce safety requirements not protected by discretionary function exception where inspectors were given a number of precise inspections to perform which involved no judgment concerning agency policy). [19] As a matter of course, GSA's permissible judgment to delegate to the contractors the day-to-day responsibility for safety in the performance of their activities meant that the government had the discretion not to prescribe lawn-mowing and outdoor play schedules. The contractors, not the United States, bore responsibility for implementing procedures to ensure the safety of the Rainforest Kids children. [20]