Opinion ID: 2263053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Five Percent Reduction

Text: Eagle maintains that the five percent reduction applied by the CAB to its costs was non-contractual and arbitrary. In contrast to the CAB's decision regarding commercial value, there was ample evidence and explanation in the record to support the CAB's determination that at least 5 percent of the recyclables processed at the interim facility . . . were generated from Eagle's other recycling and janitorial jobs from commercial haulers. The CAB explained that its conclusion was based on evidentiary hearings it conducted and documents it received. According to the CAB, the evidence showed that Eagle continued to collect recyclables [from Prince George's County, Maryland]. . . using its own trucks and drivers; that Eagle collected recyclables for Dow Chemical Company, the United States Public Health Service, and an entity referred to as The Cluster; and that it may have been collecting materials from the Washington Design Center. Given this information, the CAB also found that the testimony of Eagle's president that only one percent of the recyclables processed at the interim facility came from non-DPW sources was not credible. It is clear from the CAB's detailed analysis that there was substantial evidence to support its finding that the non-DPW jobs processed at the facility exceeded one percent, and that there was a rational connection between this finding and the decision that Eagle's costs actually incurred ought to be reduced by five percent. See Office of People's Counsel, 797 A.2d at 726. Moreover, the CAB was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and this court must give deference to its credibility findings. See, e.g., Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Services, 683 A.2d 470, 477 (D.C.1996).