Opinion ID: 2263053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commercial Value

Text: Eagle also maintains that [t]he conclusion that Eagle's costs represented capital improvements that had commercial value to Eagle was not supported by substantial evidence. We must agree, for the record is silent as to how the OIG, and thereafter the CAB, concluded that the District-based facility was commercially valuable to Eagle. The CAB found that Eagle was using the facility after the end of the District recycling job for commercial purposes and that the facility had a commercial value. It also determined that Eagle used the facility for a follow-on recycling contract awarded by the District to Eagle. The CAB appears to have based this determination largely on the audit conducted by the OIG. The OIG's report stated: We observed during our field work, between June 13, 1996, and July 12, 1996. . . [that] the contractor was using the facility for commercial purposes. Hence, in our opinion, it is not impracticable for the contractor to put the facility to commercial uses. In addition, we believe that the facility has significant economic value in the recycling marketplace. . . . We also understand that Eagle, under a current contract for recycling with DPW, is using the facility. [18] No further details are provided. The CAB's decision contains a similarly opaque and conclusory determination that the costs represent capital improvements that have a commercial value to Eagle. Nowhere does the CAB explain why this is the case. The cost and revenue schedules contained in the OIG's report appear to cover the years 1993 to 1995 (the term of the contract), but that was before the District-based facility was built. [19] If there is supporting documentation for the CAB's conclusion that the facility had commercial value, it is not this court's responsibility to find it. We do not ourselves scour the record in search of evidence or rely on evidence other than what the Board itself relied on to support its findings. Abadie, 806 A.2d at 1229. Because the Board relied on the OIG's audit report, and because that report appears to provide no support for its conclusions, we cannot ascertain where the conclusion that the facility had commercial value came from. The substantial evidence test is satisfied only when an administrative agency fully and clearly explains its decision and demonstrates `a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' Office of People's Counsel v. Public Service Comm'n, 797 A.2d 719, 726 (D.C.2002) (citation omitted). Since we cannot discern from the record the CAB's reason for concluding that the facility had commercial value, we must remand the case to the CAB for further proceedings on this issue as well.