substance of the PADC's decision. We will decline this invitation. As we have already discussed, APA review is deferential to agency expertise and discretion. Saratoga has given us no reason to intrude on the PADC's decision in this instance.
Saratoga highlights only three "flaws" in Delta's proposal, Saratoga Motion at 59-61, and asks the Court to find that this proves that the PADC decision was arbitrary and capricious. It is clear from the voluminous administrative record, however, that no proposal was perfect. The PADC staff's final report, in fact, stated that Saratoga's architectural design "resulted in disjointed and confusing space," and that 'Saratoga's development team generally had "limited or no experience" developing projects of this type.
This decision was a question of judgment where not every factor that was considered could be quantified. In such a setting, "we must be chary of substituting our own evaluation for that of the agency." Braniff Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 126 App. D.C. 399, 379 F.2d 453, 463 (D.C. Cir. 1967); see also Black Citizens for a Fair Media v. FCC, 231 App. D.C. 163, 719 F.2d 407, 417 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("greater deference is given administrative bodies when their decisions are based upon 'judgmental or predictive' conclusions"), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255, 82 L. Ed. 2d 848 , 104 S. Ct. 3545 . Instead, "the proper inquiry under the arbitrary and capricious standard is 'whether a reasonable person, considering the matter on the agency's table, could arrive at the judgment the agency made.'" New York State Comm'n on Cable Television v. FCC, 242 App. D.C. 126, 749 F.2d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Wold Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 237 App. D.C. 29, 735 F.2d 1465, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In selecting between imperfect proposals, the PADC was well within the bounds of its discretion when it decided that, upon balancing the various flaws against one another, Delta's was superior to the competition. Courts are ill-equipped to second guess the agency's exercise of discretion.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment is entered for defendants and this case is dismissed.
An Order consistent with the above has been filed this date.
ORDER - October 31, 1991, Filed
Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, defendants' motion for summary judgment, the oppositions thereto, defendant-intervenor Delta Partnership's opposition to plaintiff's motion, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion entered this day, it is by the Court this 31st day of October, 1991,
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of defendants on all claims raised by plaintiff in this action; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.