opinion this way. The District Court noted only that DRPA's use of privilege prevented the District Court from effectively reviewing DRPA's conduct. Regardless of whether DRPA claimed privilege, DRPA still had the burden to provide a rational basis for its action. As we conclude below, it failed to do so. 15 . The parties rely on our previous bidding dispute cases without addressing a crucial distinction present here: nearly all of those cases involve challenges to contract awards by federal agencies brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. DRPA, however, is a bi-state corporate instrumentality created under the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See Allied Painting, Inc. v. Del. River Port Auth., No. CIV.A. 04-1032 (MAM), 2005 WL 724107, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2005) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of review in this diversity
holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law