Both prongs of the Supreme Court’s test for determining applicability of the discretionary function exception are satisfied. The exception thus shields the government from tort'liability for consequences flowing from the VA’s decision to delegate elevator maintenance to Otis and Bayline. B. Liability for Negligent Failure to Supervise The United States also exercised its discretion in determining the appropri ate level of supervision over Otis and Bay-line, and thus is not liable as a matter of law. “The discretionary function exception encompasses government decisions about how and how much to supervise the safety procedures- of independent contractors.” Andrews, 121 F.3d at 1440 (citing United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 819-20, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (<HOLDING>) and Johns v. Petti-bone Corp., 843 F.2d 464,'
holding that the decision of whether to enforce the law by making an arrest is a basic judgmental or discretionary governmental function holding that the extent of government supervision is a discretionary function of the most basic kind holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver