duty is not to weigh the wisdom of, or to resolve any struggle between, competing views of the public interest, but rather to respect legitimate policy choices made by the agency in interpreting and applying the statute.” Summerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 966 F.2d 660, 665 (Fed.Cir.1992). We decline to chart a different course today. Finally, the Claims Court's assertion that Congress could have exempted the Service from the CICA in 2004 (but did not) proffers a false choice. The Service has the authority to negotiate cooperative agreements like the CFAs should it choose to do so. We have held that such agreements need not comply with the CICA in analogous circumstances. See CMS Contract Mgmt. Servs. v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency, 745 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Taken together, the 1958 and 1998 Acts, as
holding that agencies escape the requirements of federal procurement law under the cica when using a cooperative agreement holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies holding that federal government agencies have a common law right to interagency setoff recognizing that government agencies are entrusted with a good deal of discretion in making procurement decisions holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment