engineering standards, i.e., a change in the guardrail’s end treatment and length. The trial court specifically found that the resurfacing project constituted an “upgrade.” At that point, the decision not to improve the guardrail constituted an “operational level” decision and not a “broad public policy” decision protected under the “discretionary function exception” of the State Tort Liability Act. Any arguments that the trial court erred in its determination that the resurfacing project in this case was an “upgrade” are foreclosed by the State’s failure to challenge the pertinent FOFs. The conclusion that the “discretionary-function” exception does not apply here is further supported by at least three decisions of this court. See Nakahira v. State, 71 Haw. 581, 586, 799 P.2d 959, 962 (<HOLDING>), reconsideration denied, 71 Haw. 581, 799 P.2d
holding that the implementation of a training program as opposed to the adoption of the program is not a discretionary function under the state tort liability act holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific infestation and reforestation program where impacts of site specific program were the same as those considered in the programmatic eis holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed holding that a contract for the installation and implementation of a complex computer system did not constitute a consumer purchase covered by the njcfa and noting that the contract did not provide for simply the installation of a standardized computer software program but rather the design of a custommade program to satisfy the plaintiffs unique needs and the defendants active participation in implementation of this program holding prior to adoption of child support guidelines that a credit was discretionary