a “rational basis,” the court’s inquiry should “determine whether ‘the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation for its exercise of discretion.’ ” Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332-33; see also Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)) (“[I]n making the factual inquiry concerning whether an agency decision was ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ the reviewing court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. F.3d 1552, 1555-56 (Fed.Cir.1994)); see also FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed.Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). D. Resolution Of The Government’s And Waste
holding that existence of partnership depends upon the conduct intention and relationship between the parties though no one factor is determinative it is necessary to examine the  relationship as a whole holding that excluding expert testimony was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict because the subject matter of the testimony was only one factor and by no means a determinative one holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of  one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that the availability of the icrp is but one factor to be considered in determining undue hardship but it is not determinative holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk