With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Despite our conclusion that no additional fact-finding or special agency expertise was necessary to address Plaintiffs’ complaint, we continue our analysis in order to determine whether the other limitations on declaratory judgments that were outlined by Smith would justify the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action. Specifically, Smith cautions that a declaratory judgment should not be used “to challenge or review administrative actions if such an approach would ... disregard an exclusive statutory scheme for the review of administrative decisions.” Id. ¶ 15. Smith, however, did not apply this limitation because in that case, there was no statutory scheme to review. Id. ¶ 21; cf. State ex rel. Regents of E. N.M. Univ. v. Baca, 2008-NMSC-047, ¶ 22, 144 N.M. 530, 189 P.3d 663 (<HOLDING>). {10} In the present case, the Air Quality

A: holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record
B: holding that where a statute provides a procedure for judicial review of a bid protest a party may not circumvent the established procedures and was obligated either to pursue its right to judicial review or to file its declaratory judgment action in compliance with the procedures for administrative appeal set out in the statute
C: holding that where defendant erroneously filed a request for declaratory relief in criminal action rather than filing an independent action for judicial review we would evaluate sufficiency of pleading as a petition for judicial review
D: holding that in bid protest cases  a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure
B.