Waldo Community Action Partners v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2026 ME 13
Docket: BCD-25-63
Argued: November 14, 2025
Decided: February 10, 2026

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.

WALDO COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERS

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES et al.

DOUGLAS, J.

[¶1] In this appeal we consider whether a state agency violated state

procurement laws, see 5 M.R.S. § 1825-B (2025), in awarding a contract to

provide brokerage services for medical nonemergency transportation (NET) in

one of Maine’s eight identified transit regions. Pursuant to a competitive

bidding process, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

awarded the contract to the highest-ranked bidder, ModivCare Solutions, LLC,

a vendor already providing the same service in several other regions of the

state, over the incumbent service provider in the area at the time, Waldo

Community Action Partners (Waldo CAP).

[¶2] Waldo CAP appealed the decision to a committee of the Department

of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) designated to hear appeals
2

under 5 M.R.S. § 1825-E(3) (2025). The DAFS appeal committee affirmed

DHHS’s award of the contract. Waldo CAP then filed in the Superior Court a

petition for judicial review of the appeal committee’s decision, see 5 M.R.S.

§§ 1825-F, 11001(1) (2025); M.R. Civ. P. 80C, and the court (McKeon, J.) entered

a judgment in the Business and Consumer Docket affirming the decision of the

appeal committee.

[¶3] Waldo CAP contends that both the appeal committee and the

Superior Court erred in affirming DHHS’s decision because the award of the

contract to ModivCare violated the competitive bidding statute and because the

DHHS decision was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree and affirm the

judgment upholding the award.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶4] We draw the facts from the appeal committee’s findings, which are

supported by the administrative record. See 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 120, §§ 3(4),

4(1) (effective May 24, 1995) (authorizing an evidentiary hearing before the

committee); Gray v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2021 ME 19, ¶ 10, 248 A.3d 212. We

present the procedural history as reflected in the administrative and court

records. See, e.g., Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 655 A.2d

1260, 1261-62 (Me. 1995).
3

A. The Request for Proposals for NET Brokerage Services

[¶5] DHHS contracts with private entities1 to manage and coordinate

medical NET services for individuals eligible for MaineCare, which is Maine’s

Medicaid program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. NET services

enable eligible individuals who otherwise do not have transportation to travel

to and from covered services for nonemergency medical needs such as doctor’s

appointments and dialysis. Brokers arrange the various modes of

transportation and schedule individual trips for the users of the service.

Separate brokerage contracts are awarded for each of eight identified regions

of the State.2

[¶6] Waldo CAP has been the vendor providing NET brokerage services

for Region 5 since 2014. Several years ago, DHHS decided to put out to bid

brokerage contracts in all eight regions of the state. DHHS and DAFS jointly

When contracting for services to be provided by private entities, DHHS and all other state
1

agencies are generally required to utilize a competitive bidding process. 5 M.R.S. § 1825-B(1). DAFS,
through its Bureau of General Services, oversees and assists state agencies with the purchase of goods
and services. Id.; 5 M.R.S. §§ 1811(1), 1812 (2025).

2The State of Maine divides the state into eight transit regions for various administrative
purposes. See Me. Dep’t of Transp., Me. Transit Regions Map, available at
https://www.maine.gov/dot/sites/maine.gov.dot/files/2023-
10/TransitDistricts_2018_nolegend.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z2KM-Z7B5]. Waldo County is part of
Region 5. See id.
4

developed a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was posted on May 15,

2023, with a deadline for submissions of July 11, 2023.

[¶7] Part IV of the RFP set out the requirements for submitted proposals,

and at the outset stated: “This section contains instructions for Bidders to use

in preparing their proposals. The Department seeks detailed yet succinct

responses that demonstrate the Bidder’s qualifications, experience, and ability

to perform the requirements specified throughout the RFP.” The instructions

included the following admonition:

The Bidder’s proposal must follow the outline used below,
including the numbering, section, and sub-section headings.
Failure to use the outline specified in PART IV, or failure to respond
to all questions and instructions throughout the RFP, may result in
the proposal being disqualified as non-responsive or receiving a
reduced score. The Department, and its evaluation team, has sole
discretion to determine whether a variance from the RFP
specifications will result either in disqualification or reduction in
scoring of a proposal.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶8] The RFP also provided a process to address bidders’ questions: “It

is the responsibility of all Bidders and other interested parties to examine the

entire RFP and to seek clarification, in writing, if they do not understand any

information or instructions.” Questions were to be submitted to the RFP

coordinator via a designated form. The RFP coordinator did not receive any
5

questions or requests for clarification from Waldo CAP concerning the portion

of the RFP at issue here.

[¶9] Part IV also set out the required format and contents for proposals,

which were to be organized and scored in four sections:

• Section I – Preliminary Information (No points)
• Section II – Organization Qualifications and Experience (25 points)
• Section III – Proposed Services (50 points)
• Section IV – Cost Structure Acknowledgement (25 points)

Because the cost for providing the services was fixed by state and federal

Medicaid regulations, all bidders would receive the full twenty-five-point score

for Section IV provided they included a completed, signed acknowledgement

form agreeing to be bound by state and federal rates. The highest combined

total of points awarded for Sections II and III, therefore, would determine the

successful bidder in each region.

[¶10] Section II required bidders to submit additional information in an

appendix, instructing bidders as follows:

Bidders must complete Appendix D (Qualifications and
Experience Form) describing their qualifications and skills to
provide the requested services in the RFP. Bidders must include
three examples of projects which demonstrate their experience and
expertise in performing these services as well as highlighting the
Bidder’s stated qualifications and skills.
6

(Emphasis added.) Appendix D prescribed a specific format for providing the

information requested, namely four discrete blocks or boxes.

[¶11] In the first box, bidders were instructed to “[p]resent a brief

statement of qualifications, including any applicable licensure and/or

certification.” There, bidders were required to “[d]escribe the history of [their]

organization” with reference to “skills pertinent to the specific work required

by the RFP and any special or unique characteristics of the organization which

would make it especially qualified to perform the required work activities.” If

more space was needed than the box would accommodate, bidders were

instructed that they could “expand this form and use additional pages to

provide this information.”

[¶12] Bidders were instructed to provide in the three boxes that

followed—labeled “Project One,” “Project Two,” and “Project Three”—“a

description of projects that occurred within the past five years which reflect

experience and expertise needed in performing the functions described in the

‘Scope of Services’ portion of the RFP.” And for each one of the three projects,

bidders were directed to indicate in the respective box a “Business Reference

Name,” “Reference Contact Person,” “Telephone,” and “E-Mail.”
7

[¶13] To evaluate the bids, DHHS convened a panel consisting of four

DHHS employees as well as a coordinator who would not score the proposals

but would facilitate the review process. Approximately forty proposals from

seven bidders were submitted for the eight regions statewide, including five

proposals for Region 5.3 Per the RFP’s instructions, panel members did not

score proposals individually, but rather, after completing their individual

reviews and taking notes, they met as a group to discuss and determine scores

for Sections II and III by consensus.

B. Waldo CAP’s Proposal

[¶14] In its proposal, Waldo CAP completed only two of Appendix D’s

four boxes—the first box, which contained the opening narrative, and the

second box, for “Project One.” The opening narrative described Waldo CAP’s

history, mission, organizational and governance structure, licensing status, and

the various services it provides. The services listed included transportation

services delivered through two distinct divisions—the MidCoast Connector

division and the MidCoast Public Transportation division.

According to the reviewers’ testimony, the average length of a proposal was more than 450
3

pages, and panel members spent hours reviewing, taking notes on, and then scoring each vendor’s
submission.
8

[¶15] The MidCoast Connector division provides the NET services that

are the subject of the bid. Waldo CAP not only referenced these services in the

narrative in Appendix D’s first box but also, as discussed below, provided a

more fulsome description of these services in the ”Project One” box. The latter

division, the MidCoast Public Transportation division, also was referenced in

the narrative portion of Appendix D. Waldo CAP noted there that its MidCoast

Public Transportation division was “the Maine Department of Transportation’s

designated Federal Transit Authority” in four counties, where the division

“continu[es] to provide services to the remainder of its traditional clients,

including The Maine Department of Education, The Maine Department of

Health and Human Services, The Office of Aging and Disabilities, [and] private

foundation programs such as the John T. Gorman Foundation and the Maine

Cancer Foundation.” Waldo CAP provided no further details as to any of these

particular services.

[¶16] In the “Project One” box, Waldo CAP provided a detailed,

seven-page description of the “MidCoast Connector NET Brokerage” service,

which it had previewed in the opening narrative. In addition, Waldo CAP

provided a “Business Reference Name,” “Reference Contact Person,”
9

“Telephone” number, and “E-Mail” address with respect to this project in the

corresponding spaces designated.

[¶17] The “Project Two” and “Project Three” boxes were left blank

except for the entry “NA” in the “Description of Project” section of each.

[¶18] The review team gave the Waldo CAP proposal a score of eighteen

points out of twenty-five points for Section II. The reviewers deducted seven

points from their total score for Section II because Waldo CAP did not complete

Appendix D as required; that is, it failed to provide any detailed information

about two additional projects. Although Waldo CAP received a score of

forty-eight out of fifty on Section III (Proposed Services)—the highest

Section III score of the Region 5 bidders—ModivCare received a higher overall

score and thus was awarded the contract.

C. DAFS Appeal Committee Decision and Judicial Review

[¶19] Waldo CAP requested, and was granted, an opportunity to appeal

from the DHHS decision to award the Region 5 contract to ModivCare.

See 5 M.R.S. § 1825-E(2).4 The DAFS appeal committee held a consolidated

4 The statute provides,

Persons aggrieved by an agency contract or grant award decision under this
subchapter may request a hearing of appeal. Such a request must be made to the
Director of the Bureau of General Services in writing within 15 days of notification of
the award. The Director of the Bureau of General Services shall grant a hearing of
appeal unless:
10

hearing on March 20-22, 2024, to consider both Waldo CAP’s appeal of the

Region 5 contract and another bidder’s appeal of a contract award for a

different region.

[¶20] The committee heard testimony regarding Waldo CAP’s appeal

from members of the review panel and the chief executive officer (CEO) of

Waldo CAP. One reviewer testified that the review team had determined by

consensus that the point deduction on Section II was justified for several

reasons:

• The reviewers considered the entry of “NA” in the two boxes designated
for information about examples of Waldo CAP’s second and third projects
to mean “not applicable,” and therefore the required information was not
provided;

• Strict compliance with the instructions was necessary given the large
number of proposals submitted and the lack of time to search for
information;

A. The Director of the Bureau of General Services determines that:

(1) The petitioner is not an aggrieved person;

(2) A prior request by the same petitioner relating to the same
contract or grant award has been granted;

(3) The request was made more than 15 days after notice of contract
or grant award; or

(4) The request is capricious, frivolous or without merit; or

B. No contract or grant was awarded.

5 M.R.S. § 1825-E(2).
11

• No other proposal reviewed had failed to provide information about
other projects in the Project Two and Project Three boxes;

• Even though many other proposals referenced projects in the opening
narrative section of Appendix D, they still provided more detailed
information about the same projects where indicated in the three boxes
provided and did not leave the boxes blank; and

• The reviewers felt that they had to deduct the seven points because
Waldo CAP’s proposal omitted information that the RFP plainly required.

The CEO of Waldo CAP testified that the boxes were marked “NA” because

Waldo CAP believed that sufficient information about other projects had been

provided in the opening narrative and that its proposal should be succinct and

avoid redundancy.

[¶21] The appeal committee issued a written decision dated

April 18, 2024, concluding that the defect was sufficiently substantive to justify

the point deduction and that the deduction did not violate statutory

requirements. The committee further determined that the scoring was fair, and

not arbitrary or capricious, given the explicit instructions provided by DHHS

indicating that the score may be lowered if the RFP was not completed and

submitted in accordance with the RFP’s instructions.

[¶22] On May 23, 2024, which no party disputes was within “30 days

after receipt of notice” of the decision, 5 M.R.S. § 11002(3) (2025), Waldo CAP

filed a petition in the Superior Court for review of the appeal committee’s final
12

agency action. The court accepted the case for transfer to the Business and

Consumer Docket in June 2024. Following briefing and a hearing, the court

entered a judgment on January 28, 2025, affirming the decision of the appeal

committee. Waldo CAP timely appealed. See 5 M.R.S. § 11008 (2025);

M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1). Upon Waldo CAP’s motion and without objection by the

other parties, we stayed the decision awarding the contract pending appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶23] Waldo CAP challenges the decision to award the Region 5 contract

to another bidder on two principal grounds. First, it maintains that the award

of the contract to ModivCare “has nothing to do with the quality of the NET

services to be supplied” and therefore violates the requirement in 5 M.R.S.

§ 1825-B(7) that contracts be awarded to the “best-value bidder.” Second,

Waldo CAP contends that deduction of seven points from its score in Section II

has “no rational explanation” and therefore “is the very definition of a decision

that is arbitrary or capricious.” Waldo CAP requests that the award to

ModivCare be invalidated and that DHHS be “remind[ed . . .] that on remand, [it]

must follow § 1825-B(7) by awarding Region 5 to the best-value bidder.”

[¶24] The decision by the DAFS appeal committee affirming DHHS’s

award of the Region 5 contract is final agency action subject to judicial review
13

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001(1), 11007

(2025), and Rule 80C of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the

Superior Court acts in an intermediate appellate capacity in a Rule 80C appeal,

we review directly the decision of the DAFS appeal committee. Pine Tree Legal

Assistance, Inc., 655 A.2d at 1264; see Wood v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife,

2023 ME 61, ¶ 14, 302 A.3d 18; Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm’n, 2022

ME 42, ¶ 8, 278 A.3d 1183.

[¶25] In a proceeding before the DAFS appeal committee, “[t]he evidence

presented must specifically address and be limited to one or more of the

following: A. Violation of law; B. Irregularities creating fundamental unfairness;

or C. Arbitrary or capricious award.” 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 120, § 3(2). The party

challenging the contract award has the burden of proof, id., and the appeals

committee “shall look for clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the

[foregoing] standards . . . has been proven by the petitioner,” id. § 4(1). We

review the decision by the DAFS appeal committee “for errors of law, factual

findings unsupported by substantial record evidence, or an abuse of

discretion.” E. Me. Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2025 ME 35, ¶ 21,

334 A.3d 706; see also 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C). We give considerable deference

to an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations, see Palian v. Dep’t of Health
14

& Human Servs., 2020 ME 131, ¶ 20, 242 A.3d 164, and may not substitute our

judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact, see 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). As

the party with the burden of proof before the appeal committee, Waldo CAP is

required to demonstrate on judicial review that the administrative record

compels a contrary result. See Kelley v. Me. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 2009 ME

27, ¶ 16, 967 A.2d 676.

A. The DAFS appeal committee correctly concluded that the Region 5
contract award did not violate 5 M.R.S. § 1825-B(7).

[¶26] “The goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the

Legislature’s intent.” Manirakiza v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2018 ME 10,

¶ 8, 177 A.3d 1264. “We review de novo an issue of statutory interpretation,”

construing the statute based on its plain, “unambiguous meaning unless the

result is illogical or absurd.” Mutty v. Dep’t of Corr., 2017 ME 7, ¶ 9, 153 A.3d

775 (quotation marks omitted). “When a statute administered by an agency is

ambiguous, we review whether the agency’s interpretation of the statute is

reasonable and uphold its interpretation unless the statute plainly compels a

contrary result.” Manirakiza, 2018 ME 10, ¶ 8, 177 A.3d 1264 (quotation marks

omitted).

[¶27] The Legislature authorized DAFS, through its Bureau of General

Services, to purchase—and assist other state agencies in purchasing—goods
15

and services “required by the State Government or by any department or

agency thereof” using competitive bidding, except as otherwise provided by

law. 5 M.R.S. § 1811(1) (2025); see 5 M.R.S. §§ 1812, 1825-B (2025).

Competitively bid contracts “must be awarded to the best-value bidder, taking

into consideration the qualities of the goods or services to be supplied, their

conformity with the specifications, the purposes for which they are required,

the date of delivery and the best interest of the State.” 5 M.R.S. § 1825-B(7).

[¶28] Section 1825-B(7) does not define “best-value bidder.”5 The

statute’s next section, 5 M.R.S. § 1825-C (2025), directs the state’s Chief

Procurement Officer to adopt rules to “govern[] the purchase of services, the

awarding of grants or contracts and the procedure by which aggrieved persons

may appeal award decisions made by a department or agency of State

Government.” 5 M.R.S. § 1825-C; see 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 110 (effective April 22,

2010).

[¶29] The rules as promulgated inform an interpretation of the term

“best-value bidder” in section 1825-B(7). The rules governing the purchase of

5 In 1997 the term “best-value bidder” replaced language in the statute referencing the “lowest
responsible bidder” through an amendment originating in the Legislature’s State and Local
Government Committee. See P.L. 1997, ch. 263, § 1 (effective Sept. 19, 1997); Comm. Amend. A to
L.D. 1220, No. S-147 (118th Legis. 1997). The change was made “to accept the best-value bidder as
opposed to the lowest responsible bidder” and permit “the State to consider other matters, such as
compliance with state and federal laws as well as other fiscal impacts in determining a contract
award.” Comm. Amend. A to L.D. 1220, Summary (118th Legis. 1997).
16

services provide that all RFPs are to be reviewed by the Contract Review

Committee of DAFS before being released. 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 110, § 2(A)(ii).

After an RFP has been issued, the contracting agency must review all proposals

“based on the criteria established within the original Request for Proposal

document.” Id. § 3(A). A contracting agency lacks authority to eliminate,

modify, or deviate from the RFP requirements later than seven days before the

opening date for the RFP, id. § 2(A)(iv)(cc), and an “[a]ward must be made to

the highest rated proposal which conforms to the requirements of the state as

contained in the RFP,” id. § 3(A)(iv) (emphasis added).

[¶30] Interpreting these statutes and regulations based on their plain

meaning, the “best-value bidder” is the bidder selected based strictly on the

criteria and requirements set forth in an RFP. In other words, the RFP’s

requirements reflect not only the qualifications and characteristics deemed

relevant to determining the “best-value bidder” but also the specific

information that the agency requires to make that determination. The bidder

that meets those requirements, provides all requested information, and scores

the highest rating is the “best-value bidder.” The RFP explicitly states that its

purpose is to “ensure that the contract is awarded to the Bidder whose proposal

provides the best value to the State of Maine.” See also 5 M.R.S. § 1825-B(7)
17

(providing that among the factors to be considered in determining the

“best-value bidder” is “the best interest of the State”).

[¶31] Waldo CAP’s interpretation and application of “best-value bidder”

for purposes of the NET brokerage RFP focuses predominantly, if not

exclusively, on a single criterion—quality of services to be supplied—in section

1825-B(7). While that is indisputably a central factor in the statutory formula

for determining the “best-value bidder,” there are other factors as well. The

thrust of Waldo CAP’s argument is that because it scored higher on the RFP’s

Section III—Proposed Services—and because it was the established, incumbent

provider of those services in Region 5, it is a logical inevitability to conclude

that it should have been awarded the contract and the decision to do otherwise

based on the contents of Section II violated section 1825-B(7).

[¶32] This argument is misguided and assumes an overly narrow

interpretation of the statute as applied here. The RFP sought specific

information to evaluate the bidders’ overall NET brokerage expertise, not just a

bidder’s experience or the quality of services provided in a particular region.

The fact that a bidder is the incumbent service provider in a particular region

does not give it a scoring advantage with respect to the overall organizational
18

qualifications and experience at the core of Section II of the RFP.6 Hence, DHHS

had a rationale for requesting three specific examples of projects involving

relevant services.

[¶33] Waldo CAP’s contention that it should have been “the presumptive

best-value bidder in Region 5” because it scored highest on Section III

disregards the full scope of the RFP and particularly the information sought in

Section II. A higher score on Section III was not the sole determining factor in

determining the successful bidder. Indeed, the formula specifically apportions

weight for each consideration, with Section II accounting for twenty-five points

and Section III accounting for fifty points. Here, the RFP required consideration

of all relevant factors according to the scoring formula, including the quality of

services to be supplied and the overall qualifications and experience of the

bidder. This is consistent with section 1825-B(7)’s requirement that the “best

interest of the State” is a factor in determining that “best-value bidder.” The

appeal committee’s affirmance of DHHS’s award of the contract to ModivCare

does not constitute a violation of the statute.

6 The record indicates that the successful bidder in Region 5, ModivCare, has substantial
experience in providing these services. It has participated in Maine’s NET brokerage program since
2013, serving five of the eight transit regions compared with Waldo Cap’s one, and brokers over a
million trips annually across the state compared with Waldo CAP’s 1.6 million total trips since 2014.
19

B. The record before the appeal committee did not compel a finding
that DHHS’s decision on the Region 5 contract was arbitrary or
capricious.

[¶34] We use a highly deferential standard in reviewing whether a

decision of an administrative agency was “arbitrary or capricious.” AngleZ

Behav. Health Servs. v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2020 ME 26, ¶ 23, 226 A.3d

762. An administrative agency does not act arbitrarily or capriciously “unless

its action is wilful and unreasoning and without consideration of facts or

circumstances.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). If the evidence can support the

agency’s findings, we will affirm those findings. See id. ¶ 26.

[¶35] As noted above, the standard of proof that Waldo CAP was

required to meet in order for the appeal committee to invalidate the award was

proof by clear and convincing evidence. See supra ¶ 25; 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 120

§ 4(1) (“The Appeal Committee shall consider all evidence entered into the

record and shall look for clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the

standards set forth in Section 3, Subsection B, of these rules has been proven by

the petitioner.”).7 Thus, it “could have prevailed only if it convinced the appeal

committee that the truth of its factual contentions was highly probable, rather

than merely more probable than not.” Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., 655 A.2d

The reference to “Section 3, Subsection B” must be understood to mean section 3, subsection 2,
7

which supplies the appeal criteria. 18-554 C.M.R. ch. 120, §§ 3(2), 4(1).
20

at 1264. “We will vacate the committee’s determination that [the appellant]

failed to carry its burden of proof on this issue only if the nature of the evidence

is such that the committee was compelled to find [the appellant]’s contentions

highly probable.” Id. (emphasis added).

[¶36] Applying this high standard in a prior case, we affirmed the

decision of an appeal committee when the review panel members had

individually scored the vendors. but the panel had been unable to decide

between two vendors, and the director of the agency had “convened a second

panel and combined the first-place votes of that panel with those of the first.”

Id. at 1262, 1264. There, “the evidence did not compel the appeal committee to

believe that this irregularity rendered the selection process fundamentally

unfair.” Id. at 1264. “Nor [could] it be said on [that] record that the decision

was arbitrary or capricious.” Id.

[¶37] Here, the appeal committee was not persuaded, by clear and

convincing evidence, that the review panel acted arbitrarily or capriciously in

deducting points for the two blank project boxes in Appendix D. Reviewing the

appeal committee’s decision, we cannot conclude that the record compels a

finding that the review panel’s point deduction was arbitrary or capricious.

One reviewer testified that compliance with the instructions mattered due to
21

the amount of time involved in reviewing applications and the infeasibility of

combing the proposals for missing or misplaced information. That reviewer

also testified that all other vendors clearly understood that all three boxes had

to be completed for all projects to be considered, even if those projects had been

referenced briefly in the initial narrative portion of Appendix D. The panel, he

testified, was also concerned with fairness to those who had provided the

information that was plainly required.

[¶38] An examination of the proposals themselves further supports the

review panel’s decision to deduct points. In contrast to Waldo CAP’s proposal,

the proposals of all other bidders provided the three examples required in

Appendix D. Even though it was the incumbent in Region 5, Waldo CAP could

not rely on its reputation with state workers who may be familiar with its

performance; it had to submit a complete proposal. The record reveals that one

of the reviewers was not independently familiar with Waldo CAP. Moreover,

all reviewers appropriately focused on the information provided in each

proposal, with one observing in his testimony before the appeal committee: “If

we had awarded [Waldo CAP] the contract with those omissions, I think we’d

be right here again under appeal . . . for overlooking something that clearly was

required.”
22

[¶39] Finally, Waldo CAP suggests that the panel’s selection of a

seven-point deduction as opposed to some other number of points was

arbitrary. The record is sufficient, however, to support the appeal committee’s

decision to affirm that choice. The review panel, for example, took a deeper

deduction—of twelve points—from the Section II score of another Region 5

proposal. The panel found that although that bidder had provided three

relevant project examples, (1) the bidder “[d]id not provide a clear description

of [a] subcontractor’s organizational capacity,” (2) it was unclear based on the

organizational chart whether the project team would be physically located in

Maine, and (3) the bidder “[d]id not provide letters from surety companies as

required by the RFP.” The review panel might not have had a precise rubric for

its point deductions, but rigid mathematical certainty is not required. See Pine

Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., 655 A.2d at 1264.

[¶40] On the record before the appeal committee, therefore, we cannot

say that the evidence compelled a finding, by clear and convincing evidence,

that the review panel’s scoring resulting in the award of the contract to

ModivCare was arbitrary or capricious, and we affirm the judgment affirming

the appeal committee’s decision.
23

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Stay of the decision
awarding the contract lifted.

Brent A. Singer, Esq. (orally), Rudman Winchell, Bangor, for appellant Waldo
Community Action Partners

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Halliday Moncure, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally),
Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of
Administrative and Financial Services

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, Brendan Kreckel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and
Margaret Machaiek, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee Department of Health and Human Services

A. Robert Ruesch, Esq. and Sarah K. Grossnickle, Esq., Verrill Dana, LLP,
Portland, for appellee ModivCare Solutions, LLC

Business and Consumer Court Docket docket number APP-2024-00009
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY