The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 4, 2026, to uphold contract awards for nonemergency transportation services, affecting several service providers and bidders. The decision came after Penquis C.A.P., Inc. challenged the awards given to ModivCare Solutions, LLC for several regions in Maine. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for evaluating bids in state contracts.
The case, Penquis C.A.P., Inc. v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services, docket number BCD-25-275, arose from a competitive bidding process conducted by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in 2023. The DHHS sought to award contracts for nonemergency transportation (NET) services to eligible individuals under MaineCare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. After reviewing numerous proposals, the DHHS awarded all eight regional contracts to ModivCare, prompting Penquis C.A.P. to file a challenge.
Penquis C.A.P. was the incumbent provider for Regions 3 and 4 and submitted proposals for those areas, as well as Regions 2 and 8. Following the announcement of the awards, Penquis C.A.P. contested the decisions through administrative appeals and later sought judicial review in the Superior Court. The case was eventually transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket, where the court upheld the original awards to ModivCare.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling affirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "The appeal committee neither erred nor abused its discretion in validating the awards to ModivCare." Chief Justice Stanfill, along with Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, and Douglas, comprised the panel that reviewed the case. The court's opinion emphasized that Penquis C.A.P. failed to demonstrate that the appeal committee's decision was arbitrary or capricious.
In its appeal, Penquis C.A.P. argued that it was denied a fair hearing because the committee did not wait for the completion of its Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests before proceeding with the hearing. The court found that the procurement statute and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) did not entitle Penquis C.A.P. to access evidence not already in its possession. The court noted, "The procurement statute plainly authorizes parties to present certain evidence at certain administrative hearings, but neither says a thing about a party’s ability to obtain evidence that it does not already possess."
Furthermore, Penquis C.A.P. raised concerns about the evaluation process, claiming that errors in the panelists' notes and scoring were unfair. However, the court found that the appeal committee adequately addressed these issues, stating that the consensus scoring process resolved any minor inconsistencies in the individual panelists' notes. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of fundamental unfairness or arbitrary decision-making in the awarding of contracts.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for how state agencies conduct bidding processes and how challenges to those processes are evaluated in court. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures and the need for bidders to present compelling evidence when contesting contract awards.
Looking ahead, Penquis C.A.P. has the option to seek further appeals, although the court's ruling has lifted the stay on the contract awards. This means that ModivCare can proceed with its contracts for NET services in Maine. Details regarding any potential further appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.