The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a state agency's decision to award a medical nonemergency transportation contract to ModivCare Solutions, LLC, rejecting an appeal by the previous service provider in *Waldo Community Action Partners v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services* (Me. 2026).
The case centered on whether the Maine Department of Health and Human Services violated state procurement laws when it awarded a contract for medical nonemergency transportation brokerage services in one of Maine's eight transit regions. Through a competitive bidding process, DHHS selected ModivCare Solutions as the highest-ranked bidder over Waldo Community Action Partners, which had been the incumbent service provider in the region.
Waldo CAP challenged the contract award through multiple levels of appeal. The organization first appealed to a committee within the Department of Administrative and Financial Services designated to hear procurement appeals under state law. When that committee affirmed DHHS's decision, Waldo CAP filed a petition for judicial review in Superior Court, which also upheld the agency's determination.
In the Supreme Judicial Court appeal decided Feb. 10, Waldo CAP argued that both the appeals committee and Superior Court erred in affirming the contract award. The organization contended that awarding the contract to ModivCare violated Maine's competitive bidding statute and that the DHHS decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Justice Douglas, writing for the court, disagreed with these arguments and affirmed the judgment upholding the contract award. The court found that state procurement laws were properly followed in the bidding process that led to ModivCare's selection.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in state contracting between large corporate providers and local community organizations. ModivCare Solutions was already providing medical transportation brokerage services in several other Maine regions at the time of the contract award, giving the company significant operational presence in the state's medical transport network.
Medical nonemergency transportation services provide crucial access to healthcare for patients who need assistance getting to medical appointments but don't require emergency ambulance services. These services are particularly important for elderly patients, individuals with disabilities, and low-income residents who may lack reliable transportation options.
The competitive bidding process that led to this dispute reflects Maine's broader efforts to ensure transparent and fair procurement practices in state contracting. Under Maine's procurement laws, state agencies must follow specific procedures when awarding contracts to ensure competition and prevent favoritism or arbitrary decision-making.
Waldo CAP's challenge raised questions about how state agencies evaluate competing bids and whether incumbent providers receive fair consideration in competitive processes. Community action organizations like Waldo CAP often argue they provide more localized, community-focused services compared to larger corporate providers.
The appeals process in this case demonstrated the multiple layers of review available under Maine law for procurement disputes. Unsuccessful bidders can first appeal to designated committees within the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, then seek judicial review through the court system if they remain unsatisfied with the outcome.
The Superior Court's Business and Consumer Docket handled the initial judicial review, reflecting Maine's specialized approach to business and commercial litigation. This docket was established to provide focused expertise for complex business disputes, including government contracting cases.
The Supreme Judicial Court's affirmance of the contract award suggests that Maine's procurement process functioned as intended in this case. By rejecting claims that the decision was arbitrary and capricious or violated competitive bidding requirements, the court validated the integrity of the state's contracting procedures.
This decision may influence future procurement disputes in Maine, particularly those involving healthcare services where community organizations compete against larger corporate providers. The ruling reinforces that successful challenges to state contracting decisions require demonstrating clear violations of procurement law rather than disagreement with the agency's judgment.
The case also reflects broader national trends in healthcare service delivery, where states increasingly rely on managed care organizations and specialized vendors to provide services that were once handled by local providers or government agencies directly.
For ModivCare Solutions, the court's decision solidifies its position as a major provider of medical transportation services in Maine. The company's existing operations in multiple regions likely contributed to its competitive advantage in the bidding process.
The outcome leaves Waldo CAP without the contract it had previously held, representing a significant business loss for the community action organization. Such transitions can affect local employment and community relationships built over years of service provision.
Going forward, the decision establishes precedent for how Maine courts will review procurement challenges, emphasizing deference to agency decisions when proper procedures are followed and no clear legal violations are demonstrated.