Court Opinion

ID: 9911577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:07:38.17717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:31.381788
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                            APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
  internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                     DOCKET NO. A-1465-21

IN THE MATTER OF THE
DENIAL OF DISPENSARY
PERMIT ENDORSEMENT FOR
SPECTRYM CONSULTING
GROUP, LLC, TO OPERATE AN
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
CENTER PURSUANT TO THE
2019 REQUEST FOR
APPLICATION PROCESS.
____________________________

                Submitted November 8, 2023 – Decided December 20, 2023

                Before Judges Whipple, Mayer and Enright.

                On appeal from the Cannabis Regulatory Commission.

                Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys for appellant
                Spectrym Consulting Group, LLC (Gregg Howard
                Hilzer and Janie Byalik, on the briefs).

                Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                respondent Cannabis Regulatory Commission (Melissa
                H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
                Jacqueline R. D'Alessandro, Deputy Attorney General,
                on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Appellant Spectrym Consulting Group, LLC (Spectrym), (d/b/a The Helix

Center), appeals from a December 7, 2021 final agency decision issued by

respondent New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC), denying its

application for a medicinal marijuana dispensary permit to operate an

Alternative Treatment Center (ATC). We affirm.

                                            I.

      We incorporate the background regarding the CRC's issuance of

dispensary permits to operate ATCs set forth in the back-to-back companion

cannabis permit cases presented to the panel on October 11, 2023. See I/M/O

Denial of the Dispensary Permit Endorsement for AP NJ Health, LLC, No. A-

0783-21, A-0943-21, A-1326-21 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2023) (slip op. at 2).1 In

our consolidated opinion on these back-to-back cannabis permit cases, we

described, in detail, the process adopted by the CRC for reviewing permit

applications to operate ATCs.

1
  While Rule 1:36-3 generally precludes reference to unpublished opinions, we
may refer to an unpublished decision for case history. See Animal Prot. League
of N.J. v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 423 N.J. Super. 549, 556 n.2 (App. Div. 2011)
(citing Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2 on R. 1:36-3
(2011)).

                                                                             A-1465-21
                                        2
        Briefly, the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-

1 to -56 (the Act), provides qualifying patients and their caregivers with

protection from arrest, prosecution, and other penalties for possessing cannabis

for medical purposes.       N.J.S.A. 24:6I-2(e).2   The Act also protects those

authorized to produce, process, and dispense marijuana pursuant to the statute 's

terms. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7. Initially, the Act charged the Department of Health

(DOH) with implementing New Jersey's Medical Cannabis Program (MCP).

This included creating a registry of qualified patients and issuing permits for the

operation of ATCs. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-4; N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1. The CRC has since

assumed management of the MCP. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-24(a).

        N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7(h)(3) requires that the CRC "seek to ensure the

availability of a sufficient number of [ATCs] throughout the State, pursuant to

need."    The CRC promulgated regulations, N.J.A.C. 17:30A-1.1 to -13.11,

providing the framework through which it issues Requests for Applications

(RFAs) for the operation of ATCs.

2
    All citations to the Act are to its current amended form, L. 2021, c. 252.

                                                                             A-1465-21
                                          3
      The Act was amended effective July 2, 2019,3 and now allows the CRC to

issue separate permits for entities to operate as medical cannabis cultivators,

manufacturers, or dispensers. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7(a)(1); N.J.A.C. 8:64-7.1(e). The

new N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.2(c), (d), and (e) set forth detailed lists of criteria the CRC

must use in evaluating applications for each type of permit.

      On July 1, 2019, the DOH issued an RFA, seeking applicants for the new

types of permits that would soon be available: five cultivation endorsements, 4

fifteen dispensary endorsements, 5 and four vertically integrated (VI)6

endorsements.     The RFA contemplated one VI, two cultivation, and five

dispensary endorsements each for the northern and central regions of the State,

and one VI, one cultivation, and five dispensary endorsements for the southern

3
  See L. 2019, c. 153. Because the RFA was issued one day prior to the
amendments' effective date, it is governed by the prior iteration of the Act.
4
 These endorsements are the functional equivalent of permits. Thus, the terms
were used interchangeably in the RFA.
5
 The CRC subsequently doubled the dispensary awards issued under the 2019
RFA from fifteen to thirty "to keep pace with expanding patient enrollment."
6
  VI endorsements allow an entity to grow, process, and sell marijuana as part
of the State's MCP.

                                                                              A-1465-21
                                         4
region.     The DOH received 198 applications for the various types of

endorsements, including 109 applications for dispensary permit endorsements.

        The 2019 RFA described the application.      Part A, titled "Mandatory

Information," included the applicant entity's organizational documents;

evidence of good standing with the Department of the Treasury; information

about principal officers, directors, owners, and board members; verification of

the approval of the municipality where the ATC would be located; evidence of

ownership or lease of the proposed site; and evidence of compliance with local

laws.

        Part B consisted of the "Scored Criteria" upon which applicants would be

judged. These criteria asked applicants to describe their proposed operations,

experience, security and quality control plans, financing, and other aspects of

running an ATC. Applicants were directed to file a PDF or printed document of

not more than 100 pages for each endorsement they sought for Part B.

        Once received, the DOH would "review [all applications] for

completeness and truthfulness" to determine "whether an applicant passe[d] or

fail[ed] a particular requirement in the mandatory section." If the DOH deemed

an application complete, its Part B would then be "reviewed and scored by a

selection committee" comprised of nine employees from the DOH, the

                                                                          A-1465-21
                                        5
Department of the Treasury, the Department of Environmental Protection, and

the Department of Labor.

      In September 2019, the selection committee members attended a training,

which included instruction on how they were to review applications. They also

were given detailed instructions for scoring each criterion and measure. The

instructions informed reviewers what to consider when evaluating applications

and when it was appropriate to give a score of zero, the maximum possible

points, or any score in between.

      To complete scoring of the applicants' Part B submissions, the CRC

divided the nine selection committee members into three teams of three, based

on their expertise, and assigned each team to review a specific group of criteria

and measures for which that expertise was relevant. Team One, which consisted

of Reviewers 2, 5, and 6, had experience in quality assurance, public health,

emergency preparedness, pharmaceutical assistance, fiscal management, public

affairs, and the management of environmental resources. This team reviewed

Criteria 1 through 5, which involved an applicant's "[a]bility to meet the overall

health needs of qualified patients and safety of the public"; "[h]istory of

compliance with regulations and policies governing government-regulated

marijuana programs"; "[a]bility and experience . . . in ensuring an adequate

                                                                            A-1465-21
                                        6
supply of marijuana"; "[c]ommunity [s]upport and [p]articipation"; and

"[a]bility to provide appropriate research data."

      Team Two, consisting of Reviewers 1, 8, and 9, had experience with

"regulation of the cultivation, manufacturing and dispensing of medicinal

cannabis."    These members reviewed Criterion 6, which considered an

applicant's "[e]xperience in cultivating, manufacturing, or dispensing marijuana

in compliance with government-regulated marijuana programs." For Teams One

and Two, an average was taken of the three reviewers' scores to create an

applicant's total score for each team's portion of the application.

      Team Three reviewed Criterion 7, which comprised four measures: Labor

Peace Agreement (LPA) ("to ensure the cultivation, manufacturing[,] and

dispensing of medical cannabis will not be disrupted by labor-related disputes");

Labor Compliance Plan; business development and minority-owned (MBE),

woman-owned (WBE), and veteran-owned business (VOB) certifications; and

workforce development. Reviewer 4, who had expertise in labor compliance,

scored Criterion 7, Measures 1 and 2. Reviewer 3, who had experience with

business development and MBE, WBE, and VOB business certifications, scored

Criterion 7, Measure 3.      Finally, Reviewer 7, who had experience with

workforce development, scored Criterion 7, Measure 4. Scores for this last set

                                                                           A-1465-21
                                        7
of measures were added together to create the total score for Team Three for

each application. Then, the scores for the three teams were added together,

generating the final composite score.

      Once all the committee members completed their review, their scores were

compiled into a "master spreadsheet." The entry of the reviewers' individual

measure scores was "checked at least twice and validated against each scorer's

scoresheet[s]" to ensure against mistakes.     Because the CRC had assumed

control of the MCP by this point, its staff conducted a quality control review

and audit.

      For its statistical audit, CRC staff "conducted a thorough statistical

analysis of each reviewer's scores, each team's composite scores, and the final

composite scores," "analyzed the distribution around the mean of the three

teams' scores," and "searched for any outliers in the final total scores." Only

two measure scores were found to be statistical outliers, and these were

"confirmed as validly and properly assigned." The analysis further revealed,

although there was "some variation between scorers on the same teams, . . . each

scorer was consistent with the distribution of their scores across the whole pool

of applications." Stated differently, while one reviewer on a team may have

                                                                           A-1465-21
                                        8
awarded lower scores than the others, these scores were consistently lower,

rather than showing great internal differences between the best and worst.

      On November 10, 2021, the CRC issued a memorandum entitled "General

Responses to Debrief Questions," explaining the scoring process.               The

memorandum also noted the selection committee was divided into teams to take

advantage of members' differing expertise and "so that no one selection

committee reviewer had control over an application's overall score."

      Additionally, the memorandum addressed questions posed by applicants

about the scoring of certain criteria and measures. For example, on Criterion 7,

Measure 3 (MBE, WBE, or VOB certification), the memorandum advised that

applicants providing a Department of Treasury certification received the full

thirty points allotted for this measure. In the absence of a Department of

Treasury certification, a partial credit score up to twenty-five points was

awarded if the applicant provided evidence that it would otherwise meet the

MBE, WBE, or VOB certification requirements "once generating revenue."

However, a score of zero was to be given on this measure "to applicants with no

certification and that submitted no evidence supporting their ability to qualify

in the future, or their involvement of minorities, women, or veterans in their

leadership." The memorandum also stated, "[l]ike the scores of other reviewers,

                                                                             A-1465-21
                                       9
Reviewer 3's scores were analyzed for statistical consistency and reviewed for

compliance with scoring instructions and the RFA instructions."          Further,

Reviewer 3's "scores were found to be consistent across applicants, consistent

with the scoring instructions and RFA instructions, and reflective of the

reviewer utilizing their unique expertise to evaluate the information submitted

by applicants."

        Because reviewers worked independently and did not discuss their scores,

there    was   some    variation   among    scores   given   to   applicants   by

different reviewers on the same measures. The November 10 memorandum

discussed the quality control review and audit CRC staff performed to ensure

that any such variance "was the result of an intentional, reasonable review of an

application and not the result of a misunderstanding of the scoring instructions,

or an inconsistent approach by a reviewer." Moreover, the memorandum stated,

"[d]isagreement among reviewers on the relative merits on a response 'd[id] not

mean the scores [we]re inherently wrong or improperly delivered.'"

        On December 7, 2021, the CRC awarded thirty dispensary permits to those

applicants with the highest scores. Out of a possible score of 300 points, the

scores for the dispensary permit applicants "ranged from 273.33 points to 103.67

points."   The ten applicants who were awarded dispensary permits for the

                                                                           A-1465-21
                                       10
southern region had scores ranging from 266.33 to 205. Spectrym received a

composite score of 156, the fourth lowest score overall. Accordingly, the CRC

denied Spectrym's application for a dispensary permit.

      Spectrym timely submitted a grievance to the CRC, expressing concern

about the denial of its application, and asking, in part, that the CRC provide

Spectrym with "a breakdown of each category's points" so Spectrym could "see

how [it] was scored and see how the approved dispensaries were scored."

      On January 14, 2022, the CRC emailed a response to Spectrym's grievance

and stated to the extent a question or grievance was "addressed in other materials

previously provided to the public by the CRC, those materials [we]re referenced

and cited" in the CRC's January 14 email "to direct [Spectrym] to the appropriate

documents where [its] concern ha[d] been addressed." The CRC specifically

referred Spectrym to its "recommendation report packet and supporting

documents,         including         the        scoring        criterion         at

https://www.njgov/cannabis/businesses/medicinal/."        Additionally, the CRC

addressed Spectrym's grievance that it should have been awarded thirty points

on Criterion 7, Measure 1 based on Spectrym's submission of an LPA with its

application, stating a review of Spectrym's application revealed that "a letter of

support was provided with reference to a neutrality agreement, [but] no actual

                                                                            A-1465-21
                                       11
[LPA] was submitted for review" for Criterion 7, Measure 1, "resulting in the

score provided by the reviewers."

                                             II.

       On appeal, Spectrym contends "the CRC erred in denying Spectrym a

license to operate a medicinal marijuana [ATC] because the scoring of its

application was arbitrary and capricious." Additionally, it argues "Spectrym's

composite scores . . . for Criteri[a] 1 Through 6 are unreliable" and "fatally suffer

from an extraordinarily high error rate."          Further, Spectrym contends "the

Reviewers improperly failed to comply with the RFA in evaluating Criterion 7,

thereby depriving Spectrym of a substantial amount of points." In that vein, it

argues "Reviewer 7 improperly failed to credit the [LPA] that Spectrym

submitted, resulting in a wrongful denial of [thirty] points" and "Reviewer 3

improperly awarded [zero] points for Criterion 7[,] Measure [37] regarding

[MBE, WBE,] or [VOB] certification." Finally, Spectrym contends "the CRC

failed to disclose the basis for its decision." These arguments are unavailing.

       Our review of an agency decision is limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19,

27 (2007). An administrative agency's final quasi-judicial decision "will be

sustained unless there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or

7
    Spectrym mistakenly refers to this Measure as "Measure 4."
                                                                              A-1465-21
                                        12
unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs.,

Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo v. Bd. of

Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)).

      When reviewing whether an agency decision is arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable, we consider: (1) whether the agency action violated "express or

implied legislative policies"; (2) whether there was substantial evidence in the

record to support the agency's decision; and (3) whether in applying the law to

the facts, the agency reached a conclusion "that could not reasonably have been

made on a showing of the relevant factors." Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J.

Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208

N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). If the agency satisfies these requirements, we "owe[]

substantial deference to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a

particular field." Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28.

      We may depart from such deference "when an agency's decision is

manifestly mistaken." Outland v. Bd. of Trs. of the Tchr.s' Pension & Annuity

Fund, 326 N.J. Super. 395, 400 (App. Div. 1999). However, there is a "strong

inclination" to "defer to agency action that is consistent with the legislative grant

of power." Lower Main St. Assocs. v. N.J. Hous. & Mortg. Fin. Agency, 114

N.J. 226, 236 (1989). This preference "is even stronger when the agency has

                                                                               A-1465-21
                                        13
delegated discretion to determine the technical and special procedures to

accomplish its task." In re Application of Holy Name Hosp. for a Certificate of

Need, 301 N.J. Super. 282, 295 (App. Div. 1997). Our Legislature's delegation

of power to an agency is "construed liberally when the agency is concerned with

the protection of the health and welfare of the public." Barone v. Dep't of Hum.

Servs., 210 N.J. Super. 276, 285 (App. Div. 1986). Accordingly, "[t]he burden

is on the party challenging the validity of an agency's decision to demonstrate

that the action was arbitrary, capricious[,] or contrary to a legislative purpose."

In re Application of Holy Name Hosp., 301 N.J. Super. at 295.

      We also "defer to an agency's technical expertise, its superior knowledge

of its subject matter area, and its fact-finding role." Messick v. Bd. of Rev., 420

N.J. Super. 321, 325 (App. Div. 2011). Such deference "is only as compelling

as is the expertise of the agency, and this generally only in technical matters

which lie within its special competence."       In re Application of Boardwalk

Regency Corp. for a Casino License, 180 N.J. Super. 324, 333 (App. Div. 1981).

Pertinent to this appeal, the CRC, as the successor agency to the DOH, has the

discretion to decide "whether the issuance of a permit to a particular applicant

would be consistent with the purposes of [N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16]," and to

determine "the kind and amount of information necessary to process permit

                                                                             A-1465-21
                                       14
applications." Nat. Med., Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 428 N.J.

Super. 259, 263 (App. Div. 2012).

      An administrative agency should "articulate the standards and principles

that govern [its] discretionary decisions in as much detail as possible." Van

Holten Grp. v. Elizabethtown Water Co., 121 N.J. 48, 67 (1990) (quoting Crema

v. N.J. Dept. of Env't Prot., 94 N.J. 286, 301 (1983)). An agency must make

findings "to the extent required by statute or regulation[] and provide notice of

those [findings] to all interested parties." In re Issuance of a Permit by Dep't of

Env't Prot. to Ciba-Geigy Corp., 120 N.J. 164, 173 (1990). However, "[a]ll of

the evidential data" submitted to an agency "need not be repeated or even

summarized, nor need every contention be exhaustively treated."              In re

Application of Howard Sav. Inst. of Newark, 32 N.J. 29, 53 (1960). A decision

"is sufficient if it can be determined from the document without question or

doubt what facts and factors led to the ultimate conclusions reached." Ibid.

Even where an agency's findings are not as "full and well organized" as they

could be, if we are able to understand the meaning of, and the reasons for, the

decision, there is no reason for a remand. Ibid.

      Mindful of these well-established principles, we turn to the facts of this

case, recognizing Spectrym does not dispute it had the fourth lowest score

                                                                             A-1465-21
                                       15
overall among all applicants seeking a dispensary permit. However, it relies on

our decision in In re Application for Medicinal Marijuana Alternative Treatment

Center for Pangaea Health and Wellness, LLC, 465 N.J. Super. 343 (App. Div.

2020), to assert the CRC tolerated too great a level of "relative error" 8 in the

scoring process, leading to an outcome that was arbitrary and capricious. This

argument fails.

         The record in this matter is far different from that in Pangaea. In Pangaea,

the DOH only provided applicants with scores without any "why and wherefore"

to support its selections. Id. at 375. But here, the CRC thoroughly explained its

scoring and quality control processes, both in its November 10, 2021 General

Responses to Debrief Questions and its December 7, 2021 memorandum to all

2019 RFA applicants. Further, the CRC provided detailed information to the

applicants about the expertise of each member of the selection committee.

         Additionally, the CRC did more than check the selection committee's

mathematics and the accuracy of the data entry in its score spreadsheets. Its

staff:    "search[ed] for odd or outlying scores that could unfairly skew the

8
   Relative error is a statistical concept that here, measures the difference
between scores given on the same measure by different reviewers. Low relative
error would mean that all reviewers gave the same or similar scores, while 100%
relative error would mean that one reviewer gave a perfect score, and another
gave a zero. Pangaea, 465 N.J. Super. at 364.
                                                                               A-1465-21
                                         16
results," id. at 381; checked the scores given against the RFA and scoring

instructions to ensure reviewers complied with both; and performed a statistical

analysis. Thus, the CRC took many steps to improve its scoring process for the

2019 RFA, compared to the deficient procedures we criticized in Pangaea. It

also responded directly to Spectrym's questions and grievances in its January

14, 2022 letter. Therefore, we reject Spectrym's contention that the CRC's

scoring of Spectrym's application was arbitrary and capricious or that the CRC

"failed to disclose the basis for its decision."

      Next, Spectrym argues the scores it received on Criteria 1 through 6, as

well as Criterion 7, Measures 3 and 4, were erroneous or unreliable. We are not

convinced.

      Although it is unnecessary to address each criterion and measure

Spectrym contests, we discuss some of the criteria and related measures at issue

to provide context for our opinion. As already noted, Teams One and Two

reviewed Criteria 1 through 6. Spectrym argues Team One should have given

Spectrym a higher score under Criterion 1, Measure 1, which instructed

Spectrym to "provide an acceptable safety and security plan, including [a]

staffing and site plan, and a detailed description of proposed security and safety

measures, which demonstrates compliance with the rules at N.J.A.C. 8.64."

                                                                            A-1465-21
                                        17
According to the CRC, "Spectrym's security plan [wa]s unquestionably robust

and well-designed, and its narrative answer to this prompt [wa]s largely

responsive." However, Spectrym's response did "not discuss its staffing plan,"

so it received a composite score of 8.33/10 points. We discern no error in this

regard.

      Spectrym also contends it deserved a higher score under Criterion 1,

Measure 2, which directed applicants to "provide a plan explaining how the

proposed ATC would minimize negative environmental impacts." Spectrym

argues Reviewer 2 unjustifiably awarded it one point on this Measure.

      As the CRC noted in its November 10, 2021 General Responses to Debrief

Questions, "[s]everal applicants inquired about perceived discrepancies

regarding Reviewer 2, who provided lower scores than the other two reviewers

on Team [One]."       However, the CRC also determined Reviewer 2 was

"consistently a more conservative scorer than Reviewers 5 and 6. . . . and the

variation resulting from lower scores from Reviewer 2 [wa]s simply reflective

of that reviewer's reasonable evaluation of each applicant's submitted

documentation." Moreover, the CRC found "a statistical analysis of all three

[r]eviewers" on Team One "show[ed] a consistent distribution of scores and . . .

that all three reviewers scored in a statistically consistent manner."

                                                                          A-1465-21
                                       18
      Therefore, Reviewer 2's comparatively lower score on Criterion 1,

Measure 2, in and of itself, does not lead to a conclusion that Spectrym's

composite score on this measure was arbitrary or capricious. We also note that

on Criterion 1, Measure 2, the CRC found "Spectrym's environmental impact

plan discusse[d] disposal of cannabis products via secure transport back to the

'origin of purchase,'" but it did "not discuss the energy needs it expect[ed] to

have, or how it w[ould] mitigate the negative impacts of those energy needs."

Accordingly, we cannot conclude Spectrym's composite score of 5.67/10 on

Criterion 1, Measure 2 was arbitrary or capricious.

      Likewise, considering the CRC's thorough analysis of Reviewer 2's

overall scores, and its ultimate conclusion Reviewer 2 provided a "reasonable

evaluation of each applicant's submitted documentation," we are not satisfied

we should disturb the scores Spectrym received on Criterion 2, Measure 1

(background of principals, board members, and owners) or Criterion 3, Measure

1 (financing plan), despite the fact Reviewer 2 gave Spectrym comparatively

lower scores than Reviewers 5 and 6 on these criteria and measures.

      Here, the record reflects that on Criterion 2, Measure 1, the CRC

determined two of the individuals Spectrym listed in its application were

"merely 'potential' advisory board members" and the "'security film and camera

                                                                          A-1465-21
                                      19
business' professional" Spectrym mentioned had no "experience working in

regulated industries." Further, as to Criterion 3, Measure 1, the CRC found

Spectrym did "not provide any proof of funds for capital it allegedly had on

hand . . . at the time[,] nor the source or proof of committed funds for the

additional $1.5 million it claim[ed] it would be funded with if approved for a

permit." Thus, we are not persuaded Spectrym's composite scores of 16.33/20

and 12.76/20 points, respectively, on Criterion 2, Measure 1, and Criterion 3,

Measure 1, were awarded in error.

      Similarly, we reject Spectrym's argument that Reviewers 7 and 3

improperly awarded it zero points on Criterion 7, Measures 1 and 3,

respectively.   Regarding Criterion 7, Measure 1, applicants were asked to

"provide a signed [LPA] that include[d] provisions to ensure the cultivation,

manufacturing[,] and dispensing of medical cannabis w[ould] not be disrupted

by labor-related disputes." The instructions also stated "[f]ailure to provide a

signed agreement w[ould] result in a score of [zero] for this measure." Spectrym

admits it committed "a formatting error," and "attached [a] cover letter t o the

[LPA] directly after its response to Criteri[on] 7, Measure 1," rather than the

LPA itself. Still, it contends it should have been awarded thirty points on this

measure because it provided a signed LPA elsewhere in its application.

                                                                          A-1465-21
                                      20
      The CRC counters that Spectrym attached its LPA "to a wholly distinct

measure" and no reviewer was "required to presume that Spectrym meant for an

agreement included elsewhere in its application to also be considered responsive

to [Criterion 7,] Measure . . . 1." We are satisfied the CRC has the better

argument.

      Next, applicants addressing Criterion 7, Measure 3 were instructed to

"provide a copy of certification(s) issued by the Department of the Treasury,

Division of Revenue which verifies MBE/WBE certification or VOB

certification, or evidence that the applicant would otherwise meet the

MBE/WBE certification or VOB certification requirements once generating

revenue."      Applicants submitting "evidence of meeting the criteria in the

future . . . receive[d] partial credit, based on the strength of the evidence." But,

as we mentioned, a score of zero was to be given "to applicants with no

certification and that submitted no evidence supporting their ability to qualify

in the future, or their involvement of minorities, women[,] or veterans in their

leadership."

      Although Spectrym concedes it was not entitled to thirty points on

Criterion 7, Measure 3 because it "is not a minority or women[-]owned

business," it argues it was "entitled to partial credit for this Measure" because

                                                                              A-1465-21
                                        21
its application reflected it "currently ha[s] a woman . . . on [its] advisory board"

and it "intend[ed] to 'expand on the number of minorities and/or additional

women on [its] [a]dvisory [b]oard.'" But considering Spectrym provided no

certification nor evidence to support its ability to qualify for a certification in

the future, as the CRC points out, we discern no basis to second-guess the score

of zero points on this criterion and measure.

      In sum, Spectrym has not established the CRC's decision to deny

Spectrym's application for a medicinal marijuana dispensary permit to operate

an ATC was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Thus, we have no reason to

disturb the December 7, 2021 final agency decision.

      Any remaining arguments raised by Spectrym lack sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                              A-1465-21
                                        22