Court Opinion

ID: 9911275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 19:07:07.661627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:58.707008
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1472-21

IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL
OF A DISPENSARY PERMIT
ENDORSEMENT TO GUADCO2
LLC     TO     OPERATE       AN
ALTERNATIVE         TREATMENT
CENTER PURSUANT TO THE 2019
REQUEST     FOR    APPLICATION
PROCESS.
________________________________

                Argued November 8, 2023 – Decided December 19, 2023

                Before Judges Whipple, Mayer and Enright.

                On appeal from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory
                Commission.

                John W. Bartlett argued the cause for appellant
                GuadCo2 LLC (Murphy Orlando LLC, attorneys; John
                W. Bartlett, Jason F. Orlando, and Tyler Newman, on
                the briefs).

                Jacqueline R. D’Alessandro, Deputy Attorney General,
                argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Cannabis
                Regulatory Commission (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
                General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
                Attorney General, of counsel; Jacqueline R.
                D’Alessandro, on the brief).
PER CURIAM

      Appellant GuadCo2 LLC (GuadCo) 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) pursuant to

the 2019 Request for Applications (RFA). GuadCo's appeal challenges the

CRC's scoring of its application regarding the criteria designed to ensure

diversity in issuing medicinal cannabis permits, known as Criterion Seven,

Measure Three. Specifically, GuadCo contends the score it received under

Criterion Seven, Measure Three, addressing women-owned businesses, was

arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. We affirm.

      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 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2023); I/M/O Denial of Dispensary Permit

Endorsement for Green Leaf Medical of New Jersey, LLC, No. A-0943-21 (App.

Div. Dec. 8, 2023); I/M/O Denial of Dispensary Permit Endorsement for NJ

                                                                        A-1472-21
                                      2
Holistic Health, LLC, No. A-1326-21 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2023).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.

      The RFA established an August 21, 2019 deadline for applicants seeking

a dispensary permit. The RFA declared the deadline to be "absolute," noting

that late filed applications would not be reviewed. The RFA also required all

materials relevant to the review of an application to be provided by the deadline.

      The CRC assigned teams to review each dispensary permit application.

Each team, consisting of selection committee members with relevant experience

or expertise in a specific field, reviewed and scored a specific portion of the

application.

      Relevant here, Reviewer Three scored Criterion Seven, Measure Three

regarding an applicant's status as a minority-owned business enterprise (MBE),

women owned business enterprise (WBE), or veteran owned business (VOB).

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-1472-21
                                        3
According to the CRC, Reviewer Three had expertise in business development

and minority, women, and veteran-owned businesses.          Consistent with the

directions provided with the RFA and the CRC's scoring instructions, Reviewer

Three awarded points to applicants under Criterion Seven, Measure Three.

      Reviewer Three awarded a full thirty-point score under Criterion Seven,

Measure Three to applicants providing a MBE/WBE certification from the

Department of Treasury's Division of Revenue. Those applicants lacking a

Department of Treasury certification could receive a partial credit score based

on the strength of the evidence supporting the applicant's claim to be a n MBE,

WBE, or VOB. To receive partial credit, an applicant needed to demonstrate it

would "meet the criteria [for certification] once generating revenue."

      In awarding a partial credit score, Reviewer Three "was instructed to use

their expertise to determine appropriate partial credit, based on the strength of

the evidence provided in the application and their knowledge of the statutes and

rules governing the . . . certification process[]." Additionally, in evaluating

Criterion Seven, Measure Three, Reviewer Three was directed to consider only

those persons or entities with an ownership interest of five percent or greater as

listed in Part A, Question 20 of the RFA.

                                                                            A-1472-21
                                        4
      After the applications were scored, the CRC audited the scores for

statistical consistency and reviewed the scores for compliance with the scoring

and the RFA instructions. The CRC also reviewed the scoresheets for accuracy

and interviewed the scorers. The CRC's analysis confirmed "the overall scores,

scores delivered by specific reviewers, and [whether] scores from each team

were consistent and distributed in accordance with a normal and expected

statistical curve."

      In a November 10, 2021 memorandum entitled "General Responses to

Debrief Questions," the CRC explained the scoring process. The memorandum

addressed questions raised by applicants, including concerns about the scoring

of Criterion Seven, Measure Three. 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."

      Additionally, the memorandum provided examples of circumstances

where an applicant received only a partial credit score, such as: stating the

applicant possessed or would apply for certifications from entities other than the

                                                                            A-1472-21
                                        5
Department of Treasury, Division of Revenue 2; submitting information

responsive to Part B of the application that contradicted the ownership

information provided in Part A of the application or was inconsistent with

certification requirements; providing certifications for a related entity rather

than the current applicant; presenting a certification as its own where the

certification was actually registered to a different entity; stating it did not meet

certification requirements but would otherwise attempt to promote inclusivity

and diversity in the future; or failing to submit sufficient information to

determine whether it could qualify for a certification in the future.           The

memorandum further explained Reviewer Three's scores complied with the

scoring instructions and were "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."

      GuadCo timely filed an application for a dispensary permit in the Central

region of the State. As of the filing deadline, GuadCo lacked a Department of

2
  The CRC previously advised that only "certifications from the . . . Department
of the Treasury's Division of Revenue ad Enterprise Services" would be
considered in support of WBE status and declined to accept similar certifications
from third-party organizations.
                                                                              A-1472-21
                                         6
Treasury certification as a WBE. Because it lacked that certification, in the

alternative, GuadCo stated it would "meet the criteria [for certification] once

generating revenue."

      In its response to Part A of the RFA, GuadCo attached a copy of its

corporate formation document, entitled Limited Liability Company Agreement

of GuadCo2 LLC (LLC Agreement). GuadCo also attached copies of three

subscription agreements.

      GuadCo's application, specifically its response to Part A, Question 20,

identified the following female owners who purportedly owned a majority of the

company: Patricia Baldwin Gregory, GuadCo's president and general counsel;

Joan Guadagnino, GuadCo's chief operating officer and manager; and Sheila

Baldwin-Cohen, an investor. In answering Criterion Seven, Measure Three of

the RFA, GuadCo claimed the company had 53.8% female ownership.

      The three subscription agreements attached to Part A of GuadCo's

application were dated August 2, August 7, and August 8, 2019.             The

subscription agreements identified those pledging investment funds to GuadCo:

Neal Pearlstine with a pledge of $600,000; Green Acres Investors LLC (Green

Acres) with a pledge of $600,000; and Sheila Baldwin-Cohen with a pledge of

$500,000.   GuadCo was to receive a total of $1.7 million from the three

                                                                         A-1472-21
                                      7
subscribers. By signing the subscription agreement, each investor agreed to be

"legally bound by . . . the LLC Agreement."

      On August 9, 2019, after the signing of the subscription agreements,

GuadCo executed the LLC Agreement.            The LLC Agreement authorized

GuadCo to issue 40,000 "Class A Common Units" (Common Units) and 17,500

"Series A Preferred Units" (Preferred Units). Additionally, the LLC Agreement

allowed the "Manager" to "authorize and issue additional units and additional

classes of units." The LLC Agreement defined the holder of one or more

Common Units as a "Common Member," and the holder of one or more Preferred

Units as a "Preferred Member." The LLC agreement also defined "Member" as

including Common and Preferred Members.

      The LLC Agreement further provided:

            Each of the Members has contributed or will contribute
            cash to the capital of the LLC, in the amount set
            forth . . . in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Initial
            Contributions"). Each Member in exchange for such
            Member's Initial Contribution to the capital of the LLC
            shall receive the number of Units set forth opposite [its]
            name in Exhibit A. . . . A Member['s] . . . interest in
            the LLC shall be represented by the Unit or Units held
            by such Member . . . . Two and one-half percent (2.5%)
            of the Initial Contribution has been paid with the
            execution and delivery of this Agreement. Each
            Member shall pay the remainder of its Initial
            Contribution within fifteen (15) days of receipt of
            notice that the LLC has been awarded a Permit.

                                                                         A-1472-21
                                        8
      Exhibit A attached to the LLC Agreement identified the following

Members of GuadCo: Joan Guadagnino (12,750 Common Units, 22.5%

ownership); Dr. Victor Guadagnino (7,083.5 Common Units, 12.5% ownership);

Victor Guadagnino, Jr. (7,083.5 Common Units, 12.5% ownership); Patricia

Gregory (12,750 Common Units, 22.5% ownership); and "Investors" (17,000

Preferred Units, 30% ownership). 3

      Although Pearlstine, Green Acres, and Baldwin-Cohen signed the

subscription agreements before the LLC Agreement's execution, Exhibit A

attached to the LLC Agreement did not identify them by name. Instead, Exhibit

A allocated 17,000 Preferred Units for the Member named "Investors."

Nowhere in the LLC Agreement, Exhibit A attached to the LLC Agreement, nor

the subscription agreements was the term "Investors" defined. Additionally, the

LLC Agreement failed to establish the price or value for a Preferred Unit.

Moreover, nothing in the subscription agreement, LLC Agreement, or Exhibit A

to the LLC Agreement assigned any Preferred Units specifically to Baldwin-

Cohen.

3
  The LLC Agreement identified 17,500 Preferred Units. However, Exhibit A
to the LLC Agreement allocated only 17,000 Preferred Units to the identified
Members.
                                                                         A-1472-21
                                      9
      Additionally, N.J.A.C. 17:30A-7.1(b)(2)(iv) required GuadCo to provide,

in response to Part A, Question 20 of the RFA, "[a] list of all persons or business

entities having five percent or more ownership."          GuadCo identified the

following individuals: Patricia Gregory; Joan Guadagnino; Victor Guadagnino

Jr.; Dr. Victor Guadagnino Sr.; Sheila Baldwin-Cohen; and Neal Pearlstine.

Despite Green Acres signing a subscription agreement and pledging $600,000

to the company, GuadCo did not identify Green Acres as an investor in response

to Part A, Question 20 of the RFA.

      In its response to the financing plan requirement under Criterion Three,

Measure One of the RFA, GuadCo stated:

            Sheila Baldwin-Cohen . . . and several [other] investors
            have pledged to provide equity investment funds of
            $1,700,000 for the build out and operations of the
            Dispensary until stabilization.      GuadCo2 LLC's
            operating agreement is submitted pursuant to Part A of
            this application . . . . See Attachment 2 (Subscription
            Agreements evidencing the financial commitments to
            [GuadCo].

      In its response to Criterion Four, Measure One of the RFA regarding

owners' ties to the local community, GuadCo stated "Sheila Baldwin-Cohen . . .

owns 8.8% of [GuadCo]."

      In its response to Criterion Seven, Measure Three of the RFA, GuadCo

stated, "[a]t least [fifty-one percent] of the ownership of [GuadCo] will be held

                                                                             A-1472-21
                                       10
by women," including an 8.8% ownership interest held by Sheila Baldwin-

Cohen. GuadCo further stated: "In addition to the above ownership interest,

several of our family and friends small investors will be women, each owning

[one-quarter of one percent] to [one percent] of [GuadCo]; it is expected that at

least an additional [five percent] of [GuadCo] will be women-owned in this

fashion."

      On November 18, 2021, well after the application deadline, GuadCo

received a WBE certification from the Department of Treasury.            GuadCo

forwarded the certification to the CRC's executive director.

      On December 7, 2021, GuadCo received a score of one out of a possible

thirty points under Criterion Seven, Measure Three as a WBE. With a total score

of 212 points, GuadCo failed to achieve a sufficiently high score to be awarded

a dispensary permit for the Central region.

      On December 10, 2021, GuadCo filed a formal grievance with the CRC.

In the formal grievance, GuadCo claimed it "arbitrarily and unjustifiably

received a score of [one] out of [thirty] for [the MBE/WBE Certification

Measure,] despite being a 53.8% women-owned and women-operated company

and having provided evidence of the same in [its] application . . . ."

                                                                           A-1472-21
                                       11
      In its January 14, 2022 response to GuadCo's grievance, the CRC noted

scores were "based on the point in time of which the application was submitted

and if a valid certification was awarded by the N[ew] J[ersey] Department of

Treasury's Division of Revenue & Enterprise Services." The CRC referred to

GuadCo's response to Part B of the application, indicating that GuadCo would

proceed with the paperwork for a certification in the event it was awarded a

dispensary permit. The CRC also directed GuadCo to its published scoring

instructions and related documents to explain the scoring criteria.

      GuadCo appealed the CRC's denial of its request for a dispensary permit.

On appeal, GuadCo contends the CRC improperly scored its response to

Criterion Seven, Measure Three, regarding the company's WBE status.

Additionally, GuadCo asserts the CRC's scoring of other similarly-situated and

differently-situated applicants and its denial of GuadCo's application for a

dispensary permit were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We reject these

arguments.

      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

unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs.,

                                                                             A-1472-21
                                       12
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 Tchrs' 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 presumption that an agency's decision is reasonable

"is even stronger when the agency has delegated discretion to determine the

                                                                               A-1472-21
                                        13
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).

      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).

      The CRC, as the successor agency to the Department of Health for

issuance of medicinal cannabis permits, 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 applications." Nat. Med., Inc. v. N.J.

Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 428 N.J. Super. 259, 263 (App. Div. 2012).

                                                                             A-1472-21
                                       14
      We first address GuadCo's argument that the CRC's failure to award at

least a partial credit score of twenty-five points under Criterion Seven, Measure

Three was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. GuadCo argues the LLC

Agreement and Baldwin-Cohen's subscription agreement demonstrated its

satisfaction of the requirements for a WBE certification. We disagree.

      N.J.A.C. 17:30A-6.4(a) provides: "The [CRC] . . . shall evaluate and

score each application based on the quality of the applicant's submission, and its

conformity to the notice of [RFAs] published in the New Jersey Register."

Under the governing regulations, an applicant could earn partial credit by

presenting evidence they would meet the WBE certification requirements upon

generating revenue.

      In the scoring instructions for Criterion Seven, Measure Three, Reviewer

Three was instructed to award the full thirty points only to applicants who

provided the required certification from the Department of Treasury.          The

scoring instructions stated:

            If the applicant fails to supply a certification because
            they are a brand[-]new entity with no revenue, but
            supplies evidence they may meet the criteria once
            generating revenue, the scorer can [give] partial credit
            (up to 25 pts) based on the strength of the evidence
            provided. A score of 0 [] should only be given to
            applicants with no certification and that submitted no
            evidence supporting their ability to qualify in the

                                                                            A-1472-21
                                       15
            future, or their involvement of minorities, women[,] or
            veterans in their leadership. In lieu of a certification,
            scorers should consult Part A, Question 20 when
            assessing this measure. Individuals not listed on Part
            A, Question 20 should not be considered in the
            evaluation of this measure. 4

      GuadCo claims reading the LLC Agreement and Baldwin-Cohen's

subscription agreement together demonstrated GuadCo had more than fifty

percent ownership allocated to women. GuadCo asserts that if Reviewer Three

had considered its entire application and performed a simple mathematical

calculation, they would have concluded GuadCo satisfied the MBE/WBE

portion of the RFA to be awarded the full thirty points or, at a minimum, a partial

credit score of twenty-five points. Further, GuadCo contends that had it been

awarded at least twenty-five points under Criterion Seven, Measure Three, it

would have received a dispensary permit for the Central region. We disagree.

      Assuming, for the sake of argument, GuadCo divided the 17,000 Preferred

Units identified in Exhibit A attached to its LLC Agreement among the three

subscription agreement investors proportional to their investments, GuadCo had

the following ownership: Patricia Gregory (22.5%); Joan Guadagnino (22.5%);

4
  Part A, Question 20 requested the names, birthdates, addresses, positions, and
pay/compensation of all owners, principals, partners, investors, members, board
members, directors, trustees, and officers.

                                                                             A-1472-21
                                       16
Dr. Victor Guadagnino, Sr. (12.5%); Victor Guadagnino, Jr. (12.5%); Sheila

Baldwin-Cohen (8.8%); Neal Pearlstine (10.6%); and Green Acres (10.6%). To

acquire additional female investors, as suggested in GuadCo's response to

Criterion Seven, Measure Three of the RFA, presumably GuadCo would need

to issue additional units, thereby diluting the ownership interest of existing unit

owners or, alternatively, purchase shares from existing unit owners such as

Baldwin-Cohen. Therefore, reading the entirety of GuadCo's responses to the

RFA, including the attachments, GuadCo's suggested simple arithmetic for

calculating the percentage female ownership is flawed.

      Furthermore, the CRC's scoring instructions provided "[i]ndividuals not

listed on Part A, Question 20 should not be considered in the evaluation of

[Criterion Seven, Measure Three]." GuadCo did not list Green Acres as an

investor in its answer to Part A, Question 20; however, GuadCo provided a copy

of Green Acres's subscription agreement identifying it among the "Investors"

under Exhibit A to the LLC Agreement.

      Presuming GuadCo divided the issue number of Preferred Units among

the three subscription agreement investors proportionally to their investments,

Reviewer Three would be unable to calculate Baldwin-Cohen's true ownership

interest based on GuadCo's response to Part A, Question 20, submission of

                                                                             A-1472-21
                                       17
Exhibit A attached to the LLC Agreement, and inclusion of the three

subscription agreements submitted by GuadCo with its application.

      Moreover, GuadCo provided no evidence the 17,000 Preferred Units

would be distributed among the three subscription agreement investors in

proportion to their investments. Despite the dating of the three subscription

agreements prior to the execution of the LLC Agreement, GuadCo never named

Pearlstine, Green Acres, or Baldwin-Cohen in the LLC Agreement or Exhibit A

to the LLC Agreement.

      Based on the foregoing information, a review of GuadCo's application

revealed inconsistent or contradictory information, including the following: (1)

GuadCo distributed the 17,000 Preferred Units to Pearlstine, Green Acres, and

Baldwin-Cohen proportional to their investments under the subscription

agreements; (2) GuadCo distributed the 17,000 Preferred Units to Pearlstine and

Baldwin-Cohen, but not Green Acres, proportional to their investments under

the subscription agreements; (3) GuadCo distributed the 17,000 Preferred Units

to Pearlstine, Green Acres, and Baldwin-Cohen proportional to their

investments per the subscription agreements but anticipated diluting the

ownership of the existing investors; or (4) GuadCo reserved the 17,000 Preferred

Units for an undefined class of "Investors," potentially including Pearlstine,

                                                                          A-1472-21
                                      18
Green Acres, and Baldwin-Cohen, which it intended to distribute in some

undefined manner in the future.

      If GuadCo is asserting the first scenario, distribution of the 17,000

Preferred Units to Pearlstine, Green Acres, and Baldwin-Cohen proportional to

their investments under the subscription agreements, such an assertion is

unsupported by the LLC Agreement, Exhibit A to the LLC Agreement, or

GuadCo's response to Part A, Question 20.

      If GuadCo is asserting the second scenario, its claim could be supported

by Exhibit A to the LLC Agreement coupled with GuadCo's response to Part A,

Question 20. However, there is no evidence GuadCo distributed the 17,000

Preferred Units solely to Pearlstine and Baldwin-Cohen.

      If GuadCo is asserting the third scenario, its claim could be supported by

its response to Criterion Seven, Measure Three. However, such an assertion

lacks the required evidentiary support identified with the second scenario.

      If GuadCo is asserting the fourth scenario, reservation of 17,000 Preferred

Units for an undefined class of "Investors," to be distributed in some undefined

manner at some undetermined time, GuadCo's documents and responses to the

RFA could support such a conclusion. However, nothing in the LLC Agreement,

Exhibit A attached to the LLC Agreement, or the subscription agreements

                                                                           A-1472-21
                                      19
identified the "Investors." Nor do GuadCo's corporate formation documents

provide for the allocation of units amount the "Investors." Further, the LLC

Agreement suggests there will be other investors, holding between .25% and 1%

of the company, without stating whether additional units will be issued or

reallocated among the undefined "Investors."

      Here, GuadCo failed to provide clear and unambiguous proof that it had

more than fifty percent women ownership such that it would qualify for a WBE

certification once it became a "going concern," generating revenue as required

by N.J.A.C. 17:46-1.3(d). GuadCo's responses to different sections of the RFA

were inconsistent as to the ownership interest of the "Investors." Thus, o n this

record, we are satisfied the CRC decision to award only one point of partial

credit to GuadCo under Criterion Seven, Measure Three was not arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable.

      Because we are satisfied that the partial credit award of one point in

response to Criterion Seven, Measure Three was appropriate based on the

information GuadCo submitted with its application, we need not address

GuadCo's arguments concerning the partial credit scores awarded to other

applicants. Each applicant received a score based on the information, or lack

thereof, in response to each measure. We decline to second-guess the scoring

                                                                           A-1472-21
                                      20
awarded to other applicants, particularly because the record lacks complete

copies of the other RFA submissions for dispensary permits in the Central region

which received partial credit scores of twenty-five points or a full score of thirty

points.

      We next consider GuadCo's argument that the CRC's decision lacks

support in the record based on substantial evidence. We disagree.

      An agency "must set forth basic findings of fact, supported by the

evidence and supporting the ultimate conclusions and final determination";

however, "[a]ll of the evidential data [before it] need not be repeated or even

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

Sav. Inst. of Newark, 32 N.J. 29, 52, 53 (1960).         An agency decision "is

sufficient if it can be determined . . . without question or doubt what facts and

factors led to the ultimate conclusions reached." Id. at 53.

      Here, the CRC's decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence,

specifically GuadCo's internally inconsistent responses in its application for a

dispensary permit. The CRC advised that applicants ineligible for a Department

of Treasury WBE certification would receive only a partial credit score. The

CRC also verified the scoring provided by Reviewer Three, and found their

scoring consistent with the CRC's scoring instructions. Additionally, the CRC

                                                                              A-1472-21
                                        21
provided detailed information explaining its decision, including its November

10, 2021 memorandum and its January 14, 2022 response to GuadCo's

grievance. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied there was substantial

evidence to support awarding GuadCo a partial credit score of one under

Criterion Seven, Measure Three.        Thus, the CRC's denial of GuadCo's

application was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

      Any remaining arguments raised by GuadCo lack sufficient merit to

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

      Affirmed.

                                                                       A-1472-21
                                      22