Sec. 10.54.03.18. Vendor Appeals

A. Except as otherwise provided in this regulation, the procedures set forth in COMAR 10.01.03, and not the procedures set forth in COMAR 10.01.06, govern appeals by vendors and vendor applicants.

B. Notice.

(1) Not less than 15 days in advance of the effective date of the proposed Program action, the Program shall provide notice to a vendor applicant, or vendor whose application is proposed to be denied or authorization is proposed to be disqualified, on the right to a hearing on the proposed denial or disqualification.

(2) The Program shall provide notice that complies with the requirements set forth in COMAR 10.01.03.

C. Request for Hearing.

(1) A vendor or vendor applicant shall preserve the right to a hearing, if a hearing is desired, by filing a written request for a hearing with the Director of the Program within 10 days of the receipt of the notice of proposed disqualification or denial.

(2) The Program shall consider a request for a hearing filed on the earlier of the dates it is:

(a) Received by the Program; or

(b) Postmarked by the United States Postal Service.

D. Hearings.

(1) The Office of Administrative Hearings shall have jurisdiction over the hearings provided in this regulation.

(2) If a hearing is requested, the agency shall hold the hearing pursuant to:

(a) Health-General Article, §§18-107(a) and 18-108, Annotated Code of Maryland;

(b) State Government Article, Title 10, Subtitle 2, Annotated Code of Maryland;

(c) COMAR 10.01.03;

(d) COMAR 28.02.01; and

(e) This chapter.

E. A vendor may not appeal the following actions:

(1) Disqualification from WIC resulting from a violation of Regulation .15B(1)(m) of this chapter;

(2) The State agency's decision as to whether a participant hardship exists;

(3) The expiration of a vendor agreement;

(4) The State agency's determination to include or exclude an infant formula manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or retailer from the required list of infant formula suppliers;

(5) The validity or appropriateness of the State agency’s prohibition of incentive items and the State agency’s denial of an above 50 percent vendor’s request to provide an incentive item;

(6) The State agency's determination whether to notify a vendor in writing when an investigation reveals an initial violation for which a pattern of violations must be established in order to impose a sanction;

(7) The validity or appropriateness of the State agency’s selection criteria for competitive price, including, but not limited to, vendor peer group criteria and the criteria used to identify vendors that are above 50 percent vendors or comparable to above 50 percent vendors;

(8) The State agency's determination whether a vendor had an effective policy and program in effect to prevent trafficking and that the ownership of the vendor was not aware of, did not approve of, and was not involved in the conduct of the violation;

(9) Disputes regarding payments and vendor claims, not including the opportunity to justify or correct a vendor overcharge or other error; or

(10) The validity or appropriateness of the State agency's vendor selection criteria.