Very few people outside the process used by the Baldacci administration to lease Maine’s wholesale liquor business will know whether the process was fair and to what extent the state followed established standards for bidders. But enough serious questions have been raised about the selection and more than enough doubts publicly expressed about the value of the contracts that the administration should go beyond the customary practice of its appeals process and review for the public how it arrived at both its decisions.

Based on the appeals of Maine Liquors of Augusta and MaineCentric of Auburn, a hearing is scheduled for Feb. 23. The fact that a hearing has been scheduled doesn’t mean the selection process was flawed, but Maine Liquors makes several well-supported allegations that clearly demand a state response. Some of those are procedural. For instance, it asserts that no member of the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over alcoholic beverages was included in the meetings on the bids, as is required. And it charges that the bid winner, Martignetti Cos. of Massachusetts, was allowed to change its bid after it was submitted and that this change affected the scoring. Third, it says the state accepted an inadequate letter of credit from Martignetti, also in violation of its rules.

The state may be able to sort out these issues quickly, but they require a response. More difficult will be the question of how service, the most heavily weighted factor in the bidding process, was scored by the state. Both Martignetti and Maine Liquors received 37 of 40 possible points for service (the total number of points possible for all components was 100). In its proposal Martignetti offers a range of interactive, electronic inventory and ordering systems. Maine Liquors offers current in-state service and single-bottle ordering on all supplies, which is especially important to small agents. There are many other differences as well, and because the results of the bidding were identical in this important category of an expensive contract, the state should be open to thoroughly considering the concerns raised by the unsuccessful applicants.

And it should be equally forthcoming in its assessment of the value of its lease agreement. The $125 million deal gives Maine money it needs up front, but cuts off a significant supply of income for the next decade. The administration’s budget work sheet on the lease suggests a value to the leasing that will never materialize. It is important for lawmakers to understand what they have given up and to ask whether there were better means for obtaining the same up-front revenue.