NEW SHARON – A New Sharon contractor is appealing selectmen’s decision to award a contract to another company, saying they didn’t follow legal bid procedures and the award to the highest bidder was arbitrary and capricious.

Town officials say they followed the bid process to award the snow plowing and snow and ice removal contract and deny any wrongdoing.

Robert T. Ames of New Sharon said Wednesday that his appeal is not about money but about following proper bid procedures and complying with the law.

Ames’ attorney filed the appeal Aug. 30 in Franklin County Superior Court in Farmington against the town of New Sharon, Selectmen James Smith, Maynard Webster and Russell Gardner, and party-in-interest Edward J. Pond of EJ Pond & Sons in New Sharon.

Pond bid about $139,000 for the contract and Ames about $134,000, Ames said. First Selectman Jim Smith said Thursday that the bid figures sounded about right but he didn’t have his paperwork at home.

The appeal asks the court to review the town’s award of the contract due to its failure to grant the contract to Ames, the low bidder.

Ames, who had a two-year contract with an option on a third-year, said selectmen opted not to take the third year of the contract, which was for 2007-08. They sent him a letter informing him of the decision and told him it wasn’t personal, Ames said Wednesday.

Ames’ bid for the third-year of the initial contract was $121,000, he said. He said could not bid on the new bid contract as written because his insurance company could not write a bond with the selectmen’s new stipulations. He submitted a bid for 2007-08 using the original 2006-07 format.

Ames alleges in his appeal that subsequent to the July 23 deadline for bid submission, selectmen altered and amended the terms of the bid specifications without notice to Ames or others bidders, except Pond, which violates the town and board’s stated procedures.

Ames claims that had they accepted his bid, the town would have “saved thousands of dollars per year” in snow plowing and snow and ice removal costs.

The appeal alleges violation of the Freedom of Access Act. It claims the selectmen’s conduct in the bid decision failed to: comply with Maine’s Freedom of Access Act; provide proper public notices of any town meeting discussing the contract, bids for the contract, or award the contract; and properly vote on the award of the contract in an open, public forum.

It also claims the defendants’ bid decision and award of the contract was made outside of the public meeting forum that is required for such bid decisions and contractual awards.

Ames requests in his appeal that award of the contract be declared null and void and that he be granted his attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, interested, civil penalties, and any other relief the court deems just. The appeal alleges the defendants’ award of the contract to Pond and not the low bidder was arbitrary and capricious and not based on any economic or other legitimate reason.

Ames asks the court that he be granted the contract and costs incurred filing the appeal.

Smith said selectmen followed bid procedure and advertised for bids and opened the two bids they received during a regular selectmen’s meeting in public, which everybody is welcome to come to. Smith also said they didn’t go with the low bidder due to complaints they had received.

Smith declined any more comment on the case, which has turned over to the town’s attorney, Frank Underkuffler.

Pond was unavailable for comment Thursday.