deprived of their right to pursue their livelihood and practice their profession as pharmacists without being afforded the required due. process. Focusing on the accreditation requirement in RFP No. 31-06, Stanton-Negley asserts that DPW was fully aware that accreditation was not required of existing providers of specialty pharmacy drugs and that the accreditation process was lengthy; nevertheless, DPW included scription drugs was not terminated as a participant in a Medicaid Program, a lowering of its reimbursement rates for those drugs did not violate protected rights). Finally, Stanton-Negley has no protected property right to submit a bid in response to an RFP. See Durkee Lumber Co., Inc. v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 903 A.2d 593 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (<HOLDING>). Although Stanton-Negley undoubtedly is
holding that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure holding that the awardee of a contract may not challenge the decision to terminate that contract by invoking the courts bid protest jurisdiction holding that a denial of a bid protest without holding a hearing did not deprive a disappointed bidder of any property rights because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a government contract unless the contract actually is awarded holding that in the postaward context a disappointed bidder lacked standing to bring a protest action when its submission was nonresponsive to the solicitation holding that unsuccessful bidder is awarded its bid preparation costs because the government violated its implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered 