


An administrative law judge this week upheld Iowa's decision to award its state testing contract to American Institutes of Research. 

The ruling could pave the way for AIR to develop new statewide tests for Iowa's students. Iowa leaders have sought a new exam for years, but budget and political snags have delayed progress.

New exams would replace the Iowa Assessments in grades 3-11 in math and reading, and grades 5, 8 and 10 in science to better align with what's taught in schools.

AIR competitor NCS Pearson challenged the contract over questions about the bidding process.

Wednesday's ruling by Judge David Lindgren said that there is no evidence that a decision to remove certain costs while reviewing test proposals "was underhanded or subterfuge to elevate a lower-scoring but more desirable bidder to the top." 

"The record in this case establishes that this process was sufficiently fair, open and objective," the judge wrote.

The AIR proposal selected by the state scored 531 out of 700 possible points. The bid price was $36.3 million.

Pearson, meanwhile, had a score of 430 out of 700 points, and a cost of $21.7 million. 

When ranked both on test offerings and price, state officials believed AIR had the best proposal.

The state was concerned about Pearson's "unusually low" cost. Jay Pennington, a state education bureau chief, and Nancy Wheelock, a state purchasing agent, independently reviewed the company's proposal and "discovered certain inconsistencies." 

A spreadsheet provided to companies by the state contained internal formulas that added up component costs. Pennington and Wheelock question whether Pearson had intentionally changed the internal formula, the order says.

When subtotals were added manually, Pearson's bid was $2 million more than stated.


The state had asked companies to share whether they could translate the assessment into Spanish and American Sign Language, the two languages officials required, as well as Arabic, Bosnian, Burmese, Karenic and Vietnamese. 

Administrators removed the optional translation cost item from bids to create an "apples-to-apples" comparison, a move that Pearson questioned.

Because Pearson's original total "did not include the optional translations ... the state did not need to remove it from their grand totals," while it did for other vendors.

It's not unprecedented for companies to remove optional items while reviewing bids, the judge noted.

During the hearing, a senior vice president for Pearson testified that she was unaware that a company pricing analyst had manipulated the spreadsheet to remove the optional translation item without authorization. 

She said Pearson's bid was substantially lower because the company "wanted to maintain a close relationship with and presence in Iowa" by offering the test at cost. 

Parties can appeal the administrative law judge's decision within 15 days.

Read or Share this story: