1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007-3835 | 202.403.5000 | TTY 877.334.3499 | www.air.

org

July 9, 2014

Laura Slover
CEO
PARCC
1400 16th Street NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Slover:

I am writing in hopes that we can resolve the issues around the New Mexico procurement. As
you know, we believe that the procurement stifled competition, rather than encouraged it. We
believe that competition will serve everyone well. Of course assessment providers like AIR
benefit, but PARCC states and their students are the biggest beneficiaries of competition.
Competition drives innovation and lowers costs. Without competition, it is unlikely that PARCC
will drive the innovation necessary to provide all students equal access to an appropriate online
test. Without competition there is no force driving innovations or keeping prices in check.

The original RFP did not provide PARCC states with the benefit of competition. The work in
year 1 of the original RFP could only be won by Pearson. It required all bidders to use the
Pearson software for the first year of the contract. Of course, only Pearson was in a position to
credibly do so. We protested the RFP, and asked that the first year of work be separated from
the subsequent years, allowing real competition for years 2-8. Ultimately, Pearson submitted the
only bid.

The New Mexico State Purchasing Agent recently denied our protest. We are confident that an
appeal will overturn his determination for many reasons, including the following:

The agent mistakenly argued that the RFP did not require the use of Pearsons software
the first year. The public record is clear that PARCC had contracted with Pearson to use
their proprietary system, and that it was PARCCs intent to do so. New Mexico itself
stated so in response to a question about the RFP, the Pearson contract is a matter of
public record, and PARCCs own documentation confirms this fact.
New Mexico contracting law requires specific agreements to be in place when purchasing
cooperatively for other states. These agreements were not in place, forcing the State
Purchasing Agent to argue that the procurement was not a multi-state cooperative
agreement. This argument does not hold water, given that the RFP 1) included provisions
identified as specific to the state of New York, and 2) did not establish prices if fewer
than 5.6 million students are served under the contract, even though New Mexico has
fewer than 300,000 students.
Laura Slover
July 9, 2014
Page 2 of 2


1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007-3835 | 202.403.5000 | TTY 877.334.3499 | www.air.org
The purchasing agent characterized the contract as a multi-state pricing agreement,
despite the fact that the contract contains no agreed-upon price if fewer than 5.6 million
students are served, and a price for a smaller number of students must be separately
negotiated. Furthermore, outside of cooperative agreements, New Mexico law contains
no provisions for interstate pricing agreements.

We prefer not to impede PARCCs progress in any way, and believe that education in the
country will benefit from the PARCC assessments. To support competition, we ask that you
work with New Mexico to

1. limit the Pearson contract to one year, and hold a free and open competition (or state-by-
state competitions) following that; or
2. limit the Pearson contract to two years, and authorize other assessment companies to
deliver the PARCC items and the PARCC assessments starting immediately, provided
that those companies pay fair license fees and work with PARCC to ensure that the
integrity and comparability of the test is preserved.

PARCC and your member states will benefit from competition and from resolving this issue
without litigation. New Mexico law provides for a 30-day appeal period. It is my sincere hope
that we can come to resolution within that time.

Respectfully,



Jon Cohen
President, AIR Assessment