Sweetener In IIM Pact

Global testing service provider Prometric sweetened its bid proposal to the IIMs for the contract to computerise CAT with an offer to support a research chair — a matter unrelated to the examination.

The firm, which won the contract to conduct the computerised CAT for five years, made the offer in its final proposal to the IIMs, which swung the deal for Prometric and away from three other contenders.

The research chair at the IIMs would be named after Prometric and its parent firm, the US-based Educational Testing Services, says the firm’s proposal, accessed by The Telegraph from the B-schools through the Right to Information Act.

The sub-committee of the IIMs on the computerisation of CAT lauded Prometric’s “clarity on financial considerations”, according to the minutes of the November 20-21, 2008, meetings where it picked the firm as the service provider.

Prometric managing director Soumitra Roy, who signed the firm’s proposal, including the suggestion for a research chair, was not available for comment.

Details of the Prometric proposal for a research chair were not disclosed by the IIMs, which have also withheld parts of the section titled “delivery fees”, where the financial deal between the firm and the institutes is detailed.

Although Prometric is a private entity not covered by the RTI act, documents available with public authorities such as the IIMs can be sought under the law if they relate to a process like a public examination.

The IIMs have also withheld the corresponding section — “delivery fees” — in the statement of work (SOW) they signed with Prometric on April 21, 2009, after awarding it the contract, based on the firm’s proposal.

The contract specifies that the SOW contains details of the financial deal between the institutes and Prometric. The IIMs have denied this information, even though the B-schools are public bodies receiving government grants.

This information would establish whether a proposed research chair unrelated to CAT formed a component of the financial deal finally signed by the IIMs and the testing service provider.

But the offer itself, coupled with the denial of details by the IIMs, are significant because none of the other three firms shortlisted for the contract made any similar offer, their proposals suggest.

Prometric’s competitors — the Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC), Eduquity Career Technologies Limited and Attest Testing Services Limited — stuck to matters related to CAT.

Apparent inconsistencies between the evaluation of the bidders and the scores they were awarded by the IIM selection panel on the basis of their evaluation also raise questions about the selection process.

As reported by The Telegraph, the IIM selection panel had expressed concerns on Prometric’s “lack of exposure to large-scale tests” after the firm’s presentation.

But despite the concerns, the IIM panel rated Prometric highest among the four contenders on the parameter of scalability — when they did not express concerns on experience of at least two competitors (GMAC and Eduquity). Prometric scored eight out of a maximum 10 on the scalability parameter, while Eduquity was marked six and GMAC seven.

The selection panel also noted, in the minutes of the meeting where they picked Prometric, that the firm suffered from a “lack of exposure to B-school tests”. In contrast, the panel listed “B-school entrance test experience” as a “merit” that favoured GMAC — which conducts the Graduate Management Admission Test that top B-schools across the US and Europe use to admit students.

But again, this evaluation was not reflected in the comparative scores earned by Prometric and GMAC. In parameters relating to the ability to construct, design and deliver the computerised CAT, and the “understanding of IIM objectives”, Prometric outscored GMAC — which has constructed, designed and delivered a global computerised B-school test for years.

The scores under different parameters helped Prometric secure a higher total than (60 out of a maximum 80) than its competitors, and win the contract.