Feds Back Harvard In Grant Dispute

The Federal government ruled this month that a prestigious contract given to the Graduate School of Education last fall was not awarded improperly, but a rival school whose protest initiated an investigation which led to the ruling is appealing the decision.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) dismissed both of Bank St. College's major objections, including charges that the director of the National Institute of Education acted incorrectly in personally awarding $7 million to the Ed School for a school-technology center.

The GAO ruled that NIE director Manuel J. Justiz did have the authority to overrule a technical review panel's recommendation that the contract be given to the New York college.

Such an action is uncommon but the ruling stated that, "The director's actions were proper and that his selection decision was consistent with the solicitation's requirements and is reasonably supported by the record. We therefore deny the protest."

The review panel had given Bank St. slightly higher marks for technical merit and economy but Justiz is understood to have chosen Harvard because of the large scope of its proposal and its greater resources.

The second part of Bank St's protest charged that an NIE official broke the law by informing Harvard and MIT another competitor for the contract, that their bids were about $2 million over the NIE's estimate for the project.

Both Harvard and MIT subsequently lowered their bids to near the NIE $7.7 million figure but Bank St was not told that it had underbid and its proposal carried a $4.5 million price tag throughout the contract competition.

The GAO ruled that although the NIE's contract officer did break the agency's rules, the regulations were designed only as "matters of internal policy graduate." Because it was not a question of law the violation is not grounds for disallowing the contract.

It is this part of the ruling on which Bank St. is focusing its appeal. In owners filled Friday afternoon, attorneys for Bank St. argue that the regulations should be considered binding and request the GAO to reverse its decision.

GAO officials said such appeals are common, but they added that few are successful because the agency is reluctant to reverse its decisions without significant new information. Bank St. officials are aware that the odds are against them are high but say that while the expect to lose they want to "go on record as not agreeing with what the GAO says about the regulations."

The appeal process will take at least six months, GAO officials said last week.

Weiss Review

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources Rep. Ted S. Weiss (D.N.Y.) represents Bank St.'s district and is also planning to have the committee review the GAO's ruling. An aide for Weiss said the congressman suspects that the college may be right and that the regulations should be considered binding.

It will be several months before the committee releases its positions on the GAO ruling, the aide said.

"If the regulations are not binding then something should be done to make them binding, otherwise there is no point having regulations," said the side.

At no point in the protest proceedings was Harvard ever accused of any wrongdoing, but the University spent a good deal of time and effort defending its position that it was qualified to receive the contract and that all its dealings with the NIF had been above board.

"The government's actions in awarding the contract to Harvard has been thoroughly reviewed and been found to be entirely proper. We are naturally very pleased," said the University's deputy general counsel Martin Michaelson, who handled Harvard's legal involvement in the case.

The school technology center is one of 11 such centers being set up around the country to study how best to use technology, mostly computers, to improve elementary and secondary school education.

In its first nine months of operation the Harvard center has earned a strong reputation in the education community. It is seen as a leading proponent of the philosophy that schools should determine their educational goals first and then find technology that best meets their needs, rather than trying to adapt curriculum to the technology available.