Since 2002, when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg won control of the New York City school system, the Department of Education has awarded a record number of no-bid contracts, also known as exceptions to competitive bidding.

Under Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein’s watch, several companies have repeatedly scored millions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts. We took a look at some of them to find out why.

In an era when students and schools are rated based on standardized test scores, it comes as no surprise that the Department of Education requires contracts for testing and test preparation, which, in 2007, accounted for nearly one-quarter of the $90 million spent on no-bid contracts.

Princeton Review and Kaplan Learning Services are the two Goliaths in educational test preparation and student testing. Both companies have been awarded a number of competitively bid contracts by the Department of Education.

Between 2002 and 2007, the Department of Education also awarded over $21 million in no-bid contracts to Princeton Review to provide test preparation and student testing.

Looking at the Department of Education’s own guidelines for exceptions to competitive bidding, we were hard pressed to see why any of the Princeton Review contracts were no-bids, especially when other companies essentially provide the same services.

In 2004, for example, Princeton Review received a $7 million no-bid contract to help train math teachers in the Bronx. Department officials said the contract was not put out to bid because the company was “uniquely qualified” to provide the service.

This was news to Kaplan, The Daily News wrote.

“We would absolutely have bid on such a contract,” Kaplan spokeswoman Melissa Mack told The News. “That’s exactly the kind of service we provide in New York and across the country.”

Some in the media speculated that Princeton Review was awarded the no-bids because of Klein’s ties to them.

Before becoming chancellor, Klein was chairman and chief executive officer or Bertelsmann, Inc., which owns Random House Ventures - Princeton Review’s parent company. This has left critics questioning whether cronyism comes into play with no-bid contracts, especially since the Committee on Contracts approves no-bids in private, without public debate.

In an interview last month, Executive Director of Contracts and Purchasing David N. Ross, who chairs the committee, acknowledged that the meetings where contracts like Princeton Review are discussed and awarded are done behind closed doors.

But he quickly dismissed the idea that cronyism exists at the department, assuring that the process remains transparent.

“So the fact that we don’t have a public meeting is not, in my view, to suggest that we don’t have a public process,” he said.

Some experts have a different opinion.

Before coming to New York University, Robert Tobias, director of the Center for Research, Teaching, and Learning, was the executive director of assessment and accountability for the old Board of Education. During his more than 30 years with the board, he handled every aspect of student testing, including procurement of materials and services. He maintains that the burden is on the Department of Education to be transparent and accountable.

“When you’re dealing with public monies, you should have a process of procurement that is squeaky clean and does not raise any questions of favoritism or nepotism or any of that,” Tobias said. “This is not private industry; this is public dollars.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the more than 1.4-million-member American Federation of Teachers, said that the New York City schools procurement process should be more transparent, especially when the same companies are awarded contracts without bidding, time and time again.

“Some of these contracts may be terrific, but the no-bid process raises issues of secrecy, transparency and accountability,” she said, in an interview last year. “The bidding process must be open and completely above reproach. An open process is a necessary check and balance against patronage, cronyism and self-dealing.”