(Washington, D.C.) – Today, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee leaders Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) sent a letter to Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), recommending several changes to the NSF’s solicitation for the Antarctic Science and Engineering Support contract. These recommendations follow the committee’s extensive investigation into the widespread culture of sexual harassment and assault in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP).
“Over the course of our investigation, NSF did make changes and took concrete steps to improve the culture in the USAP as well as the reporting and support structures for victims of harassment and assault,” Lucas and Lofgren said. “However, more must be done. We believe the existing draft solicitation released in July 2024 should go further to harmonize sexual harassment and assault reporting structures and protect victims from retaliation. We strongly recommend several changes to the solicitation based on the Committee’s investigative findings.”
In the letter, Lucas and Lofgren outline the Committee’s investigative findings over the past several years, underscoring NSF's significant failure to appropriately manage the USAP. The Committee also detailed Leidos’s mismanagement as the prime contractor operating the USAP and subcontractors’ lack of consistent policies, leading to disparate outcomes for victims.
“These investigative efforts have led us to the conclusion that sexual harassment, assault, and retaliation will not be properly addressed without additional policy changes that are tailored to the unique needs of the USAP,” Lucas and Lofgren noted.
Following a recent meeting with NSF staff to discuss the draft solicitation language for the USAP contract, the Committee reiterated that improvements must be made. “The Committee is not convinced that the changes to the contract language go far enough to establish sexual assault and harassment prevention as a priority of NSF. Nor does the Committee believe the contract language effectively communicates these priorities to the prospective applicants.”
The Committee strongly urges that NSF incorporate the following recommendations:
- NSF should ensure that investigators are properly trained and consider coordinating with an independent investigation entity.
- NSF should provide a concrete oversight mechanism of the subcontractors’ Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention Response (SAHPR) policies and investigatory procedures.
- NSF should provide a concrete oversight mechanism for the agency to audit any investigation.
- NSF should maintain the list of contractor employees banned from working in the USAP.
- NSF should clarify the language describing the conditions for a three-year prohibition from deployment.
- NSF should ensure the Prime Contractor maintains the same authority to remove individuals from the USAP under the three-year ban provision.
- NSF should reference the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) right of first refusal in the contract language and the statement of work.
- NSF should clearly inform all contractors of the federal retaliation remedies and ensure that anti-retaliation training policies are provided to ensure protections to employees in the USAP.
- NSF should include SAHPR in the scoring criteria and performance evaluation metrics, and NSF should elaborate on the SAHPR-related deliverables in the Statement of Work.
- NSF should make clear the “flow down” policies within the contract that apply to each subcontractor.
Lucas and Lofgren concluded, “The Committee is committed to addressing this issue and we believe that these recommendations will help to bring forth the necessary changes to the USAP if implemented effectively. We will review the final solicitation once released later this fall and look forward to seeing the changes incorporated.”
Read the full letter to Dr. Panchanathan here.
See the Committee’s past work on the USAP investigation here.
Read More:
Leidos December 6, 2023 Response to the Committee
NSF December 8, 2023 Response to the Committee