Science Committee Seeks Stronger Anti-Harassment Measures in NSF Antarctic Contract

A yearslong investigation by the House Science Committee has concluded that the National Science Foundation was “absent and unengaged” in its management of the U.S. Antarctic Program, directly contributing to the mishandling of sexual assault and harassment.

The committee is now pushing NSF to revise its plans for a new Antarctic management contract, including establishing more agency oversight for subcontractor policies and investigations and factoring in prevention response when evaluating potential contractors. The new contract will replace Leidos’s contract, which expires on March 31, 2025, and is NSF’s largest, valued at $2.3 billion over 13 years.

“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,” Science Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) wrote in a letter to NSF this month, referring to the agency’s draft solicitation for the new contract, which was published in July.

Asked for comment on the letter, an NSF spokesperson said, “We value the committee’s work and are looking closely at each of the recommendations, many of which already align with actions NSF has taken, and continues to take, to prevent and address sexual assault and harassment in the U.S. Antarctic Program.”

The committee began investigating the USAP in 2017, then again in 2022 following the release of the NSF-commissioned Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and Response (SAHPR) report, which found that 59% of women in the study had a negative experience with sexual assault or harassment in the USAP. It also found significant mistrust of human resource departments among the contracted workforce stemming from their perceived failure to respond appropriately to sexual assault and harassment.

Since last November, committee staff have reviewed thousands of pages of documents from NSF and Leidos and had conversations with USAP victims and witnesses. This investigation culminated in the committee’s finding that NSF allowed Leidos to mismanage the program. The committee argued that NSF does not deploy enough staff to Antarctica to effectively oversee Leidos and its subcontractors. According to the committee, NSF typically only has two staff in Antarctica at a time, out of the roughly 3,000 people who deploy to the continent each year. The committee also found that NSF did not keep track of or enforce its own policies banning contract and code of conduct violators from its bases.

The committee criticized Leidos’s management as well, which they found lacked a consistent reporting structure and guidance on investigative procedures, both for the company itself and subcontractors. The subcontractors that operated under detailed structures and training did so of their own accord and not by any contract requirement, the committee found. “As an experienced government contractor, there is no justification for Leidos’s abject failure to hold its subcontractors to adequate standards befitting such an important contract,” the letter states.

However, the letter ultimately attributes these failures to NSF, stating that agency’s confusing reporting structure, lack of oversight in investigations, and culture of fear of retaliation for reporting have been “a part of the USAP culture” under at least the past three prime contractors. “This further indicates the problems stem from the common denominator — the agency in charge of the program,” the letter continues. “NSF therefore is ultimately to blame for the confusion, inconsistency, and mistreatment experienced by USAP participants who reported harassment, assault, and retaliation.”

The committee noted that NSF has implemented positive changes to the USAP since the 2022 report, such as providing a confidential victim advocate, mandating that Leidos and subcontractors routinely inform NSF of reports of harassment and assault, collaborating with the NSF Office of Inspector General on law enforcement response, and meeting biweekly with the prime contractor to discuss issues relating to sexual assault and harassment. NSF has also since established the Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention and Response program office as a center for reporting and resources.

NSF also said it agreed with the recommendation in OIG’s September report to require contractor policies related to sexual harassment, reporting, and investigations as a contract deliverable. The committee letter takes this proposal a step further, recommending NSF include sexual assault and harassment prevention and response policies in the scoring criteria and performance evaluation metrics for prospective prime contractors.

The letter recommends more concrete oversight mechanisms for subcontractors’ SAHPR policies and investigations. It also recommends ensuring that investigators are properly trained, suggesting that NSF consider coordinating with an independent investigation entity.

The letter further calls for NSF maintain a list of contractor employees who have been subjected to the agency’s three-year ban on travel to Antarctica for sexual assault or harassment violations and that the prime contractor be similarly empowered to remove and ban violators from USAP facilities. NSF told the committee that it cannot maintain such a list, but the committee disagreed. “Removing an employee from USAP and NSF-controlled facilities does not infringe on an alleged perpetrator’s employment rights, nor does it force a contractor to terminate that employee,” the letter states.

At the last National Science Board meeting in July, NSF provided an update on plans to bolster anti-harassment activities in Antarctica. The steps underway include filling the positions in the SAHPR program office over the next year and recruiting and training more victim advocates over the next two years.