**Committee of Visitors Report\
\
ON THE\
\
Polar Research Support Section**

**\
OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS\
National Science Foundation**

**Review Period: 1998, 1999, and 2000**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Page

*Executive Summary [I](#executive-summary)*

1.0 The Process [1](#the-process)

1.1 Focus A "Setting Science Support Priorities and Environmental
Stewardship"
[1](#focus-a-setting-science-support-priorities-and-environmental-stewardship)

1.2 Focus B "Resource Balance Between Support for Science Programs and
Infrastructure Upgrade and Maintenance"
[1](#focus-b-resource-balance-between-support-for-science-programs-and-infrastructure-upgrade-and-maintenance)

1.3 Focus C "Tasking, Oversight and Review of Contractors - Both
Governmental\
and Private"
[2](#focus-c-tasking-oversight-and-review-of-contractors---both-governmental-and-private)

1.4 Focus D "Government Performance and Results Act and the Polar
Research\
Support Section Committee of Visitors Process"
[2](#focus-d-government-performance-and-results-act-and-the-polar-research-support-section-committee-of-visitors-process)

2.0 Discussion of the Focus Areas [2](#discussion-of-the-focus-areas)

2.1 Focus A " Setting Science Support Priorities and Environmental
Stewardship"
[2](#focus-a-setting-science-support-priorities-and-environmental-stewardship-1)

2.1.1 Efficiency of the Logistic Planning Process
[2](#efficiency-of-the-logistic-planning-process)

2.1.1.1 New Proposer Workshops [4](#new-proposer-workshops)

2.1.1.2 Users Groups [4](#users-groups)

2.1.1.3 Improved Data Exchange [4](#improved-data-exchange)

2.1.2 Environmental Stewardship [4](#environmental-stewardship)

2.2 Focus B "Resource Balance Between Support for Science Programs and
Infrastructure Upgrade And Maintenance"
[6](#focus-b-resource-balance-between-support-for-science-programs-and-infrastructure-upgrade-and-maintenance-1)

2.2.1 The Balance of Science and Infrastructure
[6](#the-balance-of-science-and-infrastructure)

2.2.2 Management of South Pole Station Construction Projects
[7](#management-of-south-pole-station-construction-projects)

2.2.2.1 Science Support Metric [9](#science-support-metric)

2.2.2.2 Office of Polar Programs Construction Policies
[9](#office-of-polar-programs-construction-policies)

2.2.2.3 LC-130 Support [10](#lc-130-support)

2.3 Focus C "Tasking, Oversight and Review of Contractors - Both\
Governmental and Private"
[10](#focus-c-tasking-oversight-and-review-of-contractors---both-governmental-and-private-1)

2.3.1 Mix of Contractors [10](#mix-of-contractors)

2.3.1.1 Outsourcing of Air Logistics Support
[11](#outsourcing-of-air-logistics-support)

2.3.2 Performance Measures [11](#performance-measures)

2.3.3 Tasking and Oversight [12](#tasking-and-oversight)

2.3.3.1 Master File Index [13](#master-file-index)

2.4 Focus D "Government Performance and Results Act and The Polar
Research Support Section Committee of Visitors Process"
[13](#focus-d-government-performance-and-results-act-and-the-polar-research-support-section-committee-of-visitors-process-1)

2.4.1 Government Performance and Results Act
[13](#government-performance-and-results-act)

2.4.2 Committee of Visitors Process [13](#committee-of-visitors-process)

Specific Questions For the PRSS Committee of Visitors
[16](#specific-questions-for-the-prss-committee-of-visitors)

**ACRONYMS**

AMANDA Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array

ARO Atmospheric Research Observatory

ASA Antarctic Support Associates

CEP Committee on Environmental Protection

COV Committee of Visitors

DASI Degree Angular Scale Interferometer

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

NSF National Science Foundation

OAC Office Advisory Committee

OPP Office of Polar Programs

ORW Operational Requirements Worksheet

PRSS Polar Research Support Section

RSP Research Support Plan

RPSC Raytheon Polar Services Company

SIP Support Information Package

SPRESO South Pole Remote Earth Seismic Observatory

SPSE South Pole Safety & Environment

SPSM South Pole Station Modernization

USAP United States Antarctic Program

# Executive Summary

The performance of the National Science Foundation\'s Polar Research
Support Section (PRSS) is most directly judged by assessing the
effectiveness of the Office of Polar Programs (OPP) in accomplishing its
primary mission \~ conducting science in Antarctica. While research
support operations can and will be judged on metrics of efficiency,
productivity, on-time performance, and cost effectiveness, it is the
more intangible measures related to the quality, impact, and relevance
of Antarctic science that the success of PRSS should ultimately be
judged against. In all measures of performance, it is the Committee of
Visitors' assessment that Antarctic science is strong, it is relevant,
it is cutting edge, and it is by far the best being performed in the
world today. The Committee, therefore, concludes that PRSS is
accomplishing its major objectives as reflected in the state and health
of U.S. Antarctic science. Given the challenging environment, the
complex network of stations and facilities, the fleets of vehicles of
all kinds, the extensive infrastructure, supply lines that extend
virtually around the world, and not least of all, the human resources
provided by PRSS, it is even more impressive that their presence is
often taken for granted by the ultimate end users - the National Science
Foundation-supported scientists. The question must be asked; could the
accomplishments of the scientists be achieved if PRSS were not there \~
the answer is clearly no.

The Committee of Visitors (COV) reaches these conclusions based in part
on the recent COV Report on the OPP Science Programs and, in part, on
personal experiences. The Science COV reviewed the outputs and outcomes
of the National Science Foundation's investments and concluded that the
portfolio of research projects supported by OPP is very good. It
consists of projects in almost every field of science and includes
exciting examples of innovation. While it was noted that some projects
can only be conducted in the polar regions and have primarily polar
significance, many projects contribute fundamental knowledge to
understanding global processes, such as climate change, far beyond the
region where the studies are conducted. The Science COV Report says it
best:

*\"...Office of Polar Programs* *has excellent program performance in
terms of discoveries at and across the frontiers of science and
engineering\... the breadth and scientific impact of the discoveries are
outstanding. Significant discoveries have been made in both disciplinary
and interdisciplinary studies\...long-term data sets (have)\...
contributed directly to major discoveries\....\"*

Discoveries include enhancing our understanding of the behavior of the
earth system, providing cosmological insights into the origins of the
universe, and documenting ecosystem responses to climate change.
Specific important discoveries include: measurement of cosmic microwaves
generated at the time of the creation of the universe, recognition of
recent major fluctuations in sea ice cover, revision of our
understanding of atmospheric sulfur chemistry, recognition of ancient
volcanic eruptions in the Ross Sea, and the mapping of sub-glacial lakes
under more than four kilometers of the East Antarctic ice sheet. The
creation of new knowledge and techniques within and across traditional
boundaries as a result of OPP awards and PRSS support include:
descriptions of global scale primary productivity, definition of the
role of clouds in atmospheric warming and melting of sea ice, discovery
of fish anti-freeze genes that link evolution with climate history, and
the use of Antarctic ice as a detector of high energy particles. It is
clear that these discoveries required substantial and complex logistical
support from PRSS and the excellence of the science produced says
volumes about the effectiveness of PRSS.

This Committee of Visitors report concludes that: a) the science support
provided by PRSS is unsurpassed, b) PRSS has met the many and varied
requirements of complex and challenging projects over a wide range of
scientific disciplines each with their own unique logistical
considerations, and c) PRSS is an essential and critical element in a
process that has produced significant new knowledge.

The Committee of Visitors developed the six specific, major
recommendations summarized below. More detail regarding these
recommendations can be found in the body of this report.

1.  Streamline the Logistics Planning Process

2.  Take a Leadership Role in Implementing the Antarctic Environmental
    Protocol

3.  Upgrade Deep Field Science Infrastructure

4.  Create a Recurring Repair and Replacement Account

5.  Consolidate Aviation Contractor Management Functions

6.  Improve the Committee of Visitors Process

# 1.0 The Process

The 2001 Polar Research Support Section (PRSS) Committee of Visitors
(COV) convened on September 6 and 7, 2001 at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) offices in Arlington, VA. The committee charge was to
evaluate the performance of PRSS for 1998, 1999 and 2000 in terms of
both nine specific questions provided by the Office of Polar Programs
(OPP) Office Advisory Committee (OAC) and the NSF-wide Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) guidelines for performance review.
The Committee reviewed the charge with Karl Erb, Director of OPP, and
Altie Metcalf, OPP Budget and Planning Officer. Eric Chiang, Director of
PRSS, presented an overview of PRSS activities for the review period.
The Committee organized the nine PRSS-specific questions and the GPRA
questions into four major focus areas and addressed these questions in
the context of PRSS' performance over the review period. The specific
questions presented to the COV by the OPP OAC can be found at the end of
this report.

## **1.1 Focus A** ***"Setting Science Support Priorities and Environmental Stewardship"***

The goal of discussions in this focus area was to evaluate the process
PRSS uses to set priorities in light of the needs and requirements of
the research community. The review and discussions also considered the
environmental aspects of the PRSS program. This focus area encompasses
the charge to the committee as addressed in Questions 1, 3, and 8.

## **1.2 Focus B *"Resource Balance Between Support for Science Programs and Infrastructure Upgrade and Maintenance"***

The goal of the discussions in this focus area was to evaluate the
balance of resource commitments to science programs and infrastructure
as well as the effectiveness of the management of the South Pole Station
Construction Projects. This focus area encompasses the charge to the
committee as addressed in Questions 2 and 7.

## **1.3 Focus C *"Tasking, Oversight and Review of Contractors - Both Governmental and Private"***

The goal of discussions in this focus area was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the relationship between PRSS and OPP contractors
including tasking, oversight, and performance review issues. The
committee also assessed the appropriateness of the basic mix of
contractors and federal agencies that support OPP. This focus area
encompasses the charge to the committee in Questions 4, 5, and 6.

## **1.4 Focus D *"Government Performance and Results Act and the Polar Research Support Section Committee of Visitors Process"***

The goal of this focus area was to review the applicable NSF-wide GPRA
goals and present ideas on ways to improve the COV process.

A detailed analysis of each focus area was performed by the COV
resulting in six specific major recommendations. The major
recommendations are included within the following discussion for each
focus area. The discussions also contain other recommendations developed
by the committee during their deliberations.

# 2.0 Discussion of the Focus Areas

## **2.1 Focus A *" Setting Science Support Priorities and Environmental Stewardship"***

### 2.1.1 Efficiency of the Logistic Planning Process

The COV believes that support planning and effective implementation are
inextricably linked and therefore dealt with the two questions related
to these issues together. The Committee's general perception is that the
planning process, which operates per the scheme:

Operational Requirements Worksheet (ORW)→

Support Information Package (SIP)→

Research Support Plan (RSP)→

Field Support→

Out-brief

is working reasonably well but could be performed more efficiently. The
COV that met in July 2000 to review the OPP Science Program was greatly
impressed by the quality of polar science, which certainly reflects
positively on both the Science Sections (Antarctic and Arctic) and PRSS.
Examples of successful PRSS performance include:

a.  After receipt of proposals on June 1, PRSS delivers preliminary
    logistics assessments of each to Science Program Managers by October
    1.

b.  The ORW is used to determine the estimated logistics requirements of
    a proposal and to limit the ballooning of logistical requirements at
    the SIP stage.

c.  Grantee out-briefs are used to assess contractor performance and to
    improve science support for future years.

d.  Station and Vessel Users' Committees have been very effective in
    advising the primary OPP support contractor (both Antarctic Support
    Associates \[ASA\] and Raytheon Polar Services Company \[RPSC\])
    and, indirectly, PRSS on infrastructure issues.

Presently, PRSS develops preliminary logistic assessments on 100 percent
of the proposals submitted to OPP even though a large number of
proposals are ultimately declined based on scientific merit. Reviewing
every proposal places an undue burden on the staffs of PRSS and RPSC.
Excluding proposals that have little or no reasonable chance of funding
from the logistic review process would enable PRSS and Raytheon
personnel to develop more detailed logistic analyses for those proposals
that are most likely to be awarded. An early culling process would
eliminate unnecessary work and ultimately result in more planning time
for those projects that actually end up in the field.

**Major Recommendation 1: *"Streamline the Logistics Planning
Process"***

*PRSS should develop procedures that will reduce the number of proposals
that undergo unnecessary logistic reviews.*

The COV developed a number of other recommendations based on their
evaluation of the logistics planning process.

#### 2.1.1.1 New Proposer Workshops

The recruitment of the next generation of Antarctic scientists is
presently hampered by the perceived complexity of the logistic planning
process by newcomers. The COV took note of the New Proposer Workshop as
one mechanism to educate the science community on the process. The COV
recommends that PRSS, in conjunction with the Science Support Section,
continue such workshops so that logistic complexities do not deter
potential new investigators either before or after an award is made.
These workshops would also help reduce the submission of improperly
prepared ORWs and SIPs, which create a significant drain on the
productivity of PRSS staff.

#### 2.1.1.2 Users Groups

The COV strongly encourages PRSS to continue their liaison efforts with
the User Groups. To enhance scientific input to support planning and
management, the COV recommends that PRSS ensure that User Committee
Reports are made available to the OPP OAC and, as appropriate, to COVs.

#### 2.1.1.3 Improved Data Exchange

The entire Support Planning Process would be greatly simplified and
enhanced by the development of a seamless data exchange and management
tool. The COV endorses PRSS's efforts to facilitate this initiative.
Furthermore, PRSS is encouraged to use science program out-briefs to
preview SIP requirements for the coming season. The ability of PRSS to
generate early forecasts of logistic requirements should lead to
efficiencies in procurement and transportation.

### 2.1.2 Environmental Stewardship

The COV found that PRSS stewardship of the Antarctic environment over
the past three years has been exemplary. Through its efforts, PRSS has
made environmental awareness an integral part of the United States
Antarctic Program (USAP) culture. In many ways, USAP can be held up as a
model of environmental awareness. Examples of successful PRSS
performance, each supported by NSF documentation, include:

a.  Refinement and improvement in the comprehensive waste management and
    recycling program.

b.  Development of environmental monitoring programs.

c.  Implementation of environmental remediation efforts.

d.  Initiation of a fuel conservation program.

e.  Investment in measures to prevent and respond to environmental
    accidents.

f.  Documentation of environmental compliance.

The entry into force of the Antarctic environmental protocol in 1998 has
had and will continue to have a major impact on USAP and, in particular,
on its logistical operations. The protocol created the Committee on
Environmental Protection (CEP), which will be a focal point for
environmental issues within the Antarctic Treaty System. PRSS currently
provides the U.S. representative to the CEP and the COV believes it is
both necessary and desirable for PRSS to play this role as long as the
USAP environmental programs reside under PRSS management. Effective
performance of this role has significant resource implications. For
example, the CEP representative will need to be involved in significant
international negotiations and oversee the development of management
plans for designated special areas in the Antarctic.

######## Major Recommendation 2: *"Take a Leadership Role in Implementing the Antarctic Environmental Protocol"*

*PRSS should play a proactive and international leadership role in the
implementation of the Antarctic environmental protocol, in particular
within the CEP. To accomplish this growing mission, OPP and PRSS should
develop the funding and human resources needed.*

## **2.2 Focus B *"Resource Balance Between Support for Science Programs and Infrastructure Upgrade And Maintenance"***

### 2.2.1 The Balance of Science and Infrastructure

On average, Antarctic science grants increased slightly during FY 98, 99
and 00 compared to FY 97, as did the proportion of the PRSS budget
allocated to direct science support as opposed to infrastructure
support.

  ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
                            **Funding in                                                   
                            Millions of                                                    
                            Dollars**                                                      

                            [FY97]{.underline}   [FY98]{.underline}   [FY99]{.underline}   [FY00]{.underline}

  Antarctic Science         30.63                30.98                30.52                31.07

  PRSS Direct Science       40.72                40.10                41.16                44.13
  Support\*                                                                                

  PRSS Infrastructure       122.15               120.30               123.47               132.38

  Support/Science Ratio     1.33                 1.29                 1.35                 1.42
  ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------

\* *25% of total PRSS budget based on a prior analysis by PRSS staff
that allocated helicopters, Twin Otters, 100 percent of Palmer ship
time, 60 percent of L.M. Gould ship time, LC-130 science missions, all
station laboratories, support equipment and materials, RPSC science
support budget and science specific construction to "direct science
support".*

Major infrastructure improvements and upgrades related to safety and
science support were completed or in progress during the review period.

a.  South Pole Station: South Pole Safety & Environment (SPSE), South
    Pole Station Modernization (SPSM), Atmospheric Research Observatory
    (ARO), Viper Telescope, Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI)
    Telescope, Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA),
    South Pole Remote Earth Seismic Observatory (SPRESO) planning and
    design.

b.  McMurdo Station: Mechanical Equipment Center (MEC), Sewage Treatment
    Facility, Berg Field Center (BFC) Plans, Science Cargo Upgrade
    Plans, New Power Plant Plans.

c.  Palmer Station: GWR Renovation, BioLab Renovation Planning.

d.  Vessels: R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer, Laurence M. Gould

Although major improvements were made to OPP Antarctic infrastructure
during the three review years, the COV identified two critical trends.
First, there was an absence of investment in deep field infrastructure;
and secondly, there was (and still is) no long-term financial plan to
support, replace, and repair OPP managed infrastructure.

Significant support and infrastructure-related unmet needs have and will
continue to have an impact on deep field science. Most facilities and
equipment are well beyond their useful lives (e.g., large structures are
1950s era, track vehicles and snow machines are 20+ years old, and
energy production and use are inefficient). The age of the facilities
impose significant inefficiencies with respect to maintaining adequate
safety, environment, and health standards at the camps.

**Major Recommendation 3: *"Upgrade Deep Field Science
Infrastructure"***

PRSS should develop a long-range plan, funding strategy and
implementation schedule to upgrade and support deep field science
capabilities.

While long range infrastructure, upgrade, and improvement plans have
been developed (e.g., McMurdo Master Plan, Fleet Management Plan), there
is no consistent, reliable funding process for implementing these plans.
To date, funding for infrastructure improvements has been on an *ad hoc*
basis. A formal capital asset replenishment process, as previously
recommended by the *Augustine External Panel* and the 1998 PRSS COV, has
not been developed.

**Major Recommendation 4: *"Create a Recurring Repair & Replacement
Account"***

*OPP should place a high priority on securing an overall NSF budget
enhancement to establish a recurring PRSS infrastructure repair and
replacement account.*

### 2.2.2 Management of South Pole Station Construction Projects

Evaluation of the construction program at the South Pole was performed
by independently evaluating the South Pole Safety and Environment (SPSE)
and South Pole Station Modernization (SPSM) projects.

Based on data and information provided by PRSS staff, the COV identified
the following significant findings:

a.  SPSE has been successfully completed. This \$25M project was
    delivered on time and on budget.

b.  The planning, design, and construction aspects of SPSM are being
    well managed.

c.  The impact of SPSM on science projects at the Pole has been less
    than anticipated.

d.  The impact of SPSM on science projects at other locations,
    specifically science programs in the interior, has been greater than
    initially anticipated.

Coordination and interface with the science community on SPSM design
issues has been consistent, appropriate, and effective. The Aeronomy &
Astrophysics Science Program Manager is a member of the Configuration
Control Board, and a senior South Pole Station grantee attends design
review meetings and coordinates specific science related concerns. PRSS
has been proactive in minimizing disruption to South Pole science during
construction and they have specific transition plans for moving into the
new station that minimize the impact on science.

Sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the April 1997 *Augustine External Panel*
summarized the rationale for replacing the existing South Pole Station
and a funding strategy that included reduced science expeditions to the
ice (off-set by more work in university laboratories in the U.S) and an
overall cutback in research activity during construction of the facility
(\$20M cumulative over the period FY98-FY02). Through proactive
management, NSF/OPP/PRSS was able to secure the funds necessary to
construct the new station without having to reduce science funding.
Accelerated project funding has resulted in efficiencies in the
procurement of material, equipment, and furnishings. The COV was also
advised that the SPSM project includes state of the art building
management systems and operation/maintenance protocols that will result
in significant cost savings over the life of the new station. In
addition, the committee understands that the transition from ASA to RPSC
was smooth, with respect to SPSM, due in large part to PRSS initiatives
related to personnel retention.

PRSS has minimized the impact of SPSM on science projects at the Pole by
maintaining a minimum of 50 beds per season for science during the
project. They have also allocated a minimum of twelve LC-130 missions
per season to the Pole for science during the SPSM project.

The impact of SPSM on science projects at other locations, specifically
science programs in the interior, has been greater than initially
anticipated although PRSS and OPP have made major efforts to accommodate
science projects when possible. For example, the SPSM project absorbed
LC-130 mission shortfalls during the FY-00/01 season, which reduced the
impact of these shortfalls on science. However, the COV noted that in
April 1998 the science community was informed that "the impact of SPSM
would continue through FY-01*"* (reference *Dear Colleague* letter from
Dr. Hunt, Acting OPP Director, dated April 1998) and that current
projections suggest that LC-130 science missions will not return to
pre-construction levels until 2007. Creep in the SPSM schedule will
impact science at other locations that are dependent upon LC-130
support.

The COV developed a number of other recommendations during their
evaluation of this focus area.

#### 2.2.2.1 Science Support Metric

PRSS should develop a measure of Direct Science Support so that the
ratio of Science Support/Science can be consistently tracked. The
committee recommends that the current support/science dollar ratio (as
measured by the index referenced above) be maintained at approximately
1.4.

#### 2.2.2.2 Office of Polar Programs Construction Policies

Initiatives already implemented as part of SPSM to minimize the impact
on science should be continued for the life of the project. Future
construction projects at the South Pole (and other locations) should
adopt science protection measures similar to those implemented as part
of SPSM. Cooperation between infrastructure and science-support
activities to the mutual benefit of both should continue.

#### 2.2.2.3 LC-130 Support

LS-130 mission shortfalls are an emerging trend based both on mission
numbers for the period reviewed and projected LC-130 mission numbers
through FY2006. PRSS should continue to explore options to increase
LC-130 support for science prior to the completion of SPSM.

## **2.3 Focus C *"Tasking, Oversight and Review of Contractors - Both Governmental and Private"***

### 2.3.1 Mix of Contractors

The *Augustine External Panel* recommended that, "*To the greatest
extent possible, all support activities in Antarctica should be placed
under a single prime contractor \-- with oversight by a single
individual/office designated by NSF. Subsidiary organizational elements
should be restructured to minimize overlap, duplication, and
interfaces.*" An overall review of USAP and its' transition from all
military support to the current mix of government and contractor
entities indicates that these changes have resulted in significant cost
savings to the program. Changing the mix has also reduced the overall
OPP footprint on the continent without any adverse impact with respect
to OPP program goals.

Currently, RPSC is the prime OPP support contractor. RPSC is responsible
for many functional areas and provides a wide array of services in
support of the program including direct oversight of numerous
subcontractors. The COV specifically considered the support and
oversight of the flight operation subcontractors.

Oversight for air logistics support provided by *Ken Borek Air* Twin
Otters, and the subsequent safety of those flight operations is the
responsibility of RPSC. However, deployment inspections of those
aircraft is the responsibility of the Office of Aircraft Services (OAS),
a functional component of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Helicopter support for USAP is provided by *Petroleum Helicopters Inc.*
(PHI). OAS, through a Memorandum of Agreement with PRSS, manages all
aspects of the PHI contract. OAS has in-depth experience with respect to
both aircraft contracting issues and aviation safety.

In light of the safety record of *Ken Borek Air* and other Antarctic
operators under the supervision of RPSC, the COV believes that
consolidating the management (safety inspections and general oversight
of the flight services contract) for *Ken Borek* *Air* and *PHI* under
OAS would result in improved flight operations in Antarctica.

**Major Recommendation 5: "Consolidate Aviation Contractor Management**
**Functions"**

*PRSS should consolidate the management of the private aviation
contractors (PHI and Ken Borek Air) under a single Memorandum of
Understanding with the Federal Office of Aviation Services to provide
aircraft management services including safety inspections.*

#### 2.3.1.1 Outsourcing of Air Logistics Support

The COV cannot say enough about the significant contribution that
military aircraft make to the overall program in Antarctica. However,
the committee also believes there may be additional commercial
outsourcing opportunities that could be of benefit to USAP (i.e.,
enhanced capabilities and/or lower costs). For example, there may be
benefits to contracting with commercial carriers for additional
logistics support or with civilian personnel to fly NSF-owned aircraft.
Accordingly, the COV recommends the following:

PRSS and the OPP Contracting Section should periodically request
statements of interest and summaries of available capabilities from the
private sector with respect to USAP air logistics support.

### 2.3.2 Performance Measures

In accordance with the GPRA, PRSS has developed quantitative and
qualitative measures of performance for the contractors and federal
partners that provide support to OPP. These metrics have been derived
over the course of the last three years. This is the third year that NSF
has used this USAP-wide performance evaluation process. During this
time, the major prime contractor changed from ASA to RPSC. The committee
concluded that PRSS is using appropriate performance measures.

### 2.3.3 Tasking and Oversight

Tasking and oversight of contractor activities has been a reoccurring
issue for the past two COVs. The 1998 PRSS COV concluded that PRSS was
not providing adequate contract documentation. Their conclusion was
based on a review of the funding jackets. Although the current COV
acknowledges that the funding jackets do not include all information
relevant to the contract file, we note that additional supporting
documentation can be found in the program and financial files. It is
possible to get a comprehensive view of the contract status through a
review of the funding jacket, program file, and financial reports. For
example, contract modifications and advance payment documentation is
found in the contact file; the contractor's monthly cost statements and
quarterly technical reports are found in the program file. The
contractor's report of government-held property is in the financial
file. Taken together, these files may be considered the comprehensive
contract file.

The previous COV recommended a single master file to include all
documentation relevant to a given contract. This file would be under the
control and responsibility of a single point of contact to be determined
by PRSS and the OPP Contracting Office. The current COV finds this a
reasonable idea in theory, but not feasible in practice. Given the fact
that the Contracting Office holds responsibility for obligations and
payments and the program offices are responsible for the daily oversight
of contractor performance, it seems impractical and inefficient to
consolidate or duplicate two sets of files when all the necessary
information is already available for review.

While the official contract file held by the Contracting Office must
contain sufficient documentation for contract administration and
contract close out, it seems reasonable to reference supporting
documentation both in paper form and electronically. Accordingly, the
committee recommends the following.

### 2.3.3.1 Master File Index

Contract and program files should contain a master, cross-referenced
index. This index would be an inventory of all relevant contract
documentation from the initial identification of a requirement to
contract close out. It should contain the reference information
necessary to find tasking and oversight documents for anyone who may be
new to a project. PRSS and the Contracting Office should continue to use
electronic file storage for supporting documentation.

The index system should satisfy the need for ready identification and
retrieval of all documentation relevant to a given contract or
interagency agreement without incurring additional administrative costs.
This type of system is consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act in
that it does not require significant duplication of paper.

## **2.4 Focus D *"Government Performance and Results Act and The Polar Research Support Section Committee of Visitors Process"***

### 2.4.1 Government Performance and Results Act

PRSS continues to be tremendously effective in supporting a broad range
of science projects from astrophysics to microbiology. However, unlike
the majority of NSF, PRSS is not directly involved with the development
of ideas or the education of people. PRSS provides and maintains
infrastructure throughout the continent and surrounding oceans so that
NSF supported scientists can do these things. It is difficult to apply
GPRA guidelines that were developed for NSF science programs to PRSS.
Nonetheless, the COV determined that certain elements of the GPRA *Tools
Strategic Outcome Goal* were relevant to PRSS responsibilities, and
based on all the information summarized in the focus area discussions
above, PRSS was making a contribution with respect to this goal.

### 2.4.2 Committee of Visitors Process

The COV process is an important opportunity for the science community to
provide review and offer insights into the effectiveness and efficiency
of PRSS. We strongly recommend improving the process so that the review
is more effective. Our recommended changes to the process address the
need to trace the effectiveness of the COV process from review to
review, to provide improved quantitative information to the committee
prior to the visit, and for more feedback from the science community on
PRSS performance.

In reviewing the previous COV report, we discovered a number of issues
and recommendations that we raise again. To ensure continuity, the
previous COV reports and PRSS responses need to be included in the
materials distributed to the committee prior to the time the committee
convenes. Presentations from PRSS should include a discussion of the
responses to the previous COV recommendations.

To improve the ability of the COV to provide well founded comments and
develop strong recommendations, the material provided to the committee
via briefing books and presentations needs to be more specific. The
briefing book must target the issue questions raised for the three years
under review. The books provided to this committee were somewhat spotty.
The absence of complete data for the three years under review made it
difficult to identify trends. The absence of quantitative data such as
numbers of projects reviewed, evaluated, and fielded made it impossible
to complete a detailed evaluation of some issues. The briefing book
should be distributed to the Committee far enough in advance of the
meeting to ensure that any missing information is identified early. A
conference call between the Committee members prior to the meeting to
organize focus areas and identify specific issues might also facilitate
the process. The OPP presentation to the Committee should be expanded to
include input from the User Committee Group Chair's and the NSF polar
science program managers. The User Committees are an effective path for
the science community to provide input to PRSS, albeit through Raytheon.
These committees have a good sense of how responsive PRSS is to the
needs of the science community. The science program managers work
closely with PRSS staff and should be able to provide the COV with
feedback on issues related to logistics, anticipated infrastructure
needs, and the impact of ongoing maintenance and construction on
scientific productivity.

**Major Recommendation 6 : *"Improve the Committee of Visitors
Process*"**

*OPP and PRSS should explicitly review the previous COV report and
provide a summary of the actions they have taken to implement the
recommendations. Specific metrics of performance and detailed science
support data should be provided to the incoming committee for the time
period under review.*

# Specific Questions For the PRSS Committee of Visitors

**(prepared by NSF/OPP)**

*[Question 1]{.underline}*: Have the processes used by PRSS to establish
its priorities been effective in capturing the needs and priorities of
the Antarctic research community?

*[Question 2]{.underline}*: Has the balance between PRSS support of
current research and investment in infrastructure improvements been
appropriate given the overall policy and budget constraints?

*[Question 3]{.underline}*: Has PRSS supported Antarctic research and
associated educational activity, providing logistics, equipment, and
infrastructure in an effective, efficient, and cost-effective manner?

*[Question 4]{.underline}*: Has PRSS managing the mix of contractors and
federal agency providers of logistics capabilities so as to meet the
program's goals? Is the mix an appropriate one?

[*Question 5*:]{.underline} Have PRSS responsibilities for tasking and
oversight of contractor activities been effectively met and
appropriately documented?

*[Question 6]{.underline}*: Has PRSS established appropriate performance
measures for the activities of its contractors and federal partners that
provide logistics or other support to the USAP? How well have these
performance goals or measures been met?

*[Question 7]{.underline}*: Has PRSS planned and managed South Pole
Station Construction effectively?

*[Question 8]{.underline}*: Has PRSS managed USAP in an environmentally
responsible manner?

*[Question 9]{.underline}*: Has PRSS met the applicable NSF goals
established pursuant to GPRA?