WHAT IS THIS?

This is a long-term contract where the National Science Foundation (NSF) is paying Leidos, Inc. up to $3.1 billion to run the day-to-day operations and maintenance of U.S. research stations and equipment in Antarctica. Leidos handles the logistics, facilities, and support services that keep American scientists able to live and work safely in one of the most remote places on Earth.

WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is authorized by federal law and policy going back to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which the U.S. signed to support peaceful scientific research on the continent. The NSF is the lead federal agency responsible for managing U.S. presence and scientific activity in Antarctica.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

Antarctica is a critical location for studying climate change, ice sheet behavior, astronomy, and other sciences that cannot be studied anywhere else, but the extreme environment makes it impossible for scientists to operate there without professional logistical support. This contract addresses the need to keep researchers safe and productive in one of the harshest environments on the planet.

WHO BENEFITS?

American and international scientists who conduct research at U.S. Antarctic stations benefit directly, as do the Leidos employees and subcontractors hired to provide support services. The broader public benefits from the scientific data and discoveries produced by researchers working in Antarctica.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

A contract of this size and duration, spanning roughly 15 years, carries significant risks around cost overruns, contractor performance, and limited competition since so few companies can handle this specialized work. Because operations in Antarctica are remote and complex, it can be difficult for the government to closely monitor how money is being spent.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

If this contract were cancelled, U.S. Antarctic research stations such as McMurdo Station and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station would likely have to shut down or dramatically scale back operations. American scientists would lose access to unique research sites, and the U.S. could lose its long-standing presence and influence in Antarctic affairs.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •Antarctica offers irreplaceable scientific data on climate, sea level rise, and the universe that directly informs U.S. and global policy decisions.
• •Maintaining a continuous U.S. presence in Antarctica upholds American treaty commitments and geopolitical interests on a continent with no permanent population.
• •Centralizing operations under one experienced contractor can improve coordination, safety, and efficiency in an extremely challenging environment.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •A single 15-year contract worth $3.1 billion with limited competition raises concerns about whether taxpayers are getting the best possible price.
• •The enormous scale and remote location make it very difficult for the federal government to audit spending and ensure accountability.
• •Some critics argue that the level of U.S. investment in Antarctic operations could be reduced or shared more with international partners to lower costs.