National Science Foundation: Problems Found in Decision Process for Awarding Earthquake Center
RCED-87-146
Published: Jun 24, 1987. Publicly Released: Jul 06, 1987.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
In response to a congressional request, GAO examined the National Science Foundation's (NSF) procedures for awarding a cooperative agreement for an earthquake engineering research center (EERC) to determine whether: (1) the panelists that NSF chose exhibited favoritism for any proposal; (2) the panelists met NSF selection criteria for reviewers; and (3) problems existed with NSF management of the award process.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| National Science Foundation | To ensure that the problems that occurred in the EERC award do not occur in the future, the Director, NSF, should require documentation in large award packages that clearly link reviewers' comments for each proposal to the stated criteria in the program announcement, in order to better show and defend the reasons an award went to one proposal over another. NSF should develop criteria, such as the size or sensitivity of the award, indicating which awards would require this documentation, since it would not be practical for all. This documentation would: (1) force a more systematic accounting of the criteria during the panelists' deliberations, which would lessen the likelihood of criteria not known by the proposers from entering the evaluation process; and (2) protect and ensure the impartiality and credibility of the NSF decision. |
Closed – Implemented
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| National Science Foundation | To ensure that the problems that occurred in the EERC award do not occur in the future, the Director, NSF, should require that the program announcement clearly specify the requirements for matching funds commitments. This should include such items as the due date for the commitment, the duration of the commitment, and the types of funding that are acceptable (in-kind or cash). Adhering to these requirements would ensure that all applicants compete by the same rules. |
Closed – Implemented
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| National Science Foundation | To ensure that the problems that occurred in the EERC award do not occur in the future, the Director, NSF, should avoid the appearance of preselecting a particular proposer by directing the NSF staff to not consider conditional recommendations in situations in which the evaluation of the substantive merits of all proposals has not been completed. |
Closed – Implemented
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Bias in procurementBid evaluationCompetitive procurementCooperative agreementsEarth sciences researchResearch and development facilitiesResearch grantsEarthquakesEngineeringTechnology transfer