Came across this. If it's already been posted or is old news, I apologize, but seems one of the most commonly used "tools" bwca.com members use.

recreation.gov lawsuit

Interesting

Seems like another case of "pigs and hogs", pun intended.

I’m pretty conflicted here. Fees stink, yes. But no contractor is going to agree to take on a big project like this if it’s not profitable for them. Ongoing Costs associated with running a site like this are significant. And who is going to benefit most if this lawsuit is successful? The law firm filing the suit. I don’t see an outcome where we end up with a better more efficient system that costs us less, but maybe I’m just too skeptical.

I’m curious, is the $6 reservation fee part of this, or is that money actually going to the USFS? I don’t think that’s an unreasonable fee if it’s actually going to the feds. If it’s going to Booz Allen, then my gripe would be that this should be charged per transaction, not per permit. For example on permit day I reserved 4 permits at once, and was charged the $6 fee 4 separate times. That seems a bit sketchy.

I go with making a reasonable fee thinking with hope most of it goes to the provider, in this case the Forest Service and BWCA management. The problem is whose reasoning applies. Think Ticketmaster.
Think mosquitoes and realize we humans are in the food chain. They will take their share...but whose reasoning applies?

I can't imagine the fees are what make Rec.gov a profitable venture for Booz Allen. That's just the multi-million dollar cherry on top of the fat contract they get from the government.

Even when a federal agency does not charge a fee, such as a timed entry permit at a National Park, Booz Allen, through Recreation.gov, levies a transaction fee to process each permit.

Sound like the fees are going to the providers either.

The article makes it appear that money would be going directly back to users, too.

If successful, plaintiffs will receive restitution of the fees not allowed by the FLREA and could score compensatory and punitive damage awards as well.

billconner: "Came across this. If it's already been posted or is old news, I apologize, but seems one of the most commonly used "tools" bwca.com members use.

recreation.gov lawsuit "

This seems to be the work of an enterprising lawyer looking for their "Big Case".

I really like the recreation.gov website. I have extracted more value from the site than any fees I have paid. Perhaps if I were trying to park an RV vs paddling a canoe, I might feel differently.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

Seems to hinge on if the fees violate to the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act. If they do, I'd guess anyone that's used recreation.gov will get a dollar or two, and the law firm millions.

I happen to agree with OCDave that it's a good site and fairly easy to use. I just paid $8 for my camping reservation fee for a NC trip and didn't blink. However I don't recall disliking the site prior to the change in "management". Which leads to the question of why it was given to a private entity in the first place. If it's not broke, why fix it?

Of course, thinking that a governmental agency is going to make better use of the funds is rather amusing... :)

"Of course, thinking that a governmental agency is going to make better use of the funds is rather amusing... :)"

You got that right!

Tom

This is absurd. I’d pay triple the fees and not bat an eye.

You can see politics involved by a group who thinks most fees of any kind should be outlawed. This group or similar to others have been around a long time.

No issue here with the fees. Happy that there is an efficient way to get permits and $6 isn't bad when compared with what you pay Ticketmaster for a concert.
Seems like the main issue is the outsourcing to a private company of something that seemed to working just fine. I had no idea that was the case.
One has to wonder why this was handed over to a private company in 2018? How much in political contributions buys a website?

BTW - beyond the fees, Booz Allens contract in 2018 was for $182 million and 10 years. Not sure for whom that is a good deal.

I don't know if MN DNR license issued is now done by the state. But once it was outsourced, I believe to Bass Pro like 15 years ago. I think MN updated their system and may handle it directly now. Does anyone know?

If interested: FLERA

Jakthund: "BTW - beyond the fees, Booz Allens contract in 2018 was for $182 million and 10 years. Not sure for whom that is a good deal."

I think the insinuation (don’t know if this is actually true) was that paying them the money was cheaper than the government doing it themselves. Might sound crazy, but unfortunately I do know from experience it is possible…

Most contracts are a bidding process…usually they switch because someone came in with a lower bid. Of course corruption can happen, but the typical process is to take the lowest bid. That would mean, Booz Allen had the cheapest bid…so we can complain…but the most likely scenario is no one else, including the government…thought they could do it for the price Booz Allen bid. Doesn’t mean the lawsuit doesn’t have merit though…

T

timatkn: "

Jakthund: "BTW - beyond the fees, Booz Allens contract in 2018 was for $182 million and 10 years. Not sure for whom that is a good deal."

I think the insinuation (don’t know if this is actually true) was that paying them the money was cheaper than the government doing it themselves. Might sound crazy, but unfortunately I do know from experience it is possible…


Most contracts are a bidding process…usually they switch because someone came in with a lower bid. Of course corruption can happen, but the typical process is to take the lowest bid. That would mean, Booz Allen had the cheapest bid…so we can complain…but the most likely scenario is no one else, including the government…thought they could do it for the price Booz Allen bid. Doesn’t mean the lawsuit doesn’t have merit though…

T"

Not insinuating anything, if that's what I thought, I would say it up front. Merely stating a fact since we're speaking about costs. I'm not sure who benefits the most. Please don't try and tell me what I'm saying

I still remember when you went thru the USFS Duluth office to get a permit.

1) should have been a bidding process for the business, but article doesn't confirm that.
2) it would be absolutely possible for an IT company to agree to host and support the web site WITHOUT charging a per-transaction fee to the user. Those fees are icing to the company, who is ALREADY GETTING PAID to host and support the web site.
3) The contract should never have allowed IT/reservation costs to be passed on to users of national resources and NO, I don't think those fees are reasonable - often a huge percentage of the cost of making a reservation. I've put together camping trips across multiple national parks and paid maybe close to 25-30% in "fees" vs actual cost of a campsite. Highway robbery with no other options.

Thanks BillConner for providing the link.

I'm a finance guy not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something, but these seem to be the import pieces in regards to this lawsuit.

§6805. Cooperative agreements
(a) Fee management agreement
Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, the Secretary may enter into a fee management agreement, including a contract, which may provide for a reasonable commission, reimbursement, or discount, with the following entities for the following purposes:
(1) With any governmental or nongovernmental entity, including those in a gateway community, for the purpose of obtaining fee collection and processing services, including visitor reservation services

Thus it is perfectly OK to contract out.

§6807. Expenditures
(c) Administration, overhead, and indirect costs
The Secretary may use not more than an average of 15 percent of total revenues collected under this chapter for administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation fee program by that Secretary

This would include the $182M plus any other related Governmental costs. It doesn't explicitly state whether 3rd party fees would be included total fees and expenses. I think it is fair Assume they are not currently included.
So if the OH expenses are at the 15% limit without those fees, adding them to both expense and revenue would push the Admin costs over the 15% and be in violation of the limits imposed.

So,
Is this a workaround to charge higher fees and support higher admin costs than authorized?
Should the processing fees be included?
Should the $182M be sufficient to provide the services?
Is 15% too low to maintain proper service levels?
Since the primary variable is the reservation fees and associated costs are more fixed, does this create a windfall revenue for the provider? As has been discussed here, usage is up (not only in BWCA but across the park system) since 2018.

Just to be clear, I think the usage fees are a huge bargain. The maintenance of campsites and portages is sooo much better than 30 years ago. Not sure about the add on processing fees.

Time will tell but there is one truth in the matter… Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

BWPaddler: "1) should have been a bidding process for the business, but article doesn't confirm that."

There was a national RFP and even a congressional hearing before Booz Allen was awarded the contract. My sister in law works in that world and was with Booz Allen at the time.

Prior to Booz Allen, the contract had been with Active Outdoors. So those of you saying "the government can do this work themselves and save money" -- err, nah. That was never an option. It wasn't a choice between in-house and farming it out, the only choice was which external vendor got the contract.

It will be interesting to see what congress does on this. FLERA is set to expire (has been extended already) next October and could potentially be amended to address these fees.

If they reduce, restrict or eliminate, will Booz Allen extend or walk away? Their contract seems to be locked in for 5 years and yearly options out to 10 years.
We are past the 5 year period.

I personally have no issue with the current fees. Don't know enough about the other ins and outs of the case to form an opinion on them. I just hope this lawsuit isn't a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This will come down to the definition of fees, as stated in FLERA 6801. The $182 million was the estimated revenue over a 10 year contract term. The initial contract term was 5 years with yearly extension of the contracts for an additional 5 years. Booz Allen wasn't given $182 million outright...they were given a contract that was estimated to make that much over 10 years.

Booz Allen funded the upfront costs of creating an API (application programing interface...basically it can evolve and adapt as needed) website, though they were paid some reimbursements once they made milestones in the development, before the charging of fees. That money for milestones came from a Technology Development Investment Fund.

In return for creating from scratch a new website as well as mobile services, they can charge a fee to recover those costs, and maintenance and administration.

There is no dispute that Booz Allen can charge fees to be compensated. The dispute is did Booz Allen charge too many fees, (junk fees) using the loose definitions of FLERA as justification.

I have no dog in this fight, just enjoyed looking up the information.

Sources:
Will Campsites be booked like hotels? USDA to decide with RFP.
Booz Allen-Reinventing the Recreation.gov customer experience
No, Rec.gov doesn't fund public lands