You are here

Recreation.Gov Lawsuit Withdrawn

Share

Published Date

October 3, 2023

A lawsuit challenging the fees users must pay on recreation.gov to reserve campsites, climb mountains, and paddle rivers has been withdrawn without explanation by the plaintffs. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures say such dismissals usually are made without prejudice, meaning the action can be brought back up, in this case the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice, effectively blocking its revival.

The lawsuit filed earlier this year claimed that the many user fees charged on recreation.gov, which is managed by Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., were unauthorized and possibly illegal “junk fees."

In response to the dropping of the lawsuit on September 21, Booz Allen officials said they were "pleased with the plaintiffs’ appropriate decision to withdraw this matter after learning about Booz Allen’s important role supporting the Recreation One Stop program. We are immensely proud of how Booz Allen has developed and supported Recreation.gov, and of the significant value that the Recreation One Stop program offers to the public in preserving our national parks. Booz Allen continues to bring value across the entire platform, replacing time-intensive manual processes and helping the program to equitably accommodate Americans’ growing demand for visitation to national parks."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, seven outdoor enthusiasts, declined to explain why they decided to dismiss the lawsuit. However, court records in the case indicate that Booz Allen had sought to seal some of the records relating to their contract with the federal government sought by the plaintiffs under rules of confidentiality. Whether that played a role in the dismissal is unknown.

While the lawsuit has been dropped, two U.S. senators continue to try to better understand Booz Allen's contract with the government.

Yet months after Sens. Chuck Grassley and John Barasso wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland with questions about the agreement, they have yet to receive answers to all their questions.

In their May letter, the senators asked "why a private company is needed to manage the website and why they’ve been allowed to extract these fees from visitors."

"Our country’s great sights and parks belong to the people," the senators pointed out in that letter. "As such, they deserve to know who is profiting from the fees associated with their use and enjoyment and the extent of that profit." 

While the senators received a reply from the Agriculture Department, which manages the contract, in early August, in their own follow-up letter on August 24 they said it "failed to answer six out of eight questions, and it did not dispute reporting regarding $140 million being invoiced to the government."

While U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore told Grassley and Barasso that the website "is not funded by taxpayer dollars," the senators noted that "taxpayers pay surcharges when ordering tickets on Recreation.gov, which are ultimately paid to Booz Allen through the U.S. Treasury as part of its contractual agreement with USFS. We would therefore appreciate clarification with respect to the statement that Recreation.gov 'is not funded by taxpayer dollars.'"

The Forest Service chief also failed to provide records showing the dollar amounts recreation.gov users pay in fees, the fee schedules set by agencies that use the portal, the amount of fee revenues collected, the amount sent to Booz Allen Hamilton, and the amount sent to the land-management agencies.

"It appears that the rest of the outstanding questions were simply ignored. The American people have a right to know the answer to each question we asked because the answers involve their parks and their money," wrote the senators, who asked for a response by September 7.

So far no further explanation has been offered, according to Grassley's office.

Comments

Pretty rich coming from Grassley whose party wants to gut spending for the park service saying they should pay for the website.  How does he think that works, it some guy in his basement at Booz Allen bilking the government for $140M.  I mean, it's two guys at least (I jest), but software development isn't as cheap as people think.  There are overhead fees on the credit card processing etc.  As well as a lot of park units, sites, and programs to keep up to date.

If there is a vendor that thinks they can do it cheaper, these contacts do come up regularly for bid.  

Also, the fine Senator from Iowa would have a fatal heart attack if the government paid the going rate for software developers to work for the government. (Hint, it's more than his salary).

 


I work in web development. I don't know what the initial development contract was worth - let's say $20 million. Some devs, UI/UX experts, a QA team, a couple of PMs, etc and maybe you need a team of 10 to manage the site at a loaded cost of $200K each annually. Plus you'll need some customer service reps to answer the toll free number, help with problems, etc., BAH is almost certaintly sub contracting that to some low cost telemarketing outfit, no reason the govt couldn't do the same. So we are at $20 million build cost plus $2 million in labor annually to manage it, plus some overhead for office space (or not - no reason they can't all be remote) and maybe another 1 or 2 million for the CSR team...and you are still a long, long way from $140 million. As much as I hate Grasssley, who doesn't know the difference between a TRS80 and Cray supercomputer, he's not wrong here. Although, I suspect his motivation is not to see the parks run more efficeintly, but to make an argument they should be dismantled due to all this "waste."


I want to know why they dropped the suit "with prejudice".  No reason to do so unless they were compelled/bribed to do so. There is too much going on behind closed doors with our government.  That's why the trust in government is dwindling every day.  


Just reading their wiki "controversies and leaks" page is terrifying. Why are they involved with our rec.gov website? They are one of those companies that should be totally dissolved. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton


At least the website should work!  For the many campgrounds I've tried to book in CO, the map no longer clearly shows the location of the site numbers, so users can't tell if they are booking a site on the inside or outside of a look, etc.  Perhaps this is what they mean by "equitable"? It seem like a site designed by consultants who haven't been campers. 

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.