    Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the
    Concessions Program (Chapter Report, 03/31/2000, GAO/RCED-00-70).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
    National Parks Concession Program management problems, focusing on: (1)
    factors affecting the condition of lodging facilities in the national
    park system; and (2) options available to address these factors.

    GAO noted that: (1) after considering numerous site-specific factors
    that could potentially affect the condition of lodging facilities--such
    as whether the facilities were used year-round or just seasonally,
    whether the facilities were owned by the government or by the
    concessioner, whether the facilities were designated as historic
    structures, and others--GAO found that the most significant factors are
    those involving the agency's overall approach to managing the program;
    (2) specifically, the management problems center on three areas: (a)
    inadequate qualifications and training of the agency's concessions
    specialists and concession contracting staff; (b) the agency's
    out-of-date practices in handling its contracting workload and chronic
    backlog of expired contracts; and (c) a lack of accountability within
    the concessions program; (3) for the most part, these problems are
    long-standing and are consistent with similar concerns raised by the
    Department of the Interior, its Office of the Inspector General, and
    National Park Service concessions staff; (4) because of these problems,
    the Park Service frequently has difficulty managing the performance of
    its concessioners to ensure a consistent level of quality in the
    services and facilities they provide; (5) the Park Service has two
    principal options for dealing with the problems identified in its
    management of the concessions program: (a) using better hiring and
    training practices to professionalize its workforce and thus obtain
    better business and contracting expertise; or (b) contracting out to
    acquire the needed business and contracting expertise; (6) these two
    options are not mutually exclusive in that the agency could contract for
    expertise in certain functions while developing expertise in-house for
    other functions; (7) both options require that the agency better manage
    its human capital to ensure that it selects, trains, develops, and
    manages concessions staff who have the skills needed to bring about
    improvement in the concessions program; (8) regardless of what
    options--or combination of options--it selects, the agency needs to
    strengthen its accountability for control of the program; and (9) unless
    this is done, the effectiveness of other changes to the program will
    likely be diminished.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-70
         TITLE:  Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That
    	     Plague the Concessions Program
          DATE:  03/31/2000
       SUBJECT:  National recreation areas
    	     National parks
    	     Hotels and motels
    	     Facility maintenance
    	     Facility security
    	     Concessions contracts
    	     Human resources training
    	     Maintenance standards
    	     Accountability
    IDENTIFIER:  Yellowstone National Park (WY)
    	     Death Valley National Park (CA)
    	     Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)
    	     NPS Concession Services Plan
    	     Mammoth Cave National Park (KY)
    	     Sequoia-Kings National Park (CA)
    	     Olympic National Park (WA)
    	     Yosemite National Park (CA)
    	     NPSC Concession Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************

    GAO/RCED-00-70

    4

    12

    Background 13

    Condition of Lodging Facilities in National Parks Varies
    Considerably 16

    Scope and Methodology 20

    Lodging Facilities

    23

    More Qualified and Better-Trained Staff Would Improve the
    Concessions Program 23

    Management of the Concessions Program Lacks Accountability 35

    Other Factors May Also Affect the Condition of Lodging Facilities 43

    Conclusion 45

    Agency and Industry Comments and Our Evaluation 46

    Concessions Program

    47

    Professionalize and Improve the Training of the Agency's Workforce 48

    Contract for Needed Business and Contracting Expertise 50

    Improve Accountability for the Concessions Program 53

    Conclusions 54

    Recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior 55

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 55

    Appendix I: Results of GAO's Inspections of Lodging Facilities
    in Two Parks

    56

    Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Interior

    75

    Appendix III: Comments From the National Park Hospitality
    Association

    76

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    78

    Table 1: Parks and Concessions Contractors Contacted 21

    Table 2: Notable Reports and Memorandums That Raised
    Concerns About the Qualifications and/or Training of Park Service
    Concessions Staff 28

    Table 3: Training and Experience Required to Execute the
    Park Service's Procurement and Concessions Contracts 31

    Table 4: Notable Reports or Documents That Discussed the
    Need for Accountability Within the Concessions Program 39

    Table 5: Notable Task Force Reports or Documents That Raised
    Concerns About the Use of Collateral Duty Staff in Managing
    Concessions 43

    Table 6: Poor Condition of Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities 66

    Table 7: Results of GAO's Room Inspections 70

    Figure 1: Examples of Lodging Facilities Found in the National
    Park System 15

    Figure 2: Typical Motel Rooms in Very Good Condition at Bryce
    nd Zion National Parks 17

    Figure 3: Needed Exterior Repairs at a Lodging Structure at Stovepipe Wells
    in Death Valley National Park 18

    Figure 4: Repair and Maintenance Problems in Rooms at Stovepipe
    Wells 19

    Figure 5: Abridged Organization of the National Park Service 36

    Figure 6: Needed Exterior Repairs at Log Cabin Resort 58

    Figure 7: Condition of Cliff Near Kalaloch Lodge in Olympic
    National Park 59

    Figure 8: Grounds at Grant Grove 65

    Figure 9: Exposed Wiring in Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities 67

    FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

    GAO General Accounting Office

    GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

    NPS National Park Service

    OMB Office of Management and Budget

    Resources, Community, and
    Economic Development Division

    B-284573

    March 31, 2000

    The Honorable Craig Thomas
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Historic Preservation, and Recreation
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This report responds to your request that we review (1) factors affecting
    the condition of lodging facilities in the National park system and (2)
    options available to address these factors.

    As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we
    plan no further distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of
    this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the
    Interior and to the Director of the National Park Service. We will also make
    copies available to others on request.

    Please contact me on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions.

    Sincerely yours,

    Barry T. Hill
    Associate Director, Energy,
    Resources, and Science Issues

    Executive Summary

    Concessioners play a significant role in providing services to many of the
    over 270 million visitors to the national park system each year.
    Concessioners are private businesses that operate under contracts with the
    National Park Service to provide facilities and services, such as lodging,
    food, merchandising, marinas, and various guided services. In August 1998,
    GAO reported that the condition of lodging facilities varied considerably
    from park to park and was at times quite poor.1 Concerned about these
    varying conditions, the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic
    Preservation, and Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources, asked GAO to identify (1) factors affecting the condition of
    lodging facilities in the national park system and (2) options available to
    address these factors.

    The Department of the Interior's National Park Service manages 379 park
    units--such as national parks, national historic sites, and national
    battlefields--located all across the nation. Concessioners provide services
    to visitors in many of these units. In 1998, the latest year for which data
    are available, 630 concessioners provided visitor services in park units
    that grossed about $765 million in revenues. Of the $765 million in revenues
    generated by concessioners, about $479 million (almost two-thirds) came from
    the 73 concessioners that provided lodging accommodations.

    For many years, concerns have been raised by the Congress, the Park Service,
    and GAO about the need to reform existing concessions law and the need for
    better management of the agency's concessions program. In November 1998, the
    Congress enacted a new concessions law as part of the National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998. One of the intentions and expectations of the new
    concessions law was that it would increase competition in the awarding of
    new concessions contracts. In addition, the law established an advisory
    board whose mission was to advise the Secretary of the Interior on
    improvements the agency could make in managing park concessioners. Since the
    passage of the law, the Park Service has been working to issue new
    concessions regulations, which the agency expects to finalize in April 2000.

    After considering numerous site-specific factors that could potentially
    affect the condition of lodging facilities−such as whether the
    facilities were used year-round or just seasonally, whether the facilities
    were owned by the government or by the concessioner, whether the facilities
    were designated as historic structures, and others−GAO found that the
    most significant factors are those involving the agency's overall approach
    to managing the program. Specifically, the management problems center on
    three areas: (1) inadequate qualifications and training of the agency's
    concessions specialists and concessions contracting staff, (2) the agency's
    out-of-date practices in handling its contracting workload and chronic
    backlog of expired contracts, and (3) a lack of accountability within the
    concessions program. For the most part, these problems are long-standing and
    are consistent with similar concerns raised by the Department of the
    Interior, its Office of the Inspector General, and Park Service concessions
    staff. Because of these problems, the Park Service frequently has difficulty
    managing the performance of its concessioners to ensure a consistent level
    of quality in the services and facilities they provide.

    The Park Service has two principal options for dealing with the problems
    identified in its management of the concessions program: (1) using better
    hiring and training practices to professionalize its workforce and thus
    obtain better business and contracting expertise or (2) contracting out to
    acquire the needed business and contracting expertise. These two options are
    not mutually exclusive in that the agency could contract for expertise in
    certain functions while developing expertise in-house for other functions.
    Both options require that the agency better manage its human capital to
    ensure that it selects, trains, develops, and manages concessions staff who
    have the skills needed to bring about improvement in the concessions
    program. Regardless of what options--or combination of options--it selects,
    the agency needs to strengthen its accountability for and control of the
    program. Unless this is done, the effectiveness of other changes to the
    program will likely be diminished.

    Facilities

    On several occasions, the Department of the Interior's Office of the
    Inspector General and the agency's own staff have raised concerns about the
    qualifications and training of the Park Service's concessions staff. The
    primary concern raised was that the agency's concessions staff do not
    normally have the business, financial, and contracting backgrounds needed to
    successfully carry out the concessions program. However, the Park Service
    has made only limited progress in addressing these concerns. It has made few
    efforts to professionalize its workforce by hiring staff with education or
    experience in business management or hospitality management. Instead, it has
    filled concessions positions through internal transfers--moving staff out of
    other career fields and into the concessions program. Once transferred,
    these staff receive only limited training. A more qualified and
    better-trained workforce would have a better understanding of trends in the
    industry, best practices, and the tools needed to effectively manage
    concessioners. Rather than seeking to professionalize the concessions
    workforce, the agency has taken the view, expressed by the chief concessions
    official in one regional office, that "anyone can do concessions." GAO's
    work indicates that this comment typifies the agency's approach to managing
    its concessions program.

    In addition to the problems with the qualifications and training of its
    concessions staff, the Park Service's concessions contracting practices are
    out-of-date and do not reflect the best practices of the federal government,
    the private sector, or other contracting practices within the agency. For
    example, contracting staff in other agencies throughout the federal
    government are encouraged to write contracts that are performance
    based--meaning that the contracts contain incentives for good performance
    and disincentives for performance that falls below expectations. However,
    the agency's concessions program is not using performance-based contracts;
    and according to several senior Park Service concessions program officials,
    the agency has no plans to do so. Furthermore, for about 10 years, the
    agency has had difficulty addressing its contracting workload in a timely
    manner, resulting in chronic backlogs of expired concessions contracts. Many
    concessions contracts expired 5 to 10 years ago, and concessioners have
    since been operating on 1- to 3-year contract extensions. These expired or
    extended contracts contribute to the varying condition of lodging facilities
    because concessioners operating under short-term contract extensions, or
    nearing the end of their contracts, are less likely to invest in their
    facilities to make needed capital improvements.

    The third major management issue affecting the concessions program is a lack
    of accountability. While the Park Service, like other federal agencies, is
    trying to improve accountability and program performance in response to the
    Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other related
    initiatives, the concessions program is an area where these efforts need to
    be improved. Under the agency's organizational structure, the head of the
    program--the Chief of Concessions--has no direct authority over those that
    implement the program in individual park units. Thus, the organizational
    structure of the agency limits the impact that the head of the program or
    other central offices can have on its ultimate success. This structure
    relies on regional directors' holding park superintendents accountable for
    the results of their parks' concessions programs. However, concessions
    officials in the Park Service's headquarters and two largest regional
    offices indicated that this is not occurring. Specifically, they
    acknowledged that superintendents are not being evaluated on the results of
    their concessions programs. As a result, it is not surprising that this lack
    of accountability exists. Further contributing to this lack of
    accountability is the fact that there is no process in place for
    headquarters or regional staff to ensure that park concessioners are meeting
    the agency's minimum acceptable standards or that these standards are being
    consistently applied. In the private hotel/motel industry and the Department
    of Defense--which manages similar activities--independent inspection teams
    are used to determine the condition of the facilities and services being
    provided to the public. The Park Service does not have such teams. As a
    result, Park Service management has no systematic way of identifying
    agencywide problems and determining whether corrective actions are needed or
    new initiatives are warranted.

    Concessions Program

    Two options are available to deal with the problems identified in the
    management of the concessions program: (1) professionalize the workforce to
    obtain better business and contracting expertise or (2) contract for the
    needed business and contracting expertise. To professionalize its
    concessions workforce, the Park Service could change its hiring practices
    and upgrade its training. Rather than filling positions in the concessions
    program with staff transferred from other career fields, the agency could
    hire staff with backgrounds or education in hospitality and/or business
    management. Through this approach, the agency would gradually develop
    greater in-house expertise in managing concessioners in a more businesslike
    manner. In addition, the agency could upgrade the training of its
    concessions contracting staff so that they were as well qualified as the
    agency staff involved with contracting outside the concessions program.

    The benefit of pursuing this option would be that the agency would develop a
    more qualified, better-trained, and professionalized concessions workforce.
    However, the agency's past record in taking action to address these issues
    is not encouraging. Many of the concerns raised in this report about the
    qualifications of the Park Service's concessions staff have surfaced
    repeatedly over the past 10 years in reports by the Department of the
    Interior's Inspector General and by several different departmental or agency
    task forces. Several times over this period, the Park Service has generally
    agreed that it needs to professionalize its concessions workforce, but, as
    GAO's work indicates, the agency has not made significant progress in this
    area. Hence, the agency's past experience suggests that there can be little
    confidence that the agency will address these issues.

    Instead of professionalizing its workforce, the Park Service could contract
    for the expertise it needs to operate its concessions program. Contractors
    could be hired to handle a number of financial and business-related tasks
    such as planning, writing contract prospectuses, performing financial
    analysis, assisting with contracting, and evaluating the performance of
    concessioners.

    Contracting for the business-related staff could have several benefits. For
    example, through contracting, the agency could obtain a highly qualified
    workforce in a short period of time. In addition, it would gain some
    flexibility in staffing and could adjust the number of staff to fit the size
    of its upcoming workload. Contracting could allow it to bring more staff on
    to handle its backlog of expired and expiring concessions contracts and cut
    back on its contractor staff when the workload is diminished.

    Furthermore, contracting for certain functions has the potential to improve
    performance as well as reduce some costs. For example, traditionally,
    inspections of concessioners' facilities and operations are a responsibility
    of park concessions staff. These inspections can be subjective, and the
    application of standards can vary from park to park. If the agency
    centralized and contracted for this function, it could perhaps perform
    inspections with fewer people and yet achieve greater consistency across the
    agency.

    While contracting has some potential to reduce costs in the concessions
    program, it could also increase costs, particularly areas where the agency
    would contract for larger numbers of highly skilled staff than it currently
    maintains. However, some of the increased costs of contracting for more
    qualified staff in the concessions program could be mitigated by
    centralizing certain functions, such as inspections. In addition, the
    increased costs could be mitigated by reducing the number of agency staff in
    the concessions program.

    These two options are not mutually exclusive, in that the agency could
    contract for expertise in certain functions while developing the expertise
    in-house for other functions. These options are principally focused on
    improving the agency's management of its largest concessioners--most of
    which are lodging concessioners. In GAO's view, once the agency has made
    changes in the concessions program to address its largest concessioners, the
    benefits of additional expertise−whether acquired through hiring,
    training, contracting--are likely to cascade down to improve the agency's
    management of its smaller concessioners.

    Finally, no matter which option or combination of options it selects, the
    Park Service will need to strengthen its accountability for and control of
    the concessions program. Unless changes are made to better link concessions
    programs at the park-level with the agency's leadership of the concessions
    program, efforts to improve the program through the suggested options are
    unlikely to succeed.

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of
    the National Park Service to increase the effectiveness of the concessions
    management program by improving the qualifications of the concessions staff
    (including improving their training in writing and administering contracts),
    contracting for these services, or engaging in some combination of the two.

    GAO further recommends that the Secretary require the Director of the Park
    Service to improve the accountability of park managers by establishing a
    formal process for performing periodic independent inspections of
    concessioners' lodging operations throughout the park system. These
    independent inspection teams should determine if the services provided by
    concessioners meet the agency's standards and report these findings to the
    Director for corrective action.

    GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior and
    the National Parks Hospitality Association--an industry group representing
    park concessioners--for their review and comment. The Department of the
    Interior generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the
    report. The Department stated that the recommendations offered an
    opportunity to strengthen and reform the Park Service's concessions program.
    The Department indicated that the Park Service is already taking actions to
    address some of the concessions program's management problems that were
    discussed in the report, and is actively considering other actions--such as
    moving toward more performance-based contracting. GAO believes that the
    Department's actions are a positive step and, if implemented, will help
    improve the program.

    The National Park Hospitality Association believed that the backlog of
    expired concessions contracts was the single most important factor affecting
    the Park Service's concessions program, including the condition of
    concessions facilities. GAO agrees that this backlog is one of the key
    management problems currently facing the concessions program. The
    association also believed that ownership of facilities gives concessioners
    incentives to keep the facilities in good condition. While there may be such
    incentives, GAO's work indicated that ownership of facilities did not appear
    to be a key factor affecting their condition. Some government-owned
    facilities were in very good condition, and some were in very poor
    condition. The same was true for concessioner-owned facilities.

    More detailed discussions of the comments from the Department of the
    Interior and the National Park Hospitality Association are included in
    chapters 2 and 3. The Department of the Interior's comments appear in full
    in appendix II, and the National Parks Hospitality Association's comments
    are included in appendix III.

    Introduction

    The national park system comprises 379 units or areas that include some of
    the nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. These units
    include a diverse mix of sites, from crown jewel natural parks such as
    Yellowstone National Park and Yosemite National Park to historic parks units
    such as Independence National Historical Park and Gettysburg National
    Military Park. The National Park Service, an agency within the Department of
    the Interior, is responsible for managing the more than 80 million acres
    that make up the national park system. The Park Service's mission in
    managing the park system is to provide for the public's enjoyment of the
    parks while at the same time protecting their resources so that they will
    remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

    Concessioners play a significant role in providing services at the parks to
    over 270 million visitors each year. Concessioners are private contractors
    that operate facilities and provide services, such as lodging, food,
    merchandising, marinas, and various guided services, at 132 park units.
    Concessions operations are a key element in the operation of many parks, and
    a major portion of visitor services nationwide are provided through
    concessions. The history of concessions contracting dates back to the
    establishment of the first national park--Yellowstone National Park in
    1872--where private businesses provided diverse services, such as lodging,
    transportation, and camping, to visitors. Today, concessioners operate the
    ferry system that transports millions of visitors to the Statute of Liberty
    and Ellis Island; conduct narrated shuttle tours to 18 major sites on the
    National Mall and in Arlington National Cemetery; and manage six lodges,
    guided mule service, and bus tours for visitors to Grand Canyon National
    Park.

    In August 1998, we issued a report on the condition of concessioner-operated
    lodging facilities in the national park system.2 That report demonstrated
    that the condition of lodging facilities, and therefore the performance of
    the concessioners managing them, varied considerably from park to park and
    was at times quite poor. This report discusses the management factors that
    allow such widely varying conditions to exist and suggests options to
    improve the management of the concessions program.

    The 1916 Organic Act that created the Park Service authorized the Secretary
    of the Interior to grant privileges to private businesses for the
    accommodation of visitors within the national park system. To do so, the
    Park Service issues contracts and permits to concessioners to provide
    services in the parks. Until the passage of the National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998 (1998 act), concessions contracts could be awarded up
    to 30 years. However, the 1998 act provides that such contracts shall be
    awarded generally for 10 years or less, unless a longer term (up to 20
    years) is warranted. On June 30, 1999, the Park Service published in the
    Federal Register a proposed rule to amend its regulations on concessions
    contracts to comply with the requirements of the 1998 act, which provides
    new legislative authorities, policies, and requirements for the
    solicitation, award and administration of the Park Service's concessions
    contracts. The Park Service expects to issue final regulations in April
    2000.

    Within the Park Service, the Washington Concessions Division is responsible
    for developing regulations, policies, and guidelines governing the
    administration of the concessions program throughout the national park
    system. Individual parks have the primary responsibility for administering
    and implementing all aspects of the concessions program, including planning
    and contracting, administering the provisions of the contracts, approving
    the rates that concessioners can charge the public, and evaluating
    concessioners' operations. This responsibility includes ensuring that the
    parks and visitors receive satisfactory services and facilities from
    concessioners. To do this, park staff perform periodic and annual
    evaluations of concessioners' services and facilities to ensure that park
    visitors receive safe, sanitary, and attractive services, equal in quality
    to those that visitors would expect from the private sector operating
    outside national park areas. The Concessions Program Center, located in
    Denver, provides technical support servicewide in areas such as planning for
    concessions operations, concessions contracting, conducting appraisals, and
    conducting financial and feasibility studies relating to concessions. In
    addition, each of the Park Service's seven regional offices has one or two
    support offices that provide direct assistance to parks in such activities
    as planning, contracting, and reviewing concessions operations.

    The activities that concessioners conduct throughout the national park
    system are quite broad in nature and size. Concessions operations range from
    large lodging, food, and retail establishments generating more than $50
    million each year to very small outfitters that generate less than $5,000
    per year. Most concessioners are relatively small businesses that generate
    less than $100,000 in revenues per year. However, the relatively few
    concessioners that provide lodging are among the largest concessioners in
    the park system. In 1998, about 630 concessioners provided visitor services
    grossing about $765 million in revenues. Of that amount, about $479 million
    (almost two-thirds) came from 73 concessioners that provide lodging
    accommodations. Thus, most of the revenues generated by park concessioners
    come from the few concessioners--about 12 percent--that provide lodging to
    park visitors. While this report specifically addresses lodging
    concessioners in national parks, its findings can also apply to other large
    concessioners throughout the parks.

    Lodging in the national park system consists of a variety of facilities,
    including rustic lodging (lodging not accessible by automotive vehicles),
    tents, cabins, motels, and hotels. Forty-five of the national parks provide
    lodging facilities, including hotel- or motel-type facilities, dude ranches,
    hostels, and rustic and tent cabins. Thirty of these parks offer visitors
    overnight lodging accommodations in hotel- or motel-type facilities. The
    lodging accommodations range from economy rooms with few amenities, to
    mid-scale rooms, to deluxe historic and elegant hotels, such as the Ahwahnee
    Hotel in Yosemite National Park and the El Tovar Hotel in Grand Canyon
    National Park. Annually, nearly 4 million visitors stay in lodging provided
    by concessioners. Figure 1 illustrates various types of lodging facilities
    in the national park system

    Figure 1: Examples of Lodging Facilities Found in the National Park System

    Considerably

    In our prior review of the condition of lodging facilities, we judgmentally
    selected a sample of 10 parks--about one-third of all parks having hotel-
    and motel-type lodging operated by concessioners--to evaluate the condition
    of these facilities. Using commonly accepted hospitality industry standards,
    we found that the condition of lodging facilities−and, thus, the
    performance of the concessioners managing them−varied considerably
    among and within parks. For example, as shown in figure 2, lodging
    facilities like those at Bryce Canyon and Zion in Utah were in very good
    condition.

    Figure 2: Typical Motel Rooms in Very Good Condition at Bryce and Zion
    National Parks

    However, other facilities, such as those at Stovepipe Wells in Death Valley
    National Park in California, needed substantial renovation. Figures 3 and 4
    illustrate the poor conditions we found in these facilities. 3

    Figure 3: Needed Exterior Repairs at a Lodging Structure at Stovepipe Wells
    in Death Valley National Park

    Figure 4: Repair and Maintenance Problems in Rooms at Stovepipe Wells

    We also found that lodging facilities in 4 of the 10 parks we reviewed in
    1998 did not have functioning smoke detectors; those in 2 parks had a large
    number of housekeeping problems, such as dirty and/or stained carpets and
    unclean windows; and those in 5 parks had a substantial number of repair and
    maintenance problems, such as cracks, holes, or stains in bathroom walls
    and/or ceilings.

    In addition to the condition of lodging facilities at the 10 parks we
    reviewed in our prior report, we assessed the condition of lodging
    facilities at two other parks during this review--Sequoia-Kings Canyon
    National Park in California and Olympic National Park in Washington.
    Appendix I of this report summarizes the condition of the lodging facilities
    in these two parks.

    Concerned about the widely varying conditions of park lodging facilities and
    the performance of the concessioners contracted to manage them, the
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and
    Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, asked us to
    review factors affecting the condition of lodging facilities in the national
    park system and options available to address these factors. Accordingly, we
    reviewed the factors affecting the condition of lodging facilities at seven
    national parks. The parks selected included 5 of the 10 parks we visited
    during our prior review. These were Bryce Canyon and Zion national
    parks--where we found some of the best lodging conditions−and Death
    Valley, Mammoth Cave, and Shenandoah national parks--where we found lodging
    facilities needing significant repair. In addition, for this review, we
    selected two other parks. We chose these parks because they have multiple
    concessioners operating lodging facilities in each park--Sequoia-Kings
    Canyon National Park has two concessioners that each provide lodging, and
    Olympic National Park has four concessioners that each operate lodging
    facilities.4 We selected these two parks to determine whether lodging
    conditions and the performance of concessioners varied among different
    concessioners in the same park. Table 1 shows the parks and concessioners
    that we contacted.

    Table 1: Parks and Concessions Contractors Contacted

     Park unit                          Concessioners
     Bryce Canyon National Park         AmFac Parks & Resorts
     Death Valley National Park         AmFac Parks & Resorts
     Mammoth Cave National Park         National Park Concessions, Inc.
                                        Aramark Corp.

                                        Log Cabin Resort
     Olympic National Park
                                        National Park Concessions, Inc.

                                        Sol Duc Hot Springs Resort
                                        Delaware North Parks Services
     Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park
                                        Kings Canyon Park Services Company
     Shenandoah National Park           Aramark Corp.
     Zion National Park                 AmFac Parks & Resorts

    We identified multiple factors that may affect the condition of lodging
    facilities and the performance of concessioners through discussions with
    park officials and concessioners at the seven parks visited; Park Service
    officials at headquarters; two regional offices; and the Concessions Program
    Center in Denver; officials in the hotel and motel industry; and the
    National Park Hospitality Association, which represents the major
    concessioners in the national park system. These factors included the
    concessioner's management, the relationship between the concessioner and the
    park, the extent of the reserve or special account in which funds are set
    aside for improving facilities, the park's oversight and evaluation of the
    concessioner's operations, the park's use of specialists in concessions
    management that carried out concessions-related activities full-time or as a
    collateral duty, the process for approving reasonable rates that
    concessioners can charge the public, the operation of lodging facilities on
    a seasonal or year-round basis as well as the extent of the operating
    revenues, the ownership of the facilities (i.e., whether they were owned by
    the government or the concessioner), and the designation of facilities as
    historic structures requiring higher maintenance and repair costs. We also
    reviewed various documents relating to concessioners' operations in the
    parks, including the concessions contracts, maintenance and operating plans,
    parks' evaluations of concessioners' operations for 1997 and 1998, and
    concessioners' annual reports.

    Information on the condition of the lodging facilities in the five parks we
    previously visited is contained in the prior lodging report. In that report,
    we developed a checklist to evaluate the condition of lodging facilities.
    That checklist was based on common industry standards for inspecting lodging
    facilities. We used the same checklist to evaluate the condition of the
    lodging facilities in Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Olympic national parks. That
    checklist, and the results of our inspection of those two parks, are found
    in appendix I.

    To develop options for addressing the management of park concessions, we
    considered what would resolve long-standing issues related to concerns about
    the (1) qualifications and training of concessions staff, (2) chronic
    backlogs of concessions contracts, and (3) lack of accountability within the
    concessions program. In addition, we compared the Park Service's concessions
    contracting requirements and practices with the contracting requirements and
    best contracting practices prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation
    and implemented by the Department of the Interior. We also reviewed reports
    by the Department of the Interior's Inspector General, Park Service task
    forces, and GAO that evaluated the concessions management program.

    Because our study focused on a judgmental sample of seven national parks,
    our findings may not be representative of the entire national park system.
    However, the Park Service and other units within the Department of the
    Interior have prepared at least seven other reports and analyses that
    evaluate concessions management activities within the agency and support our
    analysis in many respects. These other analyses are cited throughout this
    report where appropriate. We conducted our review from April 1999 through
    February 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards.

    Long-Standing Management Problems Affect the Condition of Lodging Facilities

    Our work indicated that problems with the Park Service's overall approach to
    managing the concessions program are the primary reason that the condition
    of park lodging facilities varies--ranging from very good at some parks to
    needing substantial repairs at others. After considering numerous
    site-specific factors that could potentially affect conditions−such as
    whether the facilities were used year-round or just seasonally, whether the
    facilities were owned by the government or by the concessioner, whether the
    facilities were designated as historic structures, and others−our
    analysis indicated that the most significant factors are those involving the
    agency's overall approach to managing the program. Specifically, the
    management problems center on three areas: (1) inadequate qualifications and
    training of the agency's concessions specialists and concessions contracting
    staff, (2) the agency's out-of-date practices in handling its contracting
    workload and chronic backlog of expired contracts, and (3) a lack of
    accountability within the concessions program.

    For the most part, these problems are not new. For many years, similar
    concerns about the concessions program's management have been raised by the
    Department of the Interior, its Office of the Inspector General, and Park
    Service concessions staff. Because of these problems, the Park Service
    frequently has difficulty managing the performance of its concessioners,
    including the quality of the services and facilities that they provide.

    Concessions Program

    Several times since 1990, the Department of the Interior's Office of the
    Inspector General and the Park Service's own staff have raised concerns
    about the qualifications and training of the agency's concessions staff. The
    primary concern was that Park Service concessions staff do not normally have
    the business, financial, and contracting backgrounds needed to successfully
    carry out the concessions program. However, the agency has made only limited
    progress in addressing these issues. It has made few efforts to hire staff
    with education or experience in business management or hospitality
    management. Instead, the agency typically fills concessions staffing needs
    by transferring staff from other career fields within the agency. Once
    transferred to the concessions program, these staff receive only limited
    training. The chief concessions official in one regional office indicated to
    us that there is a view within the agency that "anyone can do concessions."
    Our work indicates that this comment typifies the agency's approach to
    managing its concessions program.

    Concessions Staff

    Traditionally, to meet the concessions program's staffing needs, the Park
    Service transfers staff from other career fields within the agency, such as
    interpretive or law enforcement rangers and administrative staff. With very
    few exceptions, the concessions staff we spoke with were hired by the Park
    Service to serve in some other career field and were subsequently
    transferred to the concessions field. This was prevalent at all levels
    within the program, including the head of the program, and most
    headquarters, regional, and park concessions officials. For example, the
    chief of the concessions program was a park superintendent before assuming
    her current position. She was hired initially into the agency's finance
    office and later worked in cultural resources and interpretation before
    becoming a concessions analyst and later a park superintendent. The
    principal concessions staff, at Bryce Canyon, Mammoth Cave, Sequoia-Kings
    Canyon, and Death Valley national parks were all hired as law enforcement or
    interpretative rangers and were later transferred into the concessions
    program. The principal concessions staff at Shenandoah National Park and the
    senior operations and contracting officials in the agency's concessions
    headquarters office were first hired to fill administrative positions. In
    total, of the about 20 agency concessions staff we spoke with, only 4 were
    hired into the agency's concessions program with experience or backgrounds
    in business or hospitality management, and 1 of these 4 staff has since
    retired.

    Our review suggests that the practice of hiring concessions staff from other
    career fields is likely to continue. Two of the seven parks we
    visited--Mammoth Cave and Shenandoah national parks--indicated they were
    looking to hire concessions staff. Mammoth Cave National Park was trying to
    expand its concessions staff, while Shenandoah National Park was trying to
    replace a departing staff person. In both cases, park managers indicated
    they were looking to fill the position from within the agency because (1)
    either they did not think they could pay enough to hire someone with a
    background or education in business or hospitality management or (2) they
    were concerned about how long it would take an outside hire to learn how the
    parks operate.

    Since 1990, several Department of the Interior or Park Service task forces
    have recommended that the agency "professionalize" the concessions workforce
    through better training and/or hiring staff with education or experience in
    hotel or business management. For example, in 1990, a Park Service task
    force found that concessions staff do not normally have the business,
    financial, and contracting backgrounds needed to successfully carry out the
    concessions program. In addition, a 1990 report from the Department of the
    Interior's Inspector General recommended upgrading the qualifications of
    staff working in the concessions field. This report stated that the staff
    working in concessions "did not have sufficient educational backgrounds" to
    perform their work well.5 In 1991, a Department of the Interior task force
    recommended that all agencies within the Department--including the Park
    Service--recruit staff for their concessions programs that "have a basic
    knowledge of business including such subjects as contract law, contract
    administration, hotel and restaurant management, accounting, and financial
    management . . . . Furthermore, a 1994 memorandum from the Director of the
    Park Service to the agency's regional directors stated that the agency
    needed more concessions staff "with education or experience in business,
    accounting, business law or the hospitality industry." The Director
    indicated that the agency did not have enough staff with these backgrounds
    and that a wide recruitment effort was needed. The Director suggested that
    to recruit qualified staff, the agency should look for candidates from
    outside the government. Nonetheless, the Park Service is continuing to fill
    positions in the concessions program by transferring staff from other career
    fields. The agency has yet to make significant improvements in
    professionalizing its concessions workforce.

    These concerns about why the agency has not hired more staff with
    business-related skills were echoed by headquarters officials. They
    indicated there were several reasons why the agency has not hired staff with
    backgrounds or education in business or hospitality management. The
    concessions program's senior operations official in headquarters said that
    most college graduates with a background in business or hospitality
    management do not want to work for the government or in isolated areas of
    the country where many parks are located. In addition, according to this
    official, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) regulations slow the
    hiring process so much that by the time the Park Service can make an offer,
    an applicant is likely to have taken another job. These comments are
    consistent with the views expressed in a 1997 report by a Park Service task
    force on concessions. The report indicated that the procedures set up by OPM
    for hiring qualified staff in federal agencies are somewhat cumbersome.
    According to the report, "instead of assisting the agency in finding the
    most qualified candidate for any specific position, these procedures may
    serve to deter some qualified candidates from applying." However, this same
    headquarters concessions official acknowledged that it has been about 5 to
    10 years since the agency has made any real effort to hire from colleges.
    When it made such an effort, it was focused only on universities with large
    minority populations--as part of an effort to increase the diversity of the
    agency workforce--and not on colleges and universities known for their
    business or hospitality management programs.

    Given the Park Service's approach to staffing these positions, providing
    sufficient training is especially critical. However, once staff begin
    working in concessions, they are provided with only limited formal training.
    For example, the primary training is a 40-hour course on reviewing
    concessioners' pricing and evaluating their performance. In addition, there
    is a 40-hour course on concessions contracting, as well as some other
    periodic training. A grant program also provides funding for a limited
    number of staff to do such things as take professional development classes
    or take short-term fact-finding trips to other agencies or private
    corporations to learn from their operations.

    In 1995, a Park Service task force on concessions reported that for many
    years, the agency's concessions training has been reactive in both its
    content and timing--the result of current initiatives and influences rather
    than long-term planning. As a result, according to the report, "the program
    has failed to give its employees the training they need to manage the
    complex concessions program." This task force recommended a multiyear
    strategy for developing a comprehensive training curriculum for concessions
    staff. However, according to the senior headquarters concessions official
    who coordinates concessions training, because of limited funding for
    training, this strategy has not been implemented. This official indicated
    that the budget for the concessions program is generally sufficient to fund
    one programwide training class each year. While other funding for training
    is available in the agency, all programs and career fields compete for this
    money. Because training for other programs is given higher priority, the
    concessions program does not usually receive additional funding for
    training. As a result, according to this official, the agency is not
    providing its concessions employees with the training they need to succeed
    in managing the concessions program. With limited money for formal training,
    most of the training is done on the job or through mentoring by more senior
    concessions staff. This has been the agency's practice for many years.

    Several internal studies and other documents have addressed the
    qualifications and training of concessions staff. Table 2 summarizes the key
    points made in these studies and documents on this issue.

    Table 2: Notable Reports and Memorandums That Raised Concerns About the
    Qualifications and/or Training of Park Service Concessions Staff

     Source and date of report/memorandum Concerns raised by report/memorandum

     Report of the Task Force on National Concessions staff do not normally
     Park Service Concessions, U.S.       have the business, financial, and
     Department of the Interior, Apr. 9,  contracting backgrounds needed to
     1990                                 successfully carry out the
                                          concessions program.

     Follow-up Review of Concessions      Agency staff working in concessions
     Management, National Park Service,   do not have sufficient educational
     Report No. 90-62, Office of the      backgrounds to perform their work
     Inspector General, U.S. Department   well. The report recommends improving
     of the Interior, Apr. 1990           the qualifications of staff working
                                          in the concessions field.
                                          This report recommends that all
                                          agencies within the Department
     Report of the Concessions Management recruit staff for their concessions
     Task Force, U.S. Department of the   programs with a basic knowledge of
     Interior, Nov. 4, 1991               business, including such subjects as
                                          contract law and administration,
                                          hotel/restaurant management, and
                                          financial management.
                                          The agency needs more concessions
     Memorandum from the Director of the  staff with education or experience in
     Park Service on Personnel Staffing   business, accounting, business law or
     for National Park Service            the hospitality industry. To recruit
     Concessions, Jan. 12, 1994           qualified staff, the Director
                                          suggests that the agency look for
                                          candidates outside of the government.
     Park Service concessions work group,
     June 1994--findings reported in      The agency needs to develop a
     Concession Careers Future Task Force recruitment program, enhance training
     Report, National Park Service, Oct.  and development, and improve career
     97                                   development.
                                          The concessions management program
     Concessions Management Curriculum    has failed to give its employees the
     Task Force Report, National Park     training they need to manage the
     Service, Sept. 1995                  complex concessions program. A
                                          systematic, comprehensive employment
                                          development program is needed.
                                          This report outlines a series of
     Concession Careers Future Task Force human resource management processes
     Report, National Park Service, Oct.  and recommendations to strengthen and
     1997                                 professionalize the staff needed to
                                          effectively manage concessions.

    Source: GAO's compilation of agency documents.

    Expired

    The concessions contracting practices of the Park Service are out of date
    and do not reflect the best practices of the federal government, private
    sector, or other contracting programs within the agency. In addition, the
    agency has had difficulty addressing its concessions contracting workload in
    a timely manner and has experienced chronic backlogs of expired contracts
    for nearly 10 years. This backlog of contracts has created a disincentive
    for concessioners to invest in facilities. As contracts have expired, most
    concessioners have been put under short-term contract extensions lasting
    between 1 and 3 years. According to several concessioners, such short-term
    extensions discourage investment because they give concessioners little time
    to earn a return on their investment. When concessioners invest less in
    facilities or capital improvements, the condition of lodging facilities is
    affected. Thus, the backlog of expired contracts contributes to the varying
    condition of the parks' lodging facilities.

    The agency's concessions contracting practices do not reflect the best
    practices of the federal government or of other contracting programs within
    the agency. The Park Service uses two major types of contracts: concessions
    contracts and acquisition, or procurement, contracts. Procurement contracts
    are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (known as the FAR). Among
    other things, the FAR prescribes a contracting process that reflects many of
    the best contracting practices of both the public and the private sectors.
    Because concessions contracts are not funded by federal appropriations, they
    are not subject to the FAR. As a result, according to agency officials, the
    agency has made no attempt to learn how best practices prescribed by the FAR
    could be applied to the contracting practices of the concessions program.

    Concessions contracts and procurement contracts are managed separately in
    the agency, with little or no communication between the two contracting
    staffs or sharing of information on best practices. The value of concessions
    contracts in 1998 was about $765 million, while the value of procurement
    contracts in the agency was about $167 million. Yet despite the lower dollar
    value of the procurement contracts, the training and qualification standards
    prescribed by the FAR for the agency's procurement contracting staff are
    much higher than the Park Service's standards for the concessions
    contracting staff.

    For example, procurement contracting staff must meet specific training
    requirements in order to qualify to write contracts of varying values.6 The
    greater the value of the contract, the more training is required for
    contracting staff to execute the contract. Procurement contracting staff
    must also update their training to keep their skills current. If they do not
    meet these requirements, they lose their authority to sign contracts. By
    contrast, concessions contracting staff have no such requirements, although
    the agency does suggest some limited training. As a result, there is a lower
    standard for the qualifications of staff executing concessions contracts. As
    shown in table 3, the qualifications required for concessions staff to write
    a contract worth $1 million per year--or even $10 million per year--are
    significantly less rigorous than the qualifications required for procurement
    staff to write a contract worth $1 million per year.

    Table 3: Training and Experience Required to Execute the Park Service's
    Procurement and Concessions Contracts

                          Park Service's procurement    Park Service's
                          contracts                     concessions contracts
     Annual value of
     contracts (1998)     $167,000,000                  $765,000,000
                                                        None. However a 40-hour
                          400 hours of training in      training course is
                          advanced contract law,        suggested.
     Training required to negotiation techniques,
     write contracts of   advanced contract             The core training
     more than $1,000,000 administration, source        relies on mentoring and
                          selection, planning, cost and on-the-job training
                          price analysis, and others.   from other concessions
                                                        staff.
                          At a minimum, 4 years
                          experience in writing
                          progressively more complex
     Experience required  contracts. Contracting
     to write $1,000,000  officers working on complex,  None.
     contracts            large-dollar-value contracts
                          must have additional
                          specialized training and
                          experience commensurate with
                          their duties.
     Continuing education 40 hours of training every 2  None, although various
     requirement          years.                        training is suggested.
     Consequence of not
     meeting continuing   Loss of the authority to sign
     education            contracts.                    None
     requirement

    Source: Park Service concessions officials and the Department of the
    Interior's acquisition regulations.

    In addition, for procurement contracts, a Park Service official in
    headquarters is responsible for enforcing compliance with these
    requirements. If procurement contracting staff are not in compliance with
    these requirements, they lose their authority to write contracts. In
    contrast, for concessions contracting, there are no comparable requirements.

    The notion of the concessions contracting program learning from the agency's
    procurement contracting program is not new. A 1990 Park Service task force
    on concessions management recommended that the agency explore the
    development of contracting procedures and training requirements similar to
    those required for the agency's procurement staff. However, this was never
    done. According to Park Service concessions contracting officials, because
    they are exempt from the FAR, there has never been an effort made to align
    the contracting practices of the concessions program with the practices of
    the agency's procurement contracting program.

    Furthermore, according to a Deputy Associate Administrator in the Office of
    Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Federal Procurement Policy--the
    highest contracting policy office in the federal government--there is no
    reason why any agency or any program activity within an agency cannot apply
    good contract management principles and practice good contract management as
    prescribed by the FAR--regardless of whether they are subject to the FAR.
    This official indicated that the FAR includes many of the best contracting
    practices of both the public and the private sectors. For example, under the
    FAR, procurement contracting staff are encouraged to write performance-based
    contracts--meaning contracts that contain incentives for good performance
    and disincentives for performance that falls below expectations. However,
    the concessions program has not used performance-based contracts. Several
    Park Service concessions program officials, including the senior contracting
    official in headquarters, have indicated that the agency has no plans for
    moving toward more performance-based contracts. According to the official
    from OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, performance-based contracts
    are considered a best practice in the federal government and private
    industry and should be used wherever possible to provide incentives for
    better performance from contractors, including concessioners. Moving to more
    performance-based contracts could help the Park Service better manage
    concessioners' performance--including their performance in maintaining the
    condition of lodging facilities.

    According to this senior OMB official, an agency can adopt the FAR's
    principles and practices to help address whatever goal the agency is trying
    to achieve. As a result, programs that are exempt from the FAR, such as the
    Park Service's concessions program, have an opportunity to (1) use the best
    practices prescribed by the FAR in their contracting programs and (2) be
    more innovative in their contracting, since their contracting authorities
    provide a great deal of discretion.

    Nonetheless, when we discussed this issue with several park and concessions
    officials, they said the incentives and disincentives that are typically
    part of performance-based contracts could help to ensure that facilities
    were adequately maintained. For example, following practices in the
    hospitality industry, a long-term concessions contract could contain
    performance-based provisions linking incentives and disincentives to
    concessioners with how well they maintained their facilities and provided
    contracted services. In this regard, the long-term contracts for the seven
    parks included in our review do not contain provisions for investing in
    facilities during the latter stages of the contracts. As a result,
    concessioners have less incentive to invest funds to improve or maintain
    facilities during this period. While most of these contracts were awarded
    for about 20 years or longer, facility improvements were usually required
    only during the first 5 years of the contracts.

    The Park Service's concessions staff has made no effort to learn what
    practices prescribed by the FAR would benefit concessions contracting. The
    senior concessions contracting staff in both headquarters and the
    Concessions Program Center--the agency's technical support center--were not
    familiar with the contracting practices prescribed in the FAR. In addition,
    when the concessions staff were developing regulations and standard contract
    language to implement the new concessions law passed in 1998, they did not
    consult with or seek advice from the agency's procurement staff, contracting
    consultants, or any other outside contracting experts. In fact, the senior
    concessions contracting official in headquarters indicated to us that the
    agency made no attempt to include any best contracting practices of either
    the public or the private sector in the agency's concessions program.
    Instead, they relied on the staff who were most familiar with the agency's
    past concessions contracting practices to develop the new regulations. As a
    result, the Park Service's concessions contracting practices are out of date
    and are an obstacle to better managing concessioners' activities and
    performance. In our view, using the best available contracting practices
    would enhance the agency's ability to improve the performance of
    concessioners and the facilities and services they provide.

    Concessioners

    In addition to not using the most up-to-date contracting practices, the Park
    Service has carried backlogs of expired concessions contracts for nearly 10
    years. As contracts expire, the agency has put many concessioners under 1-
    to 3-year contract extensions. This is significant because several of the
    concessioners we spoke with indicated that there was a disincentive to
    invest in facilities when they were operating under extensions because there
    was such a short time available for them to earn a sufficient return on
    their investment. As of December 31, 1999, 283 of the 630 concessions
    contracts and permits had expired. In addition, another 195 contracts or
    permits will expire by the end of 2001. In total, 478−or about 75
    percent−of the agency's 630 concessions contracts and permits either
    have expired or will expire by December 31, 2001.

    Much of the backlog dates from 1990, when the Secretary of the Interior
    placed a moratorium on concessions contracting because of his concerns about
    the management of the Park Service's concessions program. To address these
    concerns, the agency issued new concessions regulations in 1992 and revised
    its standard concessions contract language in 1993. However, by 1995, only
    limited contracting had occurred, and 95 percent of the agency's concessions
    contracts had expired. From 1995 to 1998, the agency focused on extending
    expired contracts for short terms--generally 1 to 3 years. Little
    contracting was done during this period, according to agency officials,
    because of uncertainty created by pending legislation proposing changes to
    the agency's concessions law. In November 1998, the National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998 became law. Title IV of this act included a new
    concessions law for the agency. No contracts have been written since the new
    law was passed because the agency has been promulgating regulations and
    developing standard contract language to begin contracting under its new
    authority.

    This backlog of contracts presents a tremendous workload for the Park
    Service. Some program officials are concerned that the agency may not have
    enough experienced staff to address its contracting needs in a timely
    manner. For example, the Chief of Concessions indicated that one of her top
    priorities is expanding the capacity of the agency to write contracts. This
    concern about capacity suggests that the agency may need several more years
    to eliminate its backlog of concessions contracts.

    Other factors could also affect the agency's ability to address its
    contracting backlog. The Chief of Concessions indicated that delays in
    finalizing the agency's concessions contracting regulations--which implement
    the new concessions law--have further increased the backlog. The agency
    cannot begin writing contracts until the regulations are finalized. The new
    concessions law was passed in November 1998, and the regulations
    implementing this law were published for comment in June 1999. The comment
    period ended in October 1999, and the agency has since been reviewing
    comments and finalizing the regulations. However, as of March 23, 2000, the
    regulations had yet to be made final.

    Concerns about addressing the backlog of contracts are significant because
    this backlog affects the condition of lodging facilities. Several of the
    concessioners we spoke with during this review were operating under 1- to
    3-year extensions of expired contracts. They indicated that there is a
    disincentive for them to invest in facilities when they are under such
    extensions because 1 to 3 years may not be enough time for them to generate
    a sufficient return on their investments. Furthermore, several Park Service
    and concessioner officials told us that these short-term extensions create
    uncertainty about how long a concessioner will be operating at a park. This
    uncertainty makes it difficult for concessioners to justify any major
    upgrading of their facilities. If this backlog of contracts continues for
    several more years, it could further affect both the level of investment in
    concessions facilities and the condition of these facilities. In fact, in
    commenting on a draft of this report, the National Park Hospitality
    Association--an industry association that represents park
    concessioners--stated that the backlog of concessions contracts has had a
    devastating effect on the concessions programs in many parks and has
    contributed to both a loss of capital investments and delays in moving
    forward on many facility improvements.

    The Park Service's approach to managing the concessions program lacks
    accountability. Under the agency's organizational structure, the head of the
    program--the Chief of Concessions--has no direct authority over those that
    implement the program in individual park units. Thus, the organizational
    structure of the agency limits the impact that the head of the program or
    other central offices can have on its ultimate success. In addition,
    individual park superintendents are given broad discretion in managing their
    parks' concessions programs. However, according to agency officials, the
    superintendents are not held accountable for the results of their parks'
    concessions programs.

    Managing a park's concessions program is one of the many responsibilities of
    a park superintendent. The superintendent and the park staff implement the
    agency's concessions program and make decisions about how the program will
    be run. The superintendent makes or approves decisions on such matters as
    hiring agency staff for the park's concessions program, determining how much
    of a park's budget and staff will be dedicated to concessions, and rating a
    concessioner's performance during required annual evaluations. However,
    there is no direct reporting relationship between the park superintendents
    and their staff and those who lead the program in the agency's regional and
    headquarters offices. As illustrated in figure 5, each park superintendent
    reports to one of seven regional directors, who in turn report to the
    Director of the National Park Service. While there is a Chief of Concessions
    in the agency's headquarters office, this position reports to an associate
    director--who is part of the agency's senior management team−who in
    turn reports to the Director. This situation results in a lack of
    accountability that undermines the effectiveness of the concessions
    program's overall management.

    Figure 5: Abridged Organization of the National Park Service

    Source: National Park Service.

    One example of how this condition impedes accountability between the Chief
    of Concessions and the individual park concessions staff is the lack of
    meaningful data available to the Chief of Concessions on the performance of
    park concessioners. For instance, the former Chief of Concessions (who
    retired during the course of our review) told us he did not have information
    on the condition of lodging facilities in the parks. He indicated that our
    review would provide him with valuable information about the condition of
    these facilities. He did not have such information because, although the
    condition of facilities is generally known by local park managers, it is not
    generally known or reported to higher levels within the agency. Agency
    officials indicated that this is the case because the agency's
    organizational structure is highly decentralized. The lack of information on
    the conditions of facilities contrasts with the best practices of other
    organizations with similar responsibilities. For instance, in the private
    sector, the hotel and motel industry uses quality assurance inspection teams
    to periodically inspect local hotel operators to ensure that they are
    meeting corporate quality standards for the condition of services and
    facilities. Typically, these teams operate out of an organization's central
    offices and report to the top management of the organization. Similarly,
    within the federal government, the Department of Defense uses inspection
    teams to ensure the quality of many of the hospitality assets it manages,
    such as officers' clubs and lodging facilities available to military staff.
    Both the private industry and the Department of Defense use the independent
    inspection process to (1) evaluate performance and (2) identify possible
    trends or problem areas that need to be addressed on a broader basis.

    In addition to its headquarters and regional offices, the Park Service has a
    technical assistance group for concessions issues, called the Concessions
    Program Center, located in Denver, Colorado. This center was created in 1994
    as a resource available to all park managers and concessions staff in
    running their concessions programs. The center has staff with expertise in
    accounting, appraisal, financial analysis, planning, and concessions
    contracting. This center is considered by agency staff to be an extension of
    the headquarters concessions office. While the Concessions Program Center
    has technical expertise, it serves principally in an advisory capacity to
    the parks implementing the concessions program. Park managers are not
    required to use the resources available at the center. Hence, even though
    the Concessions Program Center retains many of the technical experts within
    the agency's concessions program, their advice and counsel may not be sought
    or fully considered by parks in managing or contracting with concessioners.
    Thus, the organizational structure of the concessions program limits the
    impact that the head of the program or the Concessions Program Center can
    have on its ultimate success.

    Programs

    In the absence of line authority from the head of the concessions program to
    park superintendents, the Park Service relies on regional directors to hold
    the superintendents accountable for the success of their parks' concessions
    programs. This policy was detailed in an agency directive in 1995, which
    stated that superintendents and regional directors are accountable for the
    proper management of their concessions programs and that the results
    achieved will be taken into consideration during annual performance reviews.
    However, officials in the headquarters concessions program office and in the
    two largest regional offices indicated that this is not happening. (These
    two regions--the Intermountain Region and the Pacific West Region--account
    for 52 percent of the agency's concessions contracts and over 75 percent of
    the concessions revenues.) According to these officials, the regional
    directors place little emphasis on the concessions program because they
    rarely consider the parks' performance in managing concessioners when rating
    the performance of park superintendents. Thus, superintendents are not held
    accountable for either (1) the performance of their parks' concessions
    programs, or (2) the performance of concessioners operating in their parks.
    Moreover, because neither the Chief of Concessions in headquarters nor
    officials in the agency's Concessions Program Center have direct authority
    to change or improve this situation, it has not changed. Furthermore, even
    if the regional officials did place more emphasis on assessing the
    performance of park officials in managing concessioners, there is currently
    no mechanism, like inspection teams, for doing so.

    This lack of accountability is not consistent with recent efforts to improve
    accountability and program performance as the Park Service, like other
    federal agencies, implements the requirements of the Government Performance
    and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other related initiatives. GPRA was
    designed to hold federal agencies, and the programs they manage, more
    accountable for achieving improved performance and results. Under GPRA,
    federal agencies are to develop annual performance plans that, among other
    things, establish (1) performance goals and (2) a means to measure progress
    towards attaining these goals. However, even though the performance of
    concessioners is a key ingredient in providing services to millions of park
    visitors annually, the Park Service has not identified any annual
    performance goals specifically related to improving its long-standing
    concessions management problems. The only concessions-related goal mentioned
    is directed at increasing the rate of return to the government generated
    from concessions contracts.

    Like many of the other issues involving concessions management, concerns
    about accountability in the concessions program have been raised several
    times since 1990 by task forces, the Inspector General, and others within
    the agency. Table 4 provides a chronology of various reports and documents
    that discussed the need for accountability within the concessions program.

    Table 4: Notable Reports or Documents That Discussed the Need for
    Accountability Within the Concessions Program

     Source and date of report or
     document                           Concerns raised by report or document
                                        The Park Service needs to raise the
     Report of the Task Force on        level of responsibility for negotiating
     National Park Service Concessions, contracts, create professional teams to
     U.S. Department of the Interior,   inspect concessions operations, and
     Apr. 9, 1990                       improve accountability for managing
                                        activities.
                                        Since the concessions program involves
     Special Directive 95-9 on Revised  the long-term commitment of significant
     Delegation of Authority for        resources and could lead to a perceived
     Concessions Contracting, National  loss of revenues, each park manager and
     Park Service, U.S. Department of   field director will be accountable for
     the Interior, July 11, 1995        the proper management of concessions
                                        under his/her authority.
                                        Uncertainty exists about the roles and
                                        responsibilities of concessions staff
                                        at headquarters, regional and support
     Concession Careers Future Task     offices, and parks. Given the agency's
     Force Report, National Park        organizational structure, the report
     Service, Oct. 1997                 raised questions as to who is
                                        ultimately responsible and accountable
                                        for managing concessions staff in the
                                        concessions program.
                                        The lack of accountability in managing
     Concession Contracting Procedures, concessions created confusion within
     National Park Service, Report No.  the program because staff were
     99-I-626, Office of the Inspector  uncertain about who does what and who
     General, U.S. Department of the    works for whom. The report indicated
     Interior, June 1999                that this confusion contributed to
                                        delays in processing concessions
                                        contracts.

    Source: GAO's compilation of agency documents.

    As these analyses show, these issues related to accountability have led to
    confusion among the concessions staff about their roles and
    responsibilities. For example, the October 1997 Park Service task force
    report noted that there was uncertainty about the roles and responsibilities
    of concessions staff at headquarters, regional offices, and parks. That
    report raised questions about who is ultimately responsible for (1) managing
    the agency's concessions program staff and (2) ensuring accountability in
    the concessions program, given the agency's decentralized organizational
    structure. Similarly, the 1999 report from the Department of the Interior's
    Office of the Inspector General indicated that the lack of accountability
    created confusion within the program because staff were uncertain about "who
    does what" and "who works for whom." This report indicated that this
    confusion contributed to delays in writing concessions contracts.

    The Park Service has made an effort to resolve this confusion. In February
    1999, the agency sent a memorandum to its regional directors outlining what
    levels of the agency have responsibilities for completing various
    concessions tasks, such as planning, contracting, and financial analysis.
    This memo was distributed in response to concerns raised during the
    Inspector General's review about confusion over responsibilities. However,
    our work, which we conducted after the memorandum was issued, suggests that
    some confusion remains about responsibilities for key aspects of the
    concessions program. For example, the Chief of Concessions indicated that
    for most parks, staff in regional offices will take the lead in issuing new
    concessions contracts as the previous ones expire. However, according to
    staff in several of the parks we visited, there are no longer enough staff
    in the regional offices to meet their contracting needs, and the parks may
    take the lead in contracting. In addition, at Olympic National Park in
    Washington, the concessions specialist indicated that with a recent
    retirement, the regional office would have only two people to meet the needs
    of all the parks in that region. Consequently, he did not think the regional
    office would be able to keep up with the parks' contracting workload. This
    official believes he will be responsible for taking the lead in planning and
    writing new contracts for the four different lodging concessioners in that
    park. He was concerned about writing the contracts because, although he
    viewed himself as knowledgeable in overseeing park concessioners, he
    considered himself "a novice" at writing contracts.

    Aside from the confusion over responsibilities, other significant problems
    within the concessions program reflect the need for better accountability.
    These include (1) a lack of consistent and effective oversight of
    concessioners' performance, and (2) wide variation in the priority given to
    concessions management by park managers.

    We asked park officials and concessioners whether sufficient enforcement
    tools exist to hold concessioners accountable for how they perform. Most of
    these officials believed that sufficient enforcement tools exist. They
    indicated that the main enforcement tools are the periodic park inspections
    and/or annual evaluations of concessioners' operations because these serve
    as a basis for park managers to assess concessioners' performance. If a
    concessioner's performance is poor, park officials may give a marginal or
    unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating in the annual evaluation for
    any year, or a marginal rating for 2 consecutive years, constitutes grounds
    for terminating a contract. However, we found that these tools were being
    used inconsistently across the agency.

    Our review of the Park Service's annual evaluations of concessioners for
    1997 and 1998, as well as other reviews of concessioners' operations,
    indicated that virtually all concessioners received a satisfactory rating.
    Concessioners generally received such a rating regardless of the condition
    of their facilities. For example, at Death Valley, Mammoth Cave, and
    Shenandoah national parks, we found obvious problems with the condition of
    the lodging facilities, but the concessioners at these parks all received
    satisfactory ratings from the local park managers.7 The park managers at
    these locations were not held accountable for these deteriorating
    conditions.

    Another sign of the concessions program's lack of accountability is that the
    parks in our review gave widely varying priorities to overseeing
    concessioners. For example, the seven parks we visited each manage
    concessioners that are among the largest in the agency. Five of the seven
    parks we visited had between one and three staff working full-time on
    concessions, and two parks (Mammoth Cave and Death Valley) each had one
    person working less than one-quarter time on concessions as a collateral
    duty. While, collateral duty staff work part-time on concessions, their
    principal duties are generally in other areas, working, for example, as park
    rangers or administrative staff. Officials at the two parks with collateral
    duty concessions staff indicated that the parks could do a much better job
    with their concessions program if they had a person responsible full-time
    for concessions issues at the park. At Mammoth Cave, a park official
    indicated that the park was doing the "bare minimum" by running the program
    as a collateral duty for one park staff member. The person responsible for
    concessions was spending 10 to 20 percent of his time on concessions.
    Similarly, at Death Valley, the park official responsible for concessions
    indicated that he spent about 20 percent of his time on concessions. He said
    that he thought a full-time person handling these responsibilities would do
    a better job. In his view, one of the reasons the facilities had
    deteriorated at Death Valley was a lack of oversight by the park.

    The decisions made by park managers at Death Valley and Mammoth Cave to
    handle concessions management as a collateral duty is indicative of the
    relatively low priority assigned to these activities. Both of these parks
    have over 100 full-time staff yet do not have one staff person dedicated to
    concessions.8 According to the head of the Concessions Program Center, "if
    [having a full-time person handle concessions were] a high enough priority
    for the Superintendent, then a position would currently be funded." In our
    view, these widely varying approaches to managing the performance of
    concessioners is another reflection of the lack of accountability within the
    program. Perhaps the most concrete example of the impact of this situation
    occurred at Death Valley, where park managers put such a low priority on
    managing concessions that basic aspects of oversight--conducting an
    inspection and preparing an annual evaluation of the concessioner's
    performance--were not performed in 1998. In addition, there do not appear to
    have been any consequences to the park for not carrying out these
    responsibilities. In fact, concessions staff at the region and headquarters
    were not aware that these required tasks had not been performed until we
    told them.

    Once again, concerns about the use of collateral duty concessions staff are
    not new. Since 1990, as shown in table 5, a number of task force reports and
    other documents have raised concerns about the use of collateral duty
    concessions staff. For example, the 1990 Park Service task force on
    concessions raised concerns about the use of collateral duty concessions
    staff. The task force report recommended that the agency cut back on
    assigning concessions management responsibilities as secondary duties to
    employees who work primarily as rangers, administrative staff, or other park
    staff. In addition, a 1997 task force report indicated that the increasing
    level of complexity and depth of expertise required to manage concessioners
    is such that "collateral duty employees are generally not able to master the
    skills needed to perform the full scope of their responsibilities."

    Table 5: Notable Task Force Reports or Documents That Raised Concerns About
    the Use of Collateral Duty Staff in Managing Concessions

     Source and date of report or
     document                            Concerns raised by report or document
                                         The report recommended that the agency
     Report of the Task Force on         cut back on assigning concessions
     National Park Service Concessions,  management responsibilities as a
     U.S. Department of the Interior,    secondary duty to employees who work
     Apr. 9, 1990                        primarily as rangers, administrative
                                         staff, or other park staff.
                                         Many collateral duty staff have little
     Report of the Concessions           formalized training in concessions
     Management Task Force, U.S.         management. The report recommended
     Department of the Interior, Nov. 4, that the agency limit the practice of
     1991                                having staff manage concessions as a
                                         collateral duty.

     Memorandum from the Director of the The agency needs to increase the
     Park Service on Personnel Staffing  numbers and improve the quality of
     for National Park Service           concessions staff. Additional or
     Concessions, Jan. 12, 1994          secondary duties must be held to a
                                         minimum.
     Park Service concessions work
     group, June 1994--findings reported
     in Concession Careers Future Task   The agency should provide for less
     Force Report, National Park         dependence on collateral positions.
     Service, Oct. 1997
                                         This report indicated that the
                                         increasing level of complexity and
     Concession Careers Future Task      depth of expertise required to manage
     Force Report, National Park         concessioners is such that collateral
     Service, Oct. 1997                  duty employees are generally not able
                                         to master the skills needed to perform
                                         the full scope of their
                                         responsibilities.

    Source: GAO's compilation of agency documents.

    While our analysis indicates that the Park Service's overall approach to
    managing the concessions program is the most significant factor affecting
    the condition of the parks' lodging facilities, several other factors can
    affect the condition of these facilities to varying degrees. During our
    visits to each of the seven parks in our sample, we asked park officials and
    concessioners what they thought were the most significant factors affecting
    the condition of the lodging facilities. We discussed such factors as the
    use of historic structures, the Park Service's rate approval process, the
    extent of revenues going back into maintaining or improving facilities,
    whether the facilities were owned by the concessioner or by the government,
    whether the concessioner was operated seasonally or year-round, the
    management of the concessioner, and others.

    At these seven parks, the views of park and concessions staff on what
    factors significantly affected the condition of the parks' lodging
    facilities were mixed and could not necessarily be correlated to the
    conditions we found at the parks. For example, views varied on whether the
    ownership of lodging facilities was a factor affecting their condition. In
    some parks, such as Shenandoah, and Sequoia-Kings Canyon, concessions
    facilities are largely owned by the concessioners. In other parks, such as
    Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Death Valley, the concessions facilities are mostly
    government-owned. In still other parks, such as Mammoth Cave and Olympic,
    the ownership of the facilities is mixed, with some owned by the government
    and others owned by the concessioners. In commenting on whether the
    ownership of facilities affected their condition, some park officials
    thought that facilities owned by the government would generally be in better
    condition than facilities owned by concessioners. Other park officials did
    not feel strongly about this. Similarly, some park concessioners thought
    that facilities owned by concessioners would generally be in better
    condition. However, other concessioners did not agree with this or did not
    feel strongly either way. At parks with a mix of government- and
    concessioner-owned facilities, park and concessions officials generally
    agreed that there was no discernable difference in the condition of the two
    types of facilities. On the basis of our observations, the ownership of
    facilities did not appear to be a factor affecting their condition. Some
    government-owned facilities were in very good condition, and some were in
    very poor condition. We found the same was true for concessioner-owned
    facilities.

    Views were similarly mixed on a number of other factors that may affect the
    condition of lodging facilities, including their designation as historic
    structures, seasonal versus year-round operations, the Park Service's rate
    approval process, and others. However, there were a few factors on which
    park and concessioner officials widely agreed. One factor was the extent of
    revenues that concessioners were required by their contract to put into a
    special set-aside account. Funds from this special account would later be
    used by the concessioner to repair and/or improve concessions facilities.
    Most, if not all, of the park and concessioner officials we spoke with
    indicated that the extent and use of special accounts to repair and/or
    improve concessions facilities was a very positive factor affecting the
    condition of lodging facilities. The National Parks Hospitality Association
    also noted that special accounts are very important for repairing and
    maintaining government-owned concessions facilities. While the views were
    largely consistent on the positive effects of using special accounts to
    repair and improve concessions facilities, the use of special accounts did
    not necessarily ensure that lodging facilities would be kept in good repair.
    For example, our work showed that some of the parks with the best lodging
    conditions, such as Bryce Canyon and Zion, used special accounts to keep
    facilities in good shape, but one of the parks where the lodging facilities
    were most in need of repair−Death Valley−also used a special
    account.

    Similarly, although park and concessioner officials viewed the parks'
    evaluation and oversight of concessioners' operations as significant factors
    affecting the condition of facilities, these factors did not necessarily
    ensure that concessioners maintained facilities in a satisfactory condition.
    For example, we found that the lack of oversight in Death Valley National
    Park contributed to the run-down condition of its lodging facilities. On the
    other hand, continuous monitoring, oversight, and documentation of repair
    and maintenance problems at Shenandoah National Park have not led to the
    correction of repair and maintenance problems at facilities in the park.

    One factor on which there was widespread agreement among park and
    concessioner officials was the concessioner's management. The officials told
    us the commitment and capabilities of the concessioner's management
    significantly affect the condition of the facilities. For example, at Bryce
    Canyon National Park--where the facilities are in very good condition--park
    officials told us that the concessioner had a strong general manager who was
    committed to operating high quality facilities. In several other
    parks--Death Valley, Mammoth Cave, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, and Shenandoah--the
    condition of lodging facilities has suffered somewhat because of the
    management performance of the concessioner. At Death Valley and Mammoth
    Cave, park and concessioner officials told us, the former concessions
    managers did not want to improve facilities. At Sequoia-Kings Canyon, the
    former concessioner let facilities deteriorate over a number of years, and
    at Shenandoah, the concessions manager has allowed repair and maintenance
    problems to persist for several years.

    While the Park Service's concessions program affects millions of park
    visitors each year, the management of the program continues to be plagued by
    some of the same problems that were identified 10 years ago. The consequence
    of not hiring more qualified staff, not training them well, and having
    limited accountability within the concessions program is a reflection of the
    relatively low priority the agency has given the program. Now, a number of
    obstacles must be overcome to improve the agency's ability to manage the
    performance of concessioners operating in the parks. Because the Park
    Service has not managed concessioners effectively, there is wide variation
    in their performance--including, among other things, the condition of park
    lodging facilities.

    The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the findings in the
    report. The National Park Hospitality Association raised three main points
    in its comments. First, the association suggested that the backlog of
    expired concessions contracts was the single most important factor affecting
    the Park Service's concessions program, including the condition of
    concessions facilities. We agree that this backlog is one of the key
    management problems currently facing the concessions program. Second, the
    association indicated that ownership provides concessioners with incentives
    to keep facilities in good condition. While there may be such incentives,
    our work indicated that ownership of facilities did not appear to be a key
    factor affecting their condition. We found that some government-owned
    facilities were in very good condition and some were in very poor condition.
    The same was true for concessioner-owned facilities. Third, the association
    indicated that special accounts are very important for repairing and
    maintaining government-owned concessions facilities. However, our work
    showed that while special accounts contribute to the upkeep of
    government-owned facilities, the use of special accounts does not ensure
    that these facilities will be in good condition. We found that special
    accounts were used to maintain government-owned concessions facilities both
    at parks whose facilities were among the best maintained and at parks whose
    facilities were most in need of repair.

    Options Are Available to Address Problems in Managing the Concessions
    Program

    The problems facing the Park Service's concessions program are not new. In
    fact, many of them have been issues for the agency for 10 years or more.
    With the new concessions law and subsequent new regulations, the agency has
    an opportunity to take a new approach to managing this program, and our work
    shows that a new approach is needed. The choices available to deal with the
    problems identified in the management of the concessions program center on
    two options: (1) professionalizing the workforce to obtain better business
    and contracting expertise or (2) contracting for the needed business and
    contracting expertise. These two options are not mutually exclusive in that
    the agency could contract for expertise in certain functions while
    developing the expertise in-house for other functions. Both options require
    that the agency better manage its human capital to ensure that it selects,
    trains, develops, and manages concessions staff who have the skills needed
    to bring about improvement in the concessions program. However, regardless
    of which option--or combination of options--is selected, the agency needs to
    strengthen its accountability for and control over the program. Unless this
    is done, the effectiveness of other changes will be diminished.

    In considering what actions to take, the agency needs to make changes soon,
    since most concessions contracts have expired, are operating under
    short-term extensions, or will expire in the next few years. Because
    contracts can be written with terms of up to 20 years, the commitments made
    in any new contracts over the next few years will affect the concessions
    program for a long time. If the agency acts fast, these contracts can
    include the potential benefits of upgrading the concessions program.
    However, if changes are slow in coming, then the identified problems are
    likely to be perpetuated by a whole series of new concessions contracts.

    The options we are providing are principally focused on improving the
    agency's management of its largest concessioners--many of which provide
    lodging. In our view, once the agency has made changes in the concessions
    program to address the management of its largest concessioners, the benefits
    of additional expertise−whether acquired through hiring, training, or
    contracting--are likely to cascade down to improve the agency's management
    of its smaller concessioners.

    One option available to the Park Service concessions program is to change
    its hiring practices and upgrade its training. Rather than filling positions
    in the concessions program with staff from other career fields, the agency
    could encourage the hiring of staff with backgrounds or education in
    hospitality and/or business management. Through this approach, the agency
    would gradually develop greater in-house expertise in managing
    concessioners. In addition, the agency could upgrade the training of its
    concessions contracting staff so that their qualifications are similar to
    those of the agency's procurement contracting staff.

    Furthermore, the demographic profile of the current concessions staff would
    suggest that now would be a particularly good time to begin hiring more
    qualified staff. According to the agency, about 33 percent of its
    concessions staff are over 50. With such a large percentage of the workforce
    in this age bracket, the agency is already in the position of needing to
    recruit additional staff into the program to backfill for staff that may be
    retiring. In fact, the Chief of Concessions indicated that succession
    planning is one of her top priorities.

    By changing its hiring practices to recruit staff with backgrounds in
    hospitality or business management, the agency would be applying the same
    approach to recruiting that it applies to recruiting for many other career
    fields−hiring staff with education and/or experience appropriate for
    the work they will be doing. For example, many staff in the interpretive
    ranger career field have backgrounds in history, education, science,
    recreation, or other related fields. The staff managing natural resources
    frequently have backgrounds in biology, botany, ecology, agronomy or other
    resource related fields. By hiring staff with backgrounds appropriate for
    concessions, the agency would both align its hiring practices for
    concessions with its hiring practices for other career fields and improve
    the qualifications of its concessions staff.

    In addition to changing its hiring practices, the agency could upgrade the
    training and qualifications of its concessions contracting staff to be
    similar to those of its procurement staff. To assist with this, there may be
    a role for officials from the Department of the Interior. Under the FAR, the
    Department's Office of the Procurement Executive is responsible for ensuring
    that all procurement staff are sufficiently qualified to write procurement
    contracts. This office could also be responsible for ensuring a similar
    competency for the Park Service's concessions contracting staff. In fact,
    officials from this office agreed that they could provide some assistance in
    this area to the concessions program. If the standards on training and
    qualifications for procurement contracting staff were applied to concessions
    contracting staff, there would be a significant improvement in the training
    and qualifications of the concessions contracting staff.

    The benefit of selecting this option would be a more qualified,
    better-trained, and professional workforce. This staff would be in a
    position to make better business-related decisions and write contracts that
    incorporate the best practices of the private and the public sectors. The
    agency would not need to rely on staff who consider themselves "novices" in
    contracting to write and execute multimillion-dollar concessions contracts.
    A more qualified concessions contracting staff would be an asset to the
    agency as it seeks to reduce its backlog of expired and expiring concessions
    contracts.

    However, there are also some costs and risks in pursuing the option of
    professionalizing the workforce. Because of the backlog of expired,
    expiring, and extended contracts, the agency has an immediate and
    substantial workload that needs to be addressed. The process of
    professionalizing its staff will take time, since staff need to be hired and
    training needs to be conducted. As a result, if the agency chooses to
    professionalize its workforce, it may further delay its contracting workload
    while it pursues this effort, thereby increasing the backlog and potentially
    affecting the condition of concessions facilities.

    Providing additional training to concessions staff would also cost money.
    According to concessions staff, there is generally only enough training
    funding available to the concessions program to pay for one programwide
    40-hour class each year. Providing a level of training comparable to that
    received by procurement contracting staff would require much more than a
    single week-long class. To fund such a training curriculum, the parks,
    concessions program, or agency would have to shift its funding priorities,
    obtain more money via appropriations, or find other funding sources. Because
    increased appropriations are unlikely, the agency may have to reconsider the
    relative priorities of all training and other activities within the agency.
    This could mean that if additional concessions contracting training were
    provided, some other training or activities within the agency would receive
    less funding.

    Instead of shifting priorities from other training or activities, the agency
    could tap one other potential source of funding for additional concessions
    training. Under the new concessions law, 80 percent of concessions fees stay
    at the parks where they are generated and 20 percent are available for use
    at the discretion of the agency. In 1998, the Park Service collected about
    $16.5 million in concessions fees. Twenty percent of these fees would be
    about $3.3 million. Using this money, the Park Service could fund many, or
    perhaps all, of its additional training needs. If it chose to do so,
    however, the trade-off would be that this $3.3 million would not be
    available to fund various improvements in the parks.

    Finally, while there are benefits and risks in pursuing this option, the
    agency's past record in taking action to change its hiring practices and
    upgrade its training is not encouraging. Many of the concerns we have raised
    in this report about the qualifications of its concessions staff have been
    raised repeatedly over the past 10 years by the Department of the Interior's
    Inspector General and by several different departmental or agency task
    forces. Several times over this period, the Park Service has generally
    agreed that it needs to professionalize its concessions workforce. However,
    our work indicates that there has not been significant progress in this
    area. Hence, the agency's past performance suggests to us that there can be
    little confidence that the agency will address these issues.

    A 1997 Park Service task force report also expressed concern about the
    agency's not making needed improvements in its management of the concessions
    program. The report indicated that the greatest single barrier to the
    effective management of human resources within the concessions program was
    the potential lack of commitment from agency management. According to the
    report, "[t]here is only one scenario that may be more harmful to the
    Concessions Management Program than management's withholding its commitment
    to [professionalizing the workforce]. That scenario would involve management
    saying that it is committed when in fact it is unwilling or unable to be."

    Instead of professionalizing its workforce, the Park Service could contract
    for the expertise it needs to operate a more businesslike concessions
    program. Contractors could be hired to handle a number of financial and
    business related tasks, such as planning, writing prospectuses, performing
    financial analysis, assisting with contracting, and evaluating the
    performance of concessioners. This concept is consistent with the guidance
    provided in OMB Circular A-76, which encourages federal agencies to perform
    only those activities that are governmental in nature--such as managing
    resources--and let private firms handle business related activities. In
    fact, OMB Circular A-76 specifically mentions several activities that could
    appropriately be handled by private firms under contract with federal
    agencies. These activities include (1) providing assistance to contract
    management, (2) providing technical evaluation of contractors' proposals,
    (3) providing inspection services, and (4) assisting with evaluating
    contractors' performance. Each of these areas is a critical component of the
    Park Service's concessions activities. In addition, the concept of
    contracting with private entities to conduct or assist with elements of
    managing concessioners was encouraged in the agency's concessions law--the
    National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.

    There would be several benefits of contracting for business-related staff.
    For example, through contracting, the agency could obtain a highly qualified
    workforce in a short period of time. In addition, the agency would gain some
    workforce flexibility because it could adjust its staffing in accordance
    with its upcoming workload. For example, it could bring contractor staff on
    to handle its backlog of expired and expiring concessions contracts and then
    release these staff when the backlog is eliminated. By contracting for
    additional staff, the agency would not have to spend money to train its own
    staff. Instead it would essentially purchase the expertise it needs by using
    contractor personnel who are already trained and knowledgeable about current
    industry practices and trends.

    Furthermore, contracting for certain functions could improve performance as
    well as reduce some of the agency's costs. For example, park concessions
    staff traditionally inspect concessioners' facilities and operations. These
    inspections can be subjective, and standards can be applied differently from
    park to park. If the agency centralized and contracted for this function, it
    could perhaps perform inspections with fewer people and yet achieve greater
    consistency across the agency. With this function handled by contractors,
    park staff could then focus on other mission-related activities, such as
    managing park resources and serving park visitors.

    Hiring contractors to help the agency oversee other contractors
    (concessioners) would be consistent with recent reforms the Park Service
    made in its construction program. Because of congressional concerns about
    the cost of its construction projects, the Park Service has changed how it
    supervises most of its construction projects. Instead of maintaining a
    skilled in-house workforce of engineers and architects who travel across the
    country to park units to supervise the construction of visitor centers,
    administrative buildings, and other park facilities, it now contracts for
    this function with a number of architectural and engineering firms across
    the country. By doing so, the agency is saving money, since it pays only for
    the number of skilled staff it needs to meet its current construction
    oversight needs.

    While contracting could reduce some costs in the concessions program, it
    could also increase other costs. In particular, costs would increase if the
    agency were to contract for larger numbers of highly skilled staff than it
    currently maintains. However, some of these increased costs could be
    mitigated by savings resulting from centralizing certain functions, such as
    inspections, as previously discussed. In addition, increased costs could be
    mitigated by (1) reducing the number of agency staff in the concessions
    program or (2) potentially obtaining greater returns to the government from
    concessions contracts through the use of a more qualified workforce for
    contracting and overseeing concessioners.

    If the agency were to hire contractors to handle much of its
    business-related concessions workload, then some portion of the current
    concessions workforce might no longer be needed to perform these functions.
    As discussed, a significant percentage of the current concessions workforce
    is near retirement. Thus, some desired reduction in the agency's concessions
    staff could be handled through attrition, as staff retire. In addition,
    since most concessions staff came into the concessions program from some
    other career field within the agency, they have a variety of skills in park
    or administrative-related fields. If any further reduction in the
    concessions staff were desired, these staff could be transferred to other
    career fields in the agency for which they are qualified.

    Finally, another benefit of gaining expertise through contracting is the
    expectation that better business practices and better concessions contracts
    may produce greater returns to the government from concessions. One of the
    intentions of the new concessions law was that it would increase competition
    in the award of new concessions contracts. Under the previous concessions
    law, most concessioners had a preferential right of renewal when their
    contract expired. This preference tended to have a chilling effect on
    competition because qualified businesses were reluctant to spend time and
    money preparing bids when the award was most likely going to the incumbent
    concessioner. As competition for concessions contracts increases,
    concessioners may bid more for the rights to operate park concessions than
    they previously paid. (Greater competition may also increase the number or
    quality of services concessioners provide to park visitors.) This same law
    also allows the agency to retain all fees generated from concessions
    contracts. Therefore, any additional returns from concessioners could offset
    some portion of the costs of contracting for more qualified staff in the
    concessions program.

    Regardless of the option or combination of options selected, it is important
    that changes be made to strengthen the Park Service's accountability for and
    control of the concessions program. Unless changes are made to better link
    the concessions programs at individual parks with the agency's leadership of
    the concessions program, efforts to improve the program through the
    suggested options are unlikely to succeed.

    For example, if the Chief of Concessions decides to improve the program by
    hiring staff with backgrounds or education in business or hospitality
    management, then park superintendents would implement this decision, since
    they are responsible for hiring staff in parks. However, if the
    superintendents were not held accountable for their concessions-related
    hiring practices, then the efforts of the Chief of Concessions to improve
    the qualifications of concessions staff would not likely be implemented.
    This concern was discussed in a 1997 agency task force report on
    concessions, which listed several barriers to hiring highly qualified staff
    for concessions positions. One such barrier was that officials making hiring
    decisions, such as park superintendents, "may not share a Servicewide
    programmatic perspective and instead may make personnel decisions based on
    factors other than what may be in the best long-term interest of the agency.
    . . ." This is cause for concern because, as the report indicates, (1) the
    Park Service "is a decentralized organization whose various parts function
    with considerable autonomy" and (2) individual hiring decisions made by park
    superintendents can have a "substantial long-term effect on the Service's
    Concessions Management Program as a whole."

    Similarly, the considerable autonomy of park superintendents and the
    agency's accountability structure could be an obstacle if the Chief of
    Concessions sought to gain expertise by contracting for certain functions of
    the concessions program. In order for contracted expertise to be able to
    improve the performance of the concessions program, the current
    accountability structure of the agency would need to be changed to ensure
    that the work and advice of the contractors were fully considered when park
    superintendents made concessions decisions.

    In a recent report, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector
    General raised concerns about how the concessions program fits into the Park
    Service's accountability structure.9 The report made several recommendations
    to the Park Service including, (1) adding a critical element for the
    successful completion of concessions duties in the performance standards of
    officials, such as superintendents, who are involved in concessions
    activities; and (2) making a senior management official, such as the
    agency's Deputy Director, responsible for ensuring that park superintendents
    and regional directors successfully perform their concessions
    responsibilities. In August 1999, the Director of the Park Service sent a
    memorandum to each regional director stating that the performance of park
    concessions programs will be considered during annual performance reviews
    for each park superintendent with a concessions program. However, according
    to the Chief of Concessions, she is not sure if this direction has been
    implemented. In addition, according to our review, the agency does not
    appear to be making a senior management official, such as the agency's
    Deputy Director, responsible for ensuring that park superintendents and
    regional directors successfully perform their concessions responsibilities.
    Hence, significant changes have yet to be made to the accountability
    structure of the concessions program.

    While the Park Service has recognized many of the problems facing the
    management of its concessions program, it has not yet been able to make
    significant progress in addressing them. The extent of these problems
    requires the agency to make difficult choices on how best to manage the
    performance of its concessioners in order to ensure that high-quality
    facilities and services are provided to the hundreds of millions of people
    who visit the parks each year. Unless the agency takes action, its
    concessions program will continue to provide facilities and services whose
    quality varies considerably from park to park. In our view, the agency can
    do more to strengthen the accountability of the concessions program. While
    the agency indicated in August 1999 that the performance of park concessions
    operations will be considered during superintendents' performance reviews,
    it provided similar emphasis on concessions in 1995, which did not result in
    superintendents being more accountable for their concessions programs. Thus,
    in our view, it is unlikely that the emphasis provided in the August 1999
    memorandum will significantly improve the program's accountability. Hence,
    further actions are needed to better align the concessions program so that
    those implementing the program in individual parks are more accountable to
    those managing and leading the concessions program agencywide.

    We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of the
    Park Service to increase the effectiveness of the concessions management
    program by improving the qualifications of the concessions staff (including
    improving their training in writing and administering contracts),
    contracting for these services, or using some combination of the two
    approaches.

    We further recommend that the Secretary require the Director of the Park
    Service to improve the accountability of park managers by establishing a
    formal process for performing periodic independent inspections of
    concessioners' lodging operations throughout the park system. These
    inspection teams should determine if the facilities and services being
    provided meet the agency's standards and report identified deficiencies to
    the head of the agency for corrective action.

    The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the findings and
    recommendations in the report. The Department stated that the
    recommendations offered an opportunity to strengthen and reform the Park
    Service's concessions program. The Department also indicated that the Park
    Service is already taking actions to address some of the problems with the
    concessions management program that were discussed in the report and is
    actively considering other actions, such as moving toward more
    performance-based contracting. We believe that the Department's comments are
    a positive step and will help improve the program if they are implemented.

    Results of GAO's Inspections of Lodging Facilities in Two Parks

    This appendix summarizes the results of our inspections of the lodging
    facilities at Olympic and Sequoia-Kings Canyon national parks. To determine
    the condition of lodging facilities at these parks, we used common industry
    standards for inspecting lodging facilities to develop an evaluation
    checklist. The checklist included criteria for the condition of both the
    exterior of the facilities and the rooms. Specifically, to assess the
    condition of the facilities' exteriors, we examined lodging structures,
    grounds, public rest rooms, and public signs. To assess the condition of the
    rooms, we examined (1) safety and security features, (2) the availability of
    furnishings, (3) the quality of the housekeeping, and (4) the repair and
    maintenance of these rooms.

    Olympic National Park, located in northwest Washington State, consists of
    about 900,000 acres of diverse resources, including glaciers, valleys,
    lakes, ocean beaches, and a temperate rain forest. Nearly 96 percent of the
    park is designated as wilderness.

    Within the park, four different concessioners operate both government-owned
    and concession-owned lodging facilities, including lodges, cabins, cottages,
    and hotel-/motel-type facilities. The four concessioners are as much as 80
    miles from each other. The facilities are Kalaloch Lodge with 64 rooms,
    operated by ARAMARK; Lake Crescent Lodge with 52 rooms, operated by National
    Park Concessioners, Inc.; Log Cabin Resort with 28 rooms, operated by a
    private partnership; and Sol Duc Hot Springs Resort with 32 rooms, also
    operated by a private partnership. Only Kalaloch Lodge is open year-round;
    the other three facilities are open approximately from late spring to fall.
    The facilities were built as early as 1916 (the lodge at Lake Crescent
    resort) and as recently as 1998. Most of the units were built during the
    1950s, 1960s, and 1980s. At each of the four facilities, the Park Service
    owns some of the lodging, but at each site, the government owns less than a
    majority of the lodging units. None of the lodging facilities have
    telephones or televisions in the guest rooms in accordance with a policy
    established by the park. We inspected 9 rooms at three locations and 10 at
    the fourth site.

    At Kalaloch Lodge, the room rates during the peak season (early June to
    early October) are $73 to $208 per night in the lodge, $152 to $211 in the
    bluff cabins, $127 to $155 in the log cabins, and $119 to $130 for nine
    other units. The rates at Lake Crescent Lodge range from $104 to $140 per
    night for the cottages, $100 to $116 per night for the motor lodge and
    nonhistoric lodge, and $65 per night for a room in the historic lodge with a
    central bathroom. The rates at Log Cabin Resort range are $49 per night for
    camping log cabins (no indoor plumbing), $75 for rustic cabins, $90 for
    rustic cabin with a kitchenette, $106 for a lodge room, and $122 for chalet
    rooms. The rates at Sol Duc Hot Springs are $92 per night for one or two
    persons in a noncooking cabin and $112 for a kitchen cabin.

    The lodging buildings and grounds at the four facilities we visited at
    Olympic National Park were generally in good condition and well maintained.
    Specifically, we found the following:

    Structures

    The lodging facilities at these four facilities were generally in good
    repair, although several facilities needed some repairs. Figure 6 shows
    needed repairs to a roof and porch at Log Cabin Resort.

    Figure 6: Needed Exterior Repairs at Log Cabin Resort

    At Kalaloch Lodge, the lodge, cabins, and other facilities were in generally
    good condition. However, according to a Park Service official, the lodge and
    several of the cabins are in danger of falling into the ocean because of
    severe erosion on the bluff near the facilities (see fig. 7).

    Figure 7: Condition of Cliff Near Kalaloch Lodge in Olympic National Park

    Proposals have been formulated to relocate and rebuild the
    concessioner-owned lodge and several government-owned cabins. A final
    decision has not been made because the concessioner wants to build a larger
    lodge and the Park Service wants to replace the current lodge with one of
    about the same capacity.

    At Lake Crescent Lodge, some of the exterior paint had peeled and chipped.
    Moss was growing on the roofs of the four fireplace cottages, and for
    several of the units, the stone masonry chimneys were cracked. At Log Cabin
    Resort, we noted some exterior wood rot and excessive moss buildup on the
    roofs of eight rustic cabins. At Sol Duc Hot Springs Resort, all buildings
    were well maintained; however, the exterior doors of some cabins needed
    refinishing. A concessioner's representative told us that some of the
    exterior doors are scheduled to be refinished.

    Grounds

    The grounds at all four facilities, which consisted mainly of lawns and
    landscaping, were in generally good condition. The grounds at Kalaloch Lodge
    were well maintained and free of debris and litter. At Lake Crescent Lodge,
    the grounds were well maintained, and exterior lighting had recently been
    installed near the walkways. We found that at Log Cabin Resort, the area in
    front of the 12 A-frame units needed a general cleanup and weeding. In
    addition, about 10 picnic tables in the camping area were in disrepair or
    had rotting or warped tabletops and benches. At Sol Duc, the grounds were
    well maintained and had adequate lighting in the common areas.

    Public Rest Rooms

    The public rest rooms that we observed at Olympic National Park were
    generally clean and well maintained. The public rest rooms at Kalaloch Lodge
    were clean and well maintained. At Lake Crescent Lodge, a valve was leaking
    in a urinal in the men's rest room in the lodge. At Log Cabin Resort, a hot
    air blower to dry hands in a women's rest room was not working because of a
    tripped circuit breaker. In addition, three of the six light bulbs in the
    rest room were burned out. At Sol Duc, the public rest rooms in the lodge
    were clean and well supplied.

    Public Signs

    We did not observe any problems with the signs at the four facilities. They
    were sufficient, accurate, appropriately placed, and generally well
    maintained.

    The 37 rooms that we inspected at Olympic National Park were generally in
    good condition. In accordance with the park's policy, none of the facilities
    had telephones or televisions in the guest rooms.

    Safety and Security

    Four rooms we inspected at Kalaloch Lodge presented safety and security
    concerns. Three rooms had a window without a functioning lock, and the
    primary lock on the door to the deck of another unit was not working.
    According to a concessioner official at Kalaloch, about 50 window frames
    throughout the complex were being replaced, including at least one of the
    windows we found with a lock problem. Two units at Lake Crescent Lodge had
    safety or security problems. One unit did not have a viewport or window next
    to the entrance, and the other unit had a nonfunctioning window lock.

    At Log Cabin Resort, four of the nine units we inspected had safety or
    security problems. Three units had nonworking window locks, and two units
    had nonfunctioning smoke detectors. In one unit, the primary door lock did
    not work. None of the nine cabins we inspected at Sol Duc were equipped with
    deadbolt locks; only primary locks were found on the entrance doors to the
    cabins. The lock on a window in one cabin was not working. We found that all
    units with kitchens were equipped with fire extinguishers and every third
    unit without a kitchen had a fire extinguisher.

    Furnishings

    None of the rooms we inspected had all of the furnishings required by
    industry standards. For example, telephones, televisions, pencils/pens and
    notepads, which are required by industry standards, are generally not made
    available to guests at any of the park's concessioner-operated facilities as
    a general policy. Olympic National Park prohibits televisions and telephones
    in guest rooms. Furthermore, none of the units had air-conditioning.

    At Log Cabin Resort, the reading lights in all the inspected units had bulbs
    of less than 75 watts--a common industry standard--and none of the units had
    a notepad or pen/pencil. Five units did not have an ice bucket or alarm
    clock or radio. Three units were not color coordinated, and three had no
    nightstand. One or two units lacked at least one chair, an available writing
    surface, shades or draperies, nonskid pads/strips in the shower/tub, or
    electrical outlets in the bathroom.

    At Lake Crescent Lodge, six units did not have nonskid pads or strips in the
    shower/tub area, and in three units, the light fixtures had bulbs of less
    than 75 watts. Other deficiencies noted were no ice bucket in one room and
    an unclean blanket in another room. The main lodge has five rooms that share
    one bathroom for men and one for women.

    At Kalaloch Lodge, all nine of the units we inspected lacked a skid pad or
    mat in the shower/bathtub. Other furnishings issues were no wastebasket in
    one room, no ice bucket in two rooms, no electrical outlet in the bathroom
    and a bedroom in one cabin, no alarm or clock radio in one room, and no
    pencil/pen or note pad in eight and nine rooms, respectively.

    None of the nine cabins we inspected at Sol Duc were equipped with a note
    pad, pen or pencil. Eight of the nine cabins had a reading light of less
    than 75 watts on the nightstand, and two units had a reading light of only
    25 watts. Seven units were not furnished with an ice bucket or alarm clock
    or radio. Five units had no wastebasket. Other furnishings issues were an
    unclean mattress pad and an unclean or unsuitable bedspread in separate
    cabins.

    Housekeeping

    Five of the nine rooms we inspected at Kalaloch Lodge had housekeeping
    deficiencies. These included mildew in a shower area; cracked caulking near
    a bathroom vanity; a dirty and stained carpet; dirty window shades; dirty
    and stained walls and ceilings; and a chipped/dirty door frame.

    At Lake Crescent Lodge, the shared bathrooms in the main lodge had several
    housekeeping and other items needing attention. For example, an outside vent
    had no fan, a toilet was not working properly, a bathtub lacked nonskid
    pads/strips, a knob on a baseboard heater was missing, and paint was
    peeling. Items needing housekeeping attention in the individual rooms were
    dusty conditions, an unclean tub enclosure, and an unclean vanity. Other
    than a torn pillowcase in one unit, none of the units we inspected at the
    Log Cabin Resort had any major housekeeping problems. At Sol Duc, one cabin
    with a kitchen did not have any soap in the kitchen sink soap dispenser.

    Repairs and Maintenance

    Three of the rooms we inspected at Kalaloch needed repairs. One room in the
    main lodge had two window blinds that failed to completely lower to block
    outside light, and the room also had cracks in the shower/tub area. Two
    other units had drapes that did not operate correctly. One of these units
    also had worn and torn carpet, and the other unit had the hot and cold
    shower faucets reversed.

    At Lake Crescent Lodge, four separate cabins had excessive moss growth on
    the roof and severe cracks in the stone chimney. Five units needed at least
    some repairs or improved maintenance. In one unit, we found a broken window,
    a sagging drapery rod and a sagging drapery cord, burned out lights, and
    loose drawer pulls. In other units, we found a burned out porch light, a
    poorly patched carpet, inadequate water pressure in two showers, and broken
    window screens.

    Seven of the nine units we inspected at Log Cabin Resort had repair and
    maintenance problems. These included rooms where shades or drapes did not
    block outside light, an extension cord in use, peeling paint, and duct tape
    over a small hole in a wall.

    Four of the nine cabins at Sol Duc had items needing repair, including a
    nightstand with mildew and a burn spot; one window drapery that did not
    close properly; a cracking window sill in one bathroom, and reversed hot and
    cold faucets in a bathroom. One cabin, located on a low site, had excessive
    moisture problems, including mildew in the bathroom near the toilet and
    vanity.

    Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, located in central California east of
    the city of Fresno, consists of about 864,000 acres of deep canyons and high
    alpine peaks in the Sierra Nevada mountains, and some 75 groves of giant
    sequoia trees.10 The park also is home to the 14,494-foot Mt. Whitney--the
    highest peak in the contiguous United States.

    Within the park, two different concessioners operate overnight
    accommodations, including lodges, cabins, and hotel-/motel-type facilities.
    Accommodations in Kings Canyon include Cedar Grove Lodge with 21 motel-type
    rooms, Grant Grove with 51 cabins, and John Muir Lodge with 36 hotel-type
    rooms, all operated by Kings Canyon Park Services. Accommodations in Sequoia
    include the Wuksachi Village and Lodge, operated by Delaware North Parks
    Services. This facility, which has 102-motel-type rooms, opened in May 1999.

    While Wuksachi Village and Lodge and Grant Grove are open year-round, Cedar
    Grove is open from late spring to fall. As of May 1999, facilities in the
    park ranged in age from 8 months to over 60 years. The concessioners own all
    lodging facilities in the park. Except for rooms at Wuksachi Village and
    Lodge, which have telephones, none of the lodging facilities we inspected
    had telephones or televisions in the guest rooms, in accordance with park
    policy. We inspected a total of 27 rooms--9 at each of the three facilities;
    however, we did not inspect rooms at John Muir Lodge because it did not open
    until late May 1999--after our visit.

    Rates at Grant Grove were $35 per night for a tent cabin, $45 to $55 for a
    rustic cabin, and $85 to $90 for a bath cabin. Rates at the John Muir Lodge
    ranged from $125 per night for a lodge room to $210 for a suite. At Cedar
    Grove, the rates were $85 per night for a lodge room. Neither Grant Grove
    nor Cedar Grove has off-peak rates. At Wuksachi Village and Lodge, peak
    season rates per night were $110 for a standard room, $125 for a deluxe
    room, and $155 for a superior room. Off-peak rates at Wuksachi were $75,
    $90, and $105 per night, respectively, for the three types of accommodation.

    National Park

    With the exception of several public bathrooms/showers and the grounds at
    Grant Grove, the lodging buildings and grounds at the three facilities we
    visited at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park were generally in good
    condition and well maintained.

    Structures

    The lodging buildings at these three facilities were generally in good
    repair, although several buildings needed refinishing at Grant Grove. At
    Grant Grove, many structures were well maintained but the exterior
    paint/stain on others was only in fair condition. Some cabins had exterior
    doors and siding that were worn and needed refinishing. By contrast, at
    Cedar Grove, the structures were well maintained, having been repainted in
    1998. At Wuksachi Lodge, which opened for business in May 1999, the
    structures were in excellent condition, with fresh paint and stain.

    Grounds

    The grounds at these facilities, which consisted mainly of natural
    landscaping, were in generally good condition; however, at two locations,
    some debris and surplus room furnishings were piled on the ground adjacent
    to the guest accommodations.

    At Cedar Grove, we found some debris (bricks and some trash) around heating
    equipment at the rear of the facility and some partly rolled up chicken wire
    in a landscaped area. At Grant Grove, adjacent to the public bath facility
    in Tent City, surplus or broken cabin furnishings, such as cabinets,
    screens, and chairs, were stacked together awaiting disposal, as shown in
    figure 8.

    Figure 8: Grounds at Grant Grove

    According to the park concessions specialist, this was unattractive and the
    concessioner was to remove it immediately. At all three areas, there were
    sufficient trash receptacles spread throughout the grounds, and apart from
    the previously mentioned items, there was no trash or debris on the
    premises. Exterior lighting was sufficient at Grant Grove and Wuksachi;
    however at Cedar Grove, the walkup ramp on one side of the building had poor
    illumination at night, two exterior light fixtures had missing or broken
    plexiglass, and there was only one light for the parking area.

    Public Rest Rooms

    We found major deficiencies with the public bathroom and shower facilities
    at Grant Grove--specifically, the unsanitary and dirty conditions of the
    public showers at Meadow Camp. The shower area, shown in figure 9, had
    considerable mildew on several walls, ants crawling on the floor, a stained
    shower pan, a very rusty heater fixture, a dirty linoleum floor with holes
    in the linoleum, light fixtures that contained bugs, a leaky shower faucet,
    and considerable graffiti.

    Figure 9: Poor Condition of Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities

    In the men's rest room, one of three toilets was out of order, and another
    stall was locked from the inside. Toilet stalls had considerable
    graffiti--some written and some carved into wooden partitions. Other
    deficiencies included excessively hot water in the vanity faucet, water on
    the floor due to an overflowing toilet, a dirty and stained entrance door,
    chipped paint on the walls and heater, a missing light bulb and a light
    fixture with a broken cover, and some missing ceramic tiles in the vanity
    sink area.

    Deficiencies were also noted in the bathroom and shower facilities in the
    Tent City portion of Grant Grove. For example, there was no ventilation in
    the men and women's bathroom because the windows were nailed shut. In the
    women's bathroom, the hot water faucet fixtures were loose, a toilet lid was
    loosely secured, there were spitwads on the ceiling, the walls were rusty
    and the floor worn, and the bath light cover was missing, exposing
    electrical components, as shown in figure 10.

    Figure 10: Exposed Wiring in Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities

    In the men's bathroom, two of four light bulbs were burned out, the toilet
    stalls contained some graffiti, one of four sinks had no hot water, the
    walls were dirty in spots, and there was excessive dirt in the corners. In
    the common shower area, one shower was not operating because the light
    fixture was missing, and the two operating showers were each missing a light
    bulb, and one shower had no operational fan for ventilation.

    The public bathroom facilities in the Wuksachi Lodge were new, well
    maintained, and accessible to the handicapped. At Cedar Grove, the lodge's
    public rest room facilities were generally well maintained and clean,
    although they lacked electrical outlets.

    Public Signs

    We did not observe any problems with the signs at the three facilities,
    although at Wuksachi, directional signs on the access road off the main
    highway and in the parking lots had not been installed at the time of our
    visit. The signs we did observe at all three locations were sufficient,
    accurate, appropriately placed, and generally well maintained.

    The 27 rooms that we inspected at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park were
    generally in good condition. While the rooms lacked some furnishings
    required by industry standards and had some housekeeping problems, they were
    largely in good repair.

    Safety and Security

    All nine rooms we inspected at Grant Grove had safety and security concerns.
    Eight rooms had no dead bolt lock, and three rooms had windows without
    functioning locks. Two rooms did not have a smoke detector, and in two other
    rooms, the smoke detector was not functioning. Four rooms also did not have
    an interior light switch.

    At Cedar Grove, the doors to all nine rooms lacked a dead bolt lock, and two
    rooms had no window adjacent to the door or no viewport. At Wuksachi Lodge,
    no safety or security concerns were identified.

    Furnishings

    None of the rooms we inspected had all of the furnishings required by
    industry standards. For example, telephones, televisions, pencils/pens and
    notepads, which are required by industry standards, are generally not made
    available to guests at any of the park's lodging facilities. At these three
    locations, none of the rooms had televisions, pencils/pens and notepads;
    only Wuksachi had telephones; and only Cedar Grove had air-conditioning.
    While the rooms at Cedar Grove and Wuksachi Lodge were adequately furnished,
    at Grant Grove, six rooms had no writing surface, nine rooms had no ice
    bucket and five rooms had no electrical outlets. Four rooms lacked
    sufficient light, and seven rooms had light bulbs of less that 75 watts.
    Seven rooms had no private bath.

    Housekeeping

    We did find some housekeeping problems at Grant Grove and Cedar Grove. At
    Grant Grove, four of the nine rooms inspected had cobwebs or bugs and/or
    dirt on the windows. At Cedar Grove, seven of the nine rooms inspected had
    dirt or dust on the edges of the carpet or on the drapery, while several
    other rooms had cobwebs or dirty walls. At Wuksachi Lodge, all rooms
    inspected were very clean.

    Repairs and Maintenance

    Overall, the rooms at Sequoia-Kings Canyon were in good repair except for
    some deficiencies at Grant Grove. At Grant Grove, two rooms had smoke
    detectors that were not functioning; three rooms had draperies that did not
    close all the way; and three rooms had walls with holes, cracks, or
    graffiti. The bathrooms in two rooms had peeling paint, and one had cracks
    or holes in the wall.

    Table 6 presents the detailed results of our room inspections in Olympic and
    Sequoia-Kings Canyon national parks. To obtain our sample of rooms, we
    generally requested a list of vacant and just cleaned but not yet occupied
    rooms from the concessioner and randomly selected rooms to inspect. We made
    our inspections with representatives of both the park and the concessioner
    present.

    Table 6: Results of GAO's Room Inspections

    Continued

                                       Number of problems found

     Category/problem                  Olympic         Sequoia-Kings Canyon
                                       National Park   National Park
     Number of rooms inspected
                                       37              27

     Room's general safety and
     security
     No/not functioning primary locks  2               1
     No/not functioning dead bolt      9               17
     No viewport or window             1               2
     No functioning window locks       8               3
     No smoke detector                                 2
     Not functioning                   2               2
     No active light switch            4               4
     Subtotal                          26              31
     Illumination
     Lamps not sufficient                              5
     Wattage−less than 75 watts  20              8
     Subtotal                          20              13
     Furnishings
     No chair available                2               3
     Not in good condition
     No writing surface                2               6
     Not in good condition
     No nightstand                     3               1
     Not in good condition             2               1
     No clothes facility
     Not in good condition                             1
     No television                     37              27
     Not functioning
     No telephone                      37              18
     Not functioning
     No direct-dial/24-hour
     switchboard
     Subtotal                          83              57
     Other
     No wastebasket                    6               1
     No ice bucket                     15              9
     No electrical outlets             1               5
     Not functioning                                   1
     No alarm clock/radio              14              10
     No note pad                       29              27
     No pen or pencil                  35              27
     Extension cord used               2
     Subtotal                          102             80
     General
     Room not quiet                                    2
     No luggage space
     No shades/draperies               2               1
     Outside light not blocked         9               3
     No heating system
     Not functioning                                   1
     Not reasonably quiet
     No air-conditioning               37              18
     Not functioning
     Not reasonably quiet
     Room not color coordinated        3               1
     Inadequate floor space
     Subtotal                          51              26
     Room's overall cleanliness
     Not free of insects/rodents                       3
     Not free of dust/dirt/litter      1               8
     Not free of cobwebs                               6
     Not free of stains                2               2
     Not free of odors
     Unclean windows                                   1
     Subtotal                          3               20
     Carpeting
     Dirty/stained                     1               3
     Worn/torn                         2               1
     Subtotal                          3               4
     Walls/ceiling
     Unclean                           2               2
     Peeling paint                                     1
     Defects                                           4
     Subtotal                          2               7
     Bedding
     Mattress
     Sagging
     Not free of odors
     Not sized to fit frame
     Lumps/protrusions
     Subtotal
     Box springs
     Protruding
     Not quiet
     Broken                            1
     Subtotal                          1
     Other
     Unclean pillow                                    3
     Two clean sheets not available                    1
     One clean mattress pad not
     available                         1
     Unclean pillowcase(s)                             1
     Unsuitable, unclean bedspread     1
     Unsuitable, unclean blanket       1               1
     Bed linens not changed daily      19              9
     Subtotal                          22              15
     Bath area
     General
     No private bath                   2               7
     Inadequate ventilation                            1
     Inadequate lighting
     Subtotal                          2               8
     Toilet
     Not functioning                   1
     Unclean
     Subtotal                          1
     Shower/tub
     Not available
     Not functioning                   1
     Unclean
     Grout problems                                    1
     Inadequate water pressure         2
     Nonskid pad/strips not available  17
     Inadequate hot water
     Cracks                            1               2
     Shower curtain/tub enclosure
     Unclean and torn/mildew           3               2
     Subtotal                          24              5
     Vanity/sink
     Not available
     Not functioning                                   1
     Unclean                           2
     No mirror
     Inadequate water pressure
     Inadequate hot water              1
     No or inadequate light above
     vanity                                            1
     No electrical outlet convenient
     to sink                           3
     Not functioning                                   1
     Subtotal                          6               3
     Towels
     Not one quality bath towel/person                 1
     Not one quality hand towel/person
     Not one quality wash cloth/person
     No towel rack                                     2
     Towels not changed daily
     Subtotal                                          3
     Other
     No cloth bath mat
     No spare toilet tissue
     No wrapped drinking glass/person
     No wastebasket                    1
     No wrapped soap bar/person
     No facial tissue
     Subtotal                          1
     Bath's overall cleanliness
     Not free of hair
     Not free of stains
     Subtotal
     Bath walls/ceiling
     Unclean                           1               2
     Peeling paint                     2               2
     Defects−cracks, holes,
     stains                            1               2
     Subtotal                          4               6
     Total                             351             278

    Comments From the Department of the Interior

    Comments From the National Park Hospitality Association

    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Cliff Fowler, (202) 512-8029

    Robert Antonio, Brian Estes, Frank Kovalak, Paul E. Staley Jr, and Ned
    Woodward made key contributions to this report.

    (141320)

    Table 1: Parks and Concessions Contractors Contacted 21

    Table 2: Notable Reports and Memorandums That Raised
    Concerns About the Qualifications and/or Training of Park Service
    Concessions Staff 28

    Table 3: Training and Experience Required to Execute the
    Park Service's Procurement and Concessions Contracts 31

    Table 4: Notable Reports or Documents That Discussed the
    Need for Accountability Within the Concessions Program 39

    Table 5: Notable Task Force Reports or Documents That Raised
    Concerns About the Use of Collateral Duty Staff in Managing
    Concessions 43

    Table 6: Poor Condition of Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities 66

    Table 7: Results of GAO's Room Inspections 70

    Figure 1: Examples of Lodging Facilities Found in the National
    Park System 15

    Figure 2: Typical Motel Rooms in Very Good Condition at Bryce
    nd Zion National Parks 17

    Figure 3: Needed Exterior Repairs at a Lodging Structure at Stovepipe Wells
    in Death Valley National Park 18

    Figure 4: Repair and Maintenance Problems in Rooms at Stovepipe
    Wells 19

    Figure 5: Abridged Organization of the National Park Service 36

    Figure 6: Needed Exterior Repairs at Log Cabin Resort 58

    Figure 7: Condition of Cliff Near Kalaloch Lodge in Olympic
    National Park 59

    Figure 8: Grounds at Grant Grove 65

    Figure 9: Exposed Wiring in Public Bathroom and Shower Facilities 67

    1. National Park Service: The Condition of Lodging Facilities Varies Among
    Selected Parks (GAO/RCED-98-238, Aug. 6, 1998).

    2. National Park Service: The Condition of Lodging Facilities Varies Among
    Selected Parks (GAO/RCED-98-238, Aug. 6, 1998).

    3. We visited Death Valley in May 1999 and found that all of the poor
    lodging conditions we found during our Apr. 1998 visit had been corrected.

    4. We treated Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park as one
    park unit because the Park Service administers them as one unit. Two
    concessioners manage lodging facilities in the park unit.

    5. Follow-up Review of Concessions Management, National Park Service, U.S.
    Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General (Report No.
    90-62, Apr. 16, 1990).

    6. The Park Service's procurement standards are prescribed by the Department
    of the Interior's Acquisition Regulations (DIAR), which are consistent with
    the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

    7. Shenandoah National Park rated its lodging concessioner as satisfactory
    in 1997 and marginal in 1998. Park officials indicated that the marginal
    rating was principally the result of recurring health and safety problems in
    this concessioner's food service program--not the condition of its lodging
    facilities.

    8. In fiscal year 1998, Mammoth Cave had 131 full-time-equivalent staff
    while Death Valley had 101.

    9. Concessions Contracting Procedures: National Park Service, U.S.
    Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General (Report No.
    99-I-626, June 30, 1999).

    10. We treated Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park as one
    park unit because they are jointly administered.
    *** End of document. ***