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out-of-date practices in handling its contracting workload and chronic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. ***