3 ms·

From their own website: https://www.boozallen.com/s/insight/thought-leadership/reinventing-the-recreation-gov-customer-experience.html https://www.boozallen.co

by 93po 4y ago

From their own website: https://www.boozallen.com/s/insight/thought-leadership/reinventing-the-recreation-gov-customer-experience.html https://www.boozallen.com/s/insight/thought-leadership/reinv... > Recreation.gov was an investment for Booz Allen, designed collaboratively with participating agencies, but at no cost to the federal government. Instead of a traditional cost structure, the unique contractual agreement is a transaction-based fee model that lets the government and Booz Allen share in risk, reward, results, and impact. This is a true public-private partnership—it uses no government money. Of course they word this in a slimy, dishonest way. Boggles my mind that immediately after saying "no cost" they describe an "alternative cost structure", completely contradicting itself.

refurb 4y ago
Ok, but the question still stands. The government doesn't pay anything, but it does it get a cut? Usually contracts are written in some way like "vendor will keep first $10M of fees, thereafter sharing 50% of fees"
0xffff2 4y ago
Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost" and "no cost to the federal government".
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost to the federal government" and "no up-front monetary cost to the federal government".
  - 0xffff2 4y ago
    Do you have some evidence there is an actual cost to the Federal government? It seems to me the cost is entirely born by the users of the system.
    - 93po 4y ago
      Yes, instead of revenue going to the government, it's going to Booz. Just because it doesn't go through the government first doesn't mean it's not a cost. This is proven because Booz wouldn't make and run this site if not for this aspect of the relationship.

by 93po 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

Ok, but the question still stands. The government doesn't pay anything, but it does it get a cut? Usually contracts are written in some way like "vendor will keep first $10M of fees, thereafter sharing 50% of fees"

0xffff2 4y ago

Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost" and "no cost to the federal government".

MereInterest 4y ago
Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost to the federal government" and "no up-front monetary cost to the federal government".
- 0xffff2 4y ago
  Do you have some evidence there is an actual cost to the Federal government? It seems to me the cost is entirely born by the users of the system.
  - 93po 4y ago
    Yes, instead of revenue going to the government, it's going to Booz. Just because it doesn't go through the government first doesn't mean it's not a cost. This is proven because Booz wouldn't make and run this site if not for this aspect of the relationship.