[93po]

From their own website:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.