NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE

Concessions Program 

Has Made Changes in 

Several Areas, but 

Challenges Remain

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2017

GAO-17-302

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-302, a report to 

congressional requesters

February 2017

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Concessions Program Has Made Changes in Several 

Areas, but Challenges Remain 

What GAO Found

The Department of the Interior’s National Park Service (Park Service) has made 

several changes to its concessions program since GAO issued a report on the 

program in 2000. In that report, GAO highlighted three management challenges: 

(1) inadequate qualifications and training of concessions staff; (2) backlog of 

expired contracts that were extended; and (3) lack of accountability in the 

concessions program. In this review, GAO found that the Park Service has taken 

steps to address these challenges:

• Staff qualifications: Park Service has hired many concessions staff with 

relevant skills or educational backgrounds, such as in hospitality services or 

business. In addition, the Park Service developed several training classes

for concessions staff to help improve their skills. 

• Contracts under extension: Park Service has reduced the percentage of 

extended contracts, from about 45 percent in 2000 to 28 percent in 2016.

• Accountability: Park Service headquarters has increased its involvement in 

the concessions program and has centralized more information on the 

program. However, in some instances, GAO found that some financial 

reports that were to be submitted by concessioners to the Park Service were

not submitted in a timely manner or data in the submitted reports were 

inaccurate. Park Service staff did not identify these discrepancies when 

reviewing the reports. Without timely and accurate financial data from 

concessioners, the agency could be limited in its ability to oversee certain 

aspects of the program such as determining whether concessioners paid 

required fees.

GAO identified some ongoing challenges in each of the three steps of the 

concessions process. First, developing a prospectus, which provides information 

on a concessions operation to potential bidders, can be a lengthy and expensive 

process, and it can be hard to generate competition. Second, the agency’s 

evaluation panels can sometimes have difficulty assessing some proposals, and 

the award process can be lengthy. Third, contract management can be affected 

by limited staffing and confusion among concessioners about how to fund 

maintenance and capital improvements on buildings or land assigned to them by 

the Park Service. This situation is, in part, because the Park Service has not yet 

finalized related guidance and made it publicly available to concessioners. The 

Park Service’s commercial services strategic plan recognizes many of the 

challenges GAO identified and lists goals to potentially address them. For 

example, the plan has a goal to improve the prospectus and contract award 

processes by reducing costs and improving efficiency to the government and 

bidders. In addition, the plan aims to attract more bids for concessions 

contracts, increase the accuracy of financial reporting, and increase the 

percentage of concessions staff that receive training. However, these goals do 

not have targets or timeframes for their completion. Leading practices indicate it 

is critical for an agency to set meaningful performance goals and to measure 

progress towards these goals. Without clearly defined performance goals that 

contain targets or timeframes, it will be difficult for the Park Service to track its 

progress in these areas and determine where additional effort may be needed to 

address identified challenges in the concessions program.

View GAO-17-302. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The 1998 Concessions Management 

Improvement Act governs concessions 

services at national parks. In 2016, the 

Park Service managed 488 

concessions contracts, and such 

contracts generated about $1.4 billion 

in gross revenues in the prior year.

Under these contracts, companies and 

individuals operate businesses in 

parks, including lodges, restaurants, 

and recreational services. GAO was 

asked to review the concessions 

program. 

This report examines (1) how the 

concessions program has changed 

since GAO’s 2000 report and (2) any 

ongoing challenges in the concessions 

program. To conduct this work, GAO 

examined Park Service policy, 

guidance, and relevant laws and 

regulations; analyzed Park Service 

data on concessions contracts; 

interviewed Park Service staff at 

headquarters, all seven regions, and 

20 park units, selected for size of 

concessions program and park type, 

among other things; and interviewed 

concessioners and stakeholders, such 

as consultants familiar with the 

concessions program. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Park 

Service review and adjust its process 

to help ensure timely and accurate 

reporting of financial data from 

concessioners, finalize its guidance 

and make it public, and develop 

performance goals with targets and 

timeframes in its commercial services 

strategic plan. The Department of the 

Interior agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Letter 1

Background 4

Since 2000, Park Service Has Made Changes to the Concessions 

Program, but Some Oversight Issues Remain 12

Concessions Program Continues to Face Challenges, Which the 

Park Service’s Strategic Plan May Address, but the Plan Is 

Missing Key Elements to Track Progress 20

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34

Appendix II Information on Concessions Contracts at Selected Park Units 37

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Tables

Table 1: Services Most Commonly Offered under Concessions 

Contracts at National Parks, as of April 2016 5

Table 2: Examples of National Park Service Headquarters 

Concessions Roles by Branch Office 7

Table 3: Comparison of Selected Provisions of the National Park 

Service Concessions Policy Act and the National Park 

Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 

199810

Table 4: Information on National Park Service’s Classroom 

Training Courses Related to the Concessions Program 15

Table 5: Number of Concessions Contracts under Extension by 

National Park Service Region, as of April 2016 16

Table 6: Number of National Park Service Concessions Staff and 

Number of Concession Contracts at Selected Park Units, 

as of 2016 25

Table 7: Information on Concessions Contracts at Selected Park 

Units37

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Figures

Figure 1: Summary of the National Park Service’s Concessions 

Process 6

Figure 2: Example of Potential Types of Repairs or Improvements 

to a Lodge Room at a National Park and How They Might 

be Funded 28

Abbreviations

1965 Concessions Act National Park Service Concessions 

Policy Act

1998 Concessions Act National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement Act of 1998

GPRA Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 

LSI leasehold surrender interest

Park Service National Park Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

February 16, 2017

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Chairman

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael Enzi

United States Senate

The Department of the Interior’s National Park Service (Park Service) has 

long managed concessions contracts, which provide services to visitors at 

national park units.1 The National Park Service 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.2 The first director of the Park Service, Stephen 

Mather, highlighted the importance of concessions operations when he 

said, “Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets out in the 

morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night’s sleep on an 

impossible bed.” As of April 2016, the Park Service managed 488 

concessions contracts, and such contracts generated about $1.4 billion in 

gross revenues in 2015. Under these contracts, companies and 

individuals operate businesses in parks, including lodges, restaurants, 

and recreational services such as horseback riding. The Park Service’s 

concessions process consists of three main steps: (1) developing a 

prospectus, which provides information on the concessions operation and 

the business opportunity it presents to potential bidders; (2) evaluating 

proposals and selecting the winning bid; and (3) managing the awarded 

contract.

The National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 

1998 (1998 Concessions Act) serves as the current basis for the 

concessions program.3 Prior to the development of regulations to 

 1

Park units include national parks, historic sites, monuments, recreation areas, parkways, 

and battlefields, among others.

2

Act of August 25, 1916, ch. 408, § 3, 39 Stat. 535, 535 (codified as amended at 54 

U.S.C. § 104902). The 1916 legislation is commonly referred to as the National Park 

Service Organic Act. 

3

Pub. L. No. 105-391, tit. IV, 112 Stat. 3503 (codified as amended at 54 U.S.C. §§ 101911 

– 101926 (2016)).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

implement this law, we issued a report in 2000 on the concessions 

program that highlighted three longstanding management challenges for 

the Park Service: (1) inadequate qualifications and training of 

concessions staff; (2) inability to manage its contract workload and the 

resulting backlog of expired contracts that were under extension;4 and (3) 

lack of accountability in the concessions program, such as oversight of 

concessioners’ performance.5 In that report, we recommended that the 

Park Service improve the qualifications of concessions staff, contract for 

needed contracting expertise, or do some combination of both. We also 

recommended that the Park Service establish a formal process of 

performing independent inspections of lodging operations. The Park 

Service agreed with these recommendations.

You asked us to review the Park Service concessions program since the 

passage of the 1998 Concessions Act. This report examines (1) how the 

concessions program has changed since our 2000 report and (2) any 

ongoing challenges in the concessions program.

To address these objectives, we examined Park Service policy and 

guidance documents and relevant laws and regulations. We reviewed 

some of our prior reports on the concessions program.6 In particular, we 

reviewed our 2000 report on the concessions program, which identified 

management challenges facing the concessions program prior to the 

implementation of the 1998 Concessions Act. In addition, we analyzed 

Park Service data on concessions contracts. Specifically, we examined 

administrative data that the Park Service provided us as of April 2016 on 

the concessions contracts in place, the services they provided, and their 

contract terms. We also examined financial data on concessions 

contracts, including gross revenues, for 2015, the most recent year for 

which data were available. To determine the reliability of these data, we 

interviewed agency officials who were familiar with these data and 

 4

Once a contract’s term elapses, the contract expires, but in certain circumstances, the 

agency may extend it. 

5

GAO, Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems that Plague the 

Concessions Program, GAO/RCED-00-70 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2000).

6

GAO, Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems that Plague the 

Concessions Program, GAO/RCED-00-70 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2000); GAO, 

National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations Increased, but Some 

Enhancements Are Needed to Continue This Trend, GAO-16-166 (Washington, D.C.:

Dec. 15, 2015).
Page 3 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

conducted electronic testing of these data. We found these data to be 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

In addition, we interviewed agency staff at Park Service headquarters, 

regional offices, and selected park units. Specifically, at headquarters, we 

interviewed the chief of the commercial services office, who oversees the 

concessions program,7 along with officials in all four branches of the 

commercial services office—Asset Management, Planning and 

Development, Financial Analysis, and Contract Management. We 

interviewed concessions staff in all seven regional offices. We also 

interviewed concessions staff involved in managing concessions at 20 

park units, including staff at 2 park units in person and the remaining 18 

via phone, and asked about their experiences with implementing the 

concessions program. We interviewed staff from at least two park units in 

each of Park Service’s seven regions. In selecting parks, we included 

units that varied by characteristics such as the number of visitors and 

type of park (i.e., scenic versus historical). We used a standard set of 

questions to obtain information from staff on qualifications, training, the 

concessions program, and any challenges in the program. We also 

interviewed 21 concessioners, including at least one concessioner that 

operated in each of the 20 parks units we contacted. In selecting 

concessioners, we included a range of concessioners that varied by the 

gross revenues they generated and the types of services they provided.

We used a standard set of questions to obtain concessioners’ views on 

the concessions process and any challenges they face. We analyzed the 

responses from our interviews with the Park Service and concessioners 

to identify the most common challenges that were identified.8 We also 

interviewed stakeholders who were familiar with the concessions 

program, including consultants who help the Park Service implement the 

program and academics in the hospitality field. The views from our 

interviews are not generalizable to all parks or concessioners, but they 

were used to provide a range of perspectives on the concessions 

 7

The commercial services program covers concessions contracts, leases, and commercial 

use authorizations. Through its leasing program, the Park Service leases buildings and 

associated property to businesses, individuals, and government entities. Commercial use 

authorizations are generally used for small-scale commercial activities in park units, such 

as leading workshops or tours.

8

To identify the most common challenges, we performed a content analysis of the 

answers to our interview questions for the 48 interviews we conducted with Park Service 

officials and concessioners. For reporting the most common challenges, we categorized 

their responses as follows: “several” represents an answer mentioned in more than 10 of 

these interviews; “some” represents an answer mentioned in 7 to 10 of these interviews.
Page 4 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

program. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our 

objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to February 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Park Service is composed of headquarters, seven regional offices, 

and 417 park units that cover 84 million acres across all 50 states. Park 

units include national parks, national battlefields, national recreation 

areas, and national lakeshores. The Park Service has long worked with 

concessioners who provide visitor services, such as lodging and 

recreational opportunities in national park units, and some concessions 

operations are nearly as old as the parks in which they operate. For 

example, the Many Glacier Hotel in Glacier National Park opened for

business in 1915, 5 years after the park was established in Montana, and 

is currently operated by a concessioner.

As of April 2016, the Park Service had 488 concessions contracts in over 

100 park units, and in 2015, such operations collectively generated about 

$1.4 billion in gross revenues and paid about $104 million in franchise 

fees to the Park Service.9 Concessioners provide a vast array of services 

throughout the national park system. Table 1 shows the most commonly 

offered services under concessions contracts.

 9

The Park Service is authorized to collect and use franchise fees that are generally 

assessed as a percentage of the concessioners’ total gross receipts.

Background

Revenues Generated and 

Services Provided
Page 5 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Table 1: Services Most Commonly Offered under Concessions Contracts at 

National Parks, as of April 2016

Type of service Number of contracts

Guide services and outfitters 198

Retail operations 187

Rentalsa 150

Transportation 115

Food service operations 111

Horse and mule operations 76

Water guides 73

Lodging 53

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data. | GAO-17-302

Note: Multiple services can be offered under a single concessions contract. In addition, other 

services, such as vending machines or golf courses, can be offered under contracts but are not listed 

in this table because they are fewer in number.

a

Rentals can be for various items, including boats or cross country skis.

Concessions contracts also vary in size and scope. The largest 

concessions contracts in terms of revenues generated generally offer 

lodging, food, and retail services. According to a Park Service 

presentation, these three services accounted for over half of the revenue 

generated under concessions contracts in 2014. In 2015, the five largest 

concessions contracts generated more than $50 million each in gross 

revenues for services in Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon 

national parks along with Statue of Liberty National Monument and Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area. These contracts generally offer 

lodging, food, and retail services. In addition, in 2015, 20 concessions 

contracts with the largest gross revenues accounted for about two thirds 

of the total revenues generated under all concessions contracts. In 

contrast, 177 concessions contracts each generated less than $100,000 

in annual revenues in 2015. Many of these contracts were for guide 

services and outfitters.10 Some concessioners, such as those that operate 

lodges, are assigned buildings or land that are owned by the federal 

government, and they are responsible for maintaining them during the life 

of the contract.

 10Guide services and outfitters are specialized backcountry outdoor recreation services.

These include concessioners that provide guided river running, fishing, horseback, 

camping, and mountaineering experiences.
Page 6 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

As shown in figure 1, the concessions contracting process consists of 

three main steps: prospectus development, contract award, and contract 

management.

Figure 1: Summary of the National Park Service’s Concessions Process

Park Service staff at the headquarters, regional, and park unit levels 

serve different roles in the concessions program. Park Service 

headquarters provides guidance on the concessions program and 

oversees the process for developing prospectuses for contracts with 

anticipated annual gross revenues of more than $5 million a year or a 

contract term of more than 10 years, which are known as “headquartersConcessions Process
Page 7 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

level” contracts.11 As of April 2016, there were 52 headquarters-level 

contracts, and these contracts accounted for almost 80 percent of the 

total gross revenues generated by concessions contracts in 2015. Within 

headquarters, four branches have different roles in the concessions 

program, as shown in table 2.

Table 2: Examples of National Park Service Headquarters Concessions Roles by Branch Office

Branch office Examples of roles in the concessions program

Asset Management Branch Provides policy and guidance on asset management.

Oversees process to assess condition of buildings or land that are assigned to concessioners as 

part of their concessions contract.

Involved in negotiations with concessioners on leasehold surrender interest (LSI) and possessory 

interest.

a

Tracks LSI and possessory interest balances.

Planning and Development 

Branch

Provides policy and guidance on prospectus development.

b

Directly involved in developing prospectuses for headquarters-level contracts (those with 

anticipated annual gross revenues over $5 million or having a term over 10 years).

Provides support to regions during prospectus development.

Financial Analysis Branch Oversees financial analyses used to develop prospectuses.

Provides support to regions and parks.

Oversees concessioner financial reporting.

Contract Management Branch Provides policy, training, and guidance on contract oversight.

Oversees annual overall review process used to evaluate concessioner performance.

Provides contract management support to regions and parks.

Source: GAO summary of National Park Service information and interviews with Park Service officials. | GAO-17-302

a

LSI generally represents the initial value of capital improvements made by a concessioner adjusted 

for inflation and depreciation that occurred during the contract term. Possessory Interest is the name 

of the method the Park Service employed under the 1965 Concessions Act to account for capital 

improvements. Its value is generally “equal to the sound value of such structure, fixture, or 

improvement...determined upon the basis of reconstruction cost less depreciation evidenced by its 

condition and prospective serviceability...but not to exceed fair market value.”

b

The prospectus development process results in a prospectus that outlines the business opportunity 

for a concessions operation so that concessioners can decide whether to submit a proposal. A 

prospectus includes information such as the requirements of the contract, the services to provide, and 

past financial information for the concessions operation.

 11Under the 1998 Concessions Act, a contract with anticipated annual gross revenues 

above $5 million or which has a term over 10 years, must be sent to congressional 

committees specified in the law, and the Park Service cannot issue these contracts until 

60 days after this notification has taken place.
Page 8 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

According to Park Service officials, regional staff are also involved in 

developing prospectuses for headquarters-level contracts. In addition, 

regional staff take the lead in developing prospectuses for concessions 

operations that are under $5 million a year in revenue or 10 years in 

length and answer questions that park unit staff may have on the 

concessions program. The primary role of park unit staff is to oversee 

concessions contracts once they have been awarded. Park unit staff will 

also provide input into prospectus development, such as what services 

should be allowed. According to Park Service officials, park unit staff 

include full-time, dedicated staff who are generally known as concessions 

management specialists and collateral duty staff. Collateral duty staff 

have other responsibilities at the park in addition to overseeing 

concessions, such as being a law enforcement ranger.

The 1998 Concessions Act authorizes the concessions program at the 

Park Service to provide necessary and appropriate services to visitors 

that are consistent with the preservation and conservation of a park unit’s 

resources.12 The 1998 Concessions Act repealed the National Park 

Service Concessions Policy Act, which was enacted in 1965 (1965 

Concessions Act),13 and made changes to the concessions program. For 

example, the 1998 Concessions Act reduced the ability of the Park 

Service to offer a preferential right of renewal to incumbent 

concessioners, which allows an incumbent concessioner to match a 

better bid offered by a competitor. The 1998 Concessions Act allows a 

preferential right of renewal for concessioners offering guide or outfitting 

services or those with anticipated gross revenues under $500,000. In 

contrast, the 1965 Concessions Act allowed a preferential right of renewal 

for all concessioners.14

The 1998 Concessions Act also changed how concessioners are to be 

compensated for capital improvements made to buildings or land 

assigned to them. Under the 1998 Concessions Act, concessioners that 

make approved capital improvements receive a leasehold surrender 

interest (LSI) for this improvement. LSI generally represents the initial 

 12Pub. L. No. 105-391, tit. IV, 112 Stat. 3503 (codified as amended at 54 U.S.C. §§ 

101911 – 101926 (2016)).

13Pub. L. No. 89-249, 79 Stat. 969 (1965).

14Under both laws, the award of this preferential right is contingent on the concessioner 

performing according to the terms of the contract.

Legislative Authorities
Page 9 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

value of capital improvements adjusted for inflation and depreciation 

made by a concessioner to a property, such as building a new structure, 

completing a major rehabilitation,15 or installing a non-removable piece of 

equipment, known as a fixture. LSI took the place of a system of 

compensation for capital improvements called “possessory interest” that 

existed under the 1965 Concessions Act.16 According to Park Service 

officials, one of the key differences between these systems is the method 

used to calculate their values, with LSI being easier to calculate than 

possessory interest because there is a defined formula to calculate LSI in 

the act. The Park Service tracks LSI balances during the contract term, 

and if a contract is awarded to a different concessioner when the contract 

ends, the 1998 Concessions Act requires the previous concessioner to be 

paid for any LSI. Table 3 compares selected provisions in the 1965 

Concessions Act and 1998 Concessions Act.

 15A “major rehabilitation” that qualifies for inclusion in the LSI is a planned, comprehensive 

rehabilitation of an existing structure approved in advance by the Park Service Director, is 

generally completed within 18 months, and has a construction cost that is more than 50 

percent of the structure’s value before rehabilitation. 36 C.F.R. § 51.51 (2016).

16Possessory interest from contracts predating the enactment of the 1998 Concessions 

Act is to be handled as follows: if a concessioner does not seek or is not awarded a new 

contract upon the expiration or termination of its old contract, it is entitled to compensation 

for its possessory interest; if a concessioner is awarded a new contract, the 

concessioner’s possessory interest is to be converted into LSI.
Page 10 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Table 3: Comparison of Selected Provisions of the National Park Service Concessions Policy Act and the National Park 

Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998

Provision

National Park Service Concessions 

Policy Act (1965)

National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement 

Act of 1998

Competition New contracts to be granted at the discretion of 

the National Park Service (Park Service).

Competitive process should be used and 

concessions should be awarded to the 

entity submitting the best proposal.

Preferential right of renewala Available to all concessioners that operated to

the satisfaction of National Park Service.

Available only to certain concessioners:

outfitting and guide concessioners or 

concessions contracts with anticipated 

gross annual revenues under $500,000.

Term of contract Not specified. Concessions contracts shall generally be 

awarded for a term of 10 years or less, 

but may be awarded for a term up to 20 

years if the Park Service determines that 

it is warranted.

Contract extensions Allowed extensions to be granted at the 

discretion of the National Park Service.

Limits extensions to maximum of 3 

years.

Capital improvements made by 

concessioners to buildings or land 

assigned to them

Possessory Interest is the name of the method 

used to account for these improvements. Its 

value is “equal to the sound value of such 

structure, fixture, or improvement...determined 

upon the basis of reconstruction cost less 

depreciation evidenced by its condition and 

prospective serviceability...but not to exceed fair 

market value.” 

Leasehold surrender interest is the name 

of the method used to account for these 

improvements. Its value is equal to 

“initial value (construction cost of the 

capital improvement), increased (or 

decreased)” by the change in the 

Consumer Price Index, less depreciation 

of the capital improvement.

Source: GAO summary of 1965 Concessions Act and 1998 Concessions Act. | GAO-17-302

a

“Preferential right of renewal” was not defined under the 1965 Concessions Act. Under current law, 

the term means the right of an incumbent concessioner to match the terms and conditions of the best 

competing proposal for a new contract.
Page 11 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Our 2000 report on the concessions program, which we issued prior to 

the implementation of the 1998 Concessions Act, highlighted three 

management challenges:17

• Inadequate staff qualifications and training: We generally found that 

Park Service staff at the headquarters, regional, and park unit levels 

did not have the necessary skills or training to implement the program.

We found that concessions staff were often transferred from other 

career fields at the Park Service, such as interpretive18 or law 

enforcement rangers and the agency’s view was that “anyone could 

do concessions.”

• Inability to manage contract workload and expired contracts: We 

found that the Park Service was unable to manage its concessions 

contract workload, and this had resulted in approximately 45 percent 

of concessions contracts and permits (283 of 630) being expired as of 

December 31, 1999, meaning that these contracts had exceeded their 

original term and were under an extension.19 We found that this 

backlog of expired contacts resulted in concessioners not having an 

incentive to invest in facilities that were under short-term extensions 

because the extensions gave concessioners little time to earn a return 

on their investment.

• Lack of accountability: We found that the organizational structure of 

the Park Service impeded accountability because Park Service 

headquarters did not have direct authority over how park units were 

implementing the program. We also found that confusion existed 

about the roles and responsibilities in the program among 

headquarters, region, and park unit staff, and that the review process 

for concessioners was not adequate.

To address some of these challenges, we recommended that the Park 

Service improve the qualifications of concessions staff, use contractors in 

the program, or do some combination of both. We also recommended 

that the Park Service establish a formal process to conduct periodic 

 17GAO/RCED-00-70. Our report was issued March 31, 2000, but regulations that 

implemented the 1998 Concessions Act were not published in the Federal Register until 

April 17, 2000.

18Broadly speaking, interpretive rangers provide educational information to visitors about 

park units, such as information about the animals or plants in a park unit.

19According to Park Service officials, the term “concession permit” was used under the 

1965 Concessions Act to authorize certain activities that did not require building or land 

assignment to concessioners. 

Challenges Highlighted 

in 2000 GAO Report
Page 12 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

independent inspections of concessioners’ lodging facilities. The Park 

Service agreed with these recommendations and has taken steps to 

implement them, as discussed below.

The Park Service has made several changes to the concessions program 

since our 2000 report. Specifically, the Park Service has hired 

concessions staff with relevant skills or educational backgrounds, is using 

consultants, and has increased training opportunities. In addition, the 

Park Service has reduced the number of concessions contracts under 

extension because it is issuing contracts on a regular basis. The Park 

Service’s headquarters office has also increased involvement in the 

program and is collecting more data from concessioners. However, we 

found that some of these data are incomplete because concessioners did 

not submit required financial reports or data were reported incorrectly and 

were not identified in the agency’s review of the reports.

In our 2000 report, we found that Park Service concessions staff 

generally did not have the business, financial, or contracting backgrounds 

needed to successfully carry out the concessions program. Since then, 

the agency has taken steps to hire concessions staff with relevant 

qualifications, particularly at the headquarters or regional level. Two park 

superintendents who have been in the Park Service for more than 30 

years said the agency was hiring staff with business backgrounds and 

specialized skills for the program instead of moving people from other 

park unit positions, such as rangers, into the concessions program. This 

is a change from the time of our 2000 report, when we found that the Park 

Service typically filled concessions positions by transferring staff from 

other career fields.

According to our interviews with Park Service concessions staff at 

headquarters, regional offices, and park units, many current program staff 

have relevant experiences or educational backgrounds as follows.

• Headquarters: The chief of commercial services and the four branch 

chiefs have educational degrees in relevant fields, such as hospitality 

or business, prior work experience in relevant fields, or had worked in 

the concessions program for some time. For example, the commercial 

services chief, who was hired in November 2014, has more than 25 

years of experience working in the hospitality industry along with 

degrees in hospitality and business.

Since 2000, Park 

Service Has Made 

Changes to the 

Concessions 

Program, but Some 

Oversight Issues 

Remain

Park Service Has Hired 

Staff with Relevant Skills 

and Backgrounds, and the 

Agency Has Started Using 

Consultants and Added 

Training
Page 13 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

• Regional offices: Most of the seven commercial services chiefs who 

oversee the concessions program in their regions have relevant 

educational degrees or work experience. Specifically, three of the 

chiefs had prior relevant experience, such as working on contracts in 

the private sector, while three others had worked in the concessions 

program for more than 8 years. In addition, several regional office 

concessions staff have similar backgrounds and experiences. For 

example, concessions staff at three of the regional offices have 

business degrees.

• Park units: Concessions staff at the 20 park units we interviewed have 

a variety of backgrounds. Some of these park staff have degrees in 

business or hospitality or several years of experience in the 

concessions program, while other staff did not. Those staff with fewer 

relevant qualifications were generally at parks that did not have large 

concessions programs, in terms of the number of the contracts at the 

park or the revenues generated under these contracts. For example, 

at one park unit that had one small concessions operation for a 

campground, the one collateral duty staff overseeing this operation 

did not have a relevant background or much experience in the 

program.

In our 2000 report, we recommended that the Park Service consider 

using contractors in the concessions program for activities such as writing 

prospectuses and performing financial analysis. The 1998 Concessions 

Act directs the Park Service to use contractors to conduct or assist in 

various aspects of the concessions program, including health and safety 

inspections, analysis of rates charged to the public, and the preparation of 

the financial aspects of prospectuses.20 According to Park Service 

officials and consultants we interviewed, we found that the agency uses 

consultants in certain aspects of the concessions program. In addition, 

the draft guidance directs concessions staff to use consultants to help 

develop prospectuses for headquarters-level contracts.21 Some of the 

ways in which consultants are used, according to our interviews, are as 

follows:

 2054 U.S.C. § 101920(a) (2016). 

21National Park Service, Draft Reference Manual 48A. As of November 2016, Park 

Service officials said that this guidance is largely finalized and that the agency is using it to 

implement the program, but is awaiting final review by the Associate Director for Business 

Services, who started work at the Park Service in November 2016. 
Page 14 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

• Condition assessment: Consultants develop inventory of park assets, 

such as buildings and land that are part of concessions operations, 

and then conduct assessments of their condition. The results of these 

assessments are used to develop maintenance plans for 

concessioners to follow under their contracts.

• Financial analysis: During prospectus development, consultants 

develop models that estimate future costs and revenues for 

concessions operations. These models are used to develop the 

minimum franchise fee that is published in a prospectus.

• Rate administration: Consultants develop tools to support and conduct 

rate comparability studies to respond to requests from concessioners 

to change the rates they charge for visitor services.

• Environmental audits: Consultants examine environmental 

management programs that are part of concessions operations, such 

as their use of hazardous chemicals that are part of certain 

operations.

In our 2000 report, we also found that once staff were transferred from 

other fields into the concessions program, there was limited training 

available to them and this further limited their ability to carry out their 

duties. The Park Service now offers additional training courses on the 

concessions program to staff to help improve their skills, as shown in 

table 4. Specifically, the agency offers four classroom-based courses that 

are several days in length. According to a senior Park Service official, the 

Evaluation and Pricing course predated the implementation of the 1998 

Concessions Act, but the other three classes were developed since the 

law’s implementation to provide additional training to concessions staff.

Of these training courses, concessions staff are only directed to complete 

the Evaluation and Pricing training as of November 2016, while the other 

courses are optional. Many of the park unit staff we interviewed said they 

had taken one or more of the four classroom training courses. At one park 

unit, a collateral duty staff said that he did not have a background in the 

concessions area and that the courses had helped him understand how 

to administer the program. The Park Service supplements these 

classroom trainings with online training and monthly conference calls 

during which different concessions topics are covered.
Page 15 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Table 4: Information on National Park Service’s Classroom Training Courses Related to the Concessions Program 

Name of 

Course

Course 

length

Frequency 

offered

Examples of 

topics covered 

Concessions management for 

superintendents

5 days Annually • Concessions process.

• Laws governing concessions.

• Roles and responsibilities of superintendents in 

concessions program.

Concessions evaluation and 

pricing 

4 days Annually • Process used to review and approve rates charged by 

concessioners for visitor services.

• Concessioner review process used to rate 

concessioners including their performance and contract 

compliance.

Concessions financial 

management 101 

3 days Annually • Accounting concepts.

• Management and spending of franchise fees, which are 

collected by the National Park Service from 

concessioners.

• Annual financial reports submitted by concessioners.

Concessions asset 

management 101 

5 days Annually • Laws and regulations.

• Condition assessment process for assets, such as 

buildings.

• Types of maintenance and who may be responsible for 

this maintenance.

• Insurance requirements for concession operations.

Source: GAO summary of National Park Service training materials and interviews with Park Service officials. | GAO-17-302

Based on our analysis of Park Service data, the Park Service has 

extended fewer concessions contracts past their contract term.

Specifically, as we reported in 2000, approximately 45 percent of 

concessions contracts and permits22 (283 of 630) had expired as of 

December 31, 1999, and many of these had been under extension for 5 

to 10 years. In contrast, as of April 2016, 28 percent (136 of 488) of 

concessions contracts were under extension, and 85 percent (116 of 136) 

had been under extension for 3 years or less.23 Table 5 shows the 

number of contracts that were under extension by region, as of April 

2016. The Alaska region has the highest percentage of contracts under 

 22According to Park Service officials, the term “concession permit” was used under the 

1965 Concessions Act to authorize certain activities that did not require building or land 

assignment to concessioners. 

23We analyzed administrative data from the Park Service on the concessions contracts it 

had in place as of April 2016. The remaining contracts that had been extended for longer 

than 3 years were issued under the 1965 Concessions Act and Park Service is working to 

award these. 

Park Service is Extending 

Fewer Concessions 

Contracts and for a 

Shorter Period
Page 16 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

extension. According to Park Service officials from this region, limited 

staff were available to help prepare the prospectuses needed to award 

new contracts so the region extended some existing contracts.

Table 5: Number of Concessions Contracts under Extension by National Park Service Region, as of April 2016

National Park 

Service Region

Number of concessions 

contracts

Number of concession 

contracts under extensiona Percentage of contracts under extension

Alaska 93 47 51

Intermountain 210 25 12

Midwest 49 18 37

National Capital 8 3 38

Northeast 29 9 31

Pacific West 59 23 39

Southeast 40 11 28

Total 488 136 28

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data. | GAO-17-302

a

This refers to contracts that the National Park Service has extended beyond their original contract 

term.

According to Park Service officials, the decrease in the proportion of 

contracts under extension is due, in part, to a provision in the 1998 

Concessions Act, which limits contract extensions to a maximum of 3 

years.24 Officials said that this led the agency to award contracts on a 

regular basis instead of extending them indefinitely, as had been allowed 

under the 1965 Concessions Act.

In our 2000 report, we found that under the agency’s organizational 

structure, Park Service headquarters did not have direct authority over 

how park units implemented the program and that headquarters did not 

have information on certain aspects of the program, such as centralized 

information on the condition of lodging facilities. Since then, headquarters 

has increased its involvement in the concessions program. For example, 

headquarters is actively involved in preparing prospectuses for the 52 

headquarters-level contracts, which are the largest concessions 

 2454 U.S.C. § 101913(11)(A) (2016).

Headquarters Office Has 

Increased Involvement in 

Concessions Program, but 

Some Data from 

Concessioners Were 

Missing or Inaccurate
Page 17 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

contracts.25 Specifically, a headquarters Planning and Development 

branch staff member serves as one of the project managers during 

prospectus development for these contracts.26 In carrying out this role, 

headquarters helps to determine how to structure the concessions 

contract, including what services to allow under the contract and whether 

to permit large-scale capital improvements during the term of the contract, 

such as constructing new buildings. According to the Park Service’s draft 

guidance on the concessions program, the Director of the Park Service 

must also approve any capital projects estimated to cost over $1 million.

According to Park Service officials, the increased oversight of LSI eligible 

projects is intended to prevent LSI balances from growing too high under 

certain contracts. High LSI balances can discourage competition because 

few companies have the resources to purchase the LSI from the previous 

concessioner, according to Park Service officials.

The Park Service also has some initiatives under way to help oversee the 

performance of concessioners. For example, Park Service headquarters 

developed a data system to track the ratings that park unit staff give to 

concessioners as part of the annual overall review process, according to 

a senior Park Service official. In addition, this official said that 10 percent 

of annual overall reviews on concessioners will be subject to further 

review by Park Service headquarters staff, beginning in 2017. Park 

Service headquarters currently reviews these annual ratings for 

completeness, but it is aiming to determine if the rating given to a 

concessioner is justified by the supporting narrative.

In our 2000 report, we also found that the Park Service lacked centralized 

information on the condition of concessioner lodging facilities, which 

limited the agency’s ability to oversee the program. Since then, the Park 

Service has directed that condition assessments of structures maintained 

by concessioners be conducted during the prospectus development 

process, according to Park Service officials. Information from these 

assessments is entered into the Park Service’s Facility Management 

Software System, which contains data on Department of the Interior 

facilities. Park Service staff use this information to develop a maintenance 

 25This is the number of headquarters-level contracts as of April 2016. These are contracts 

that have anticipated gross revenues of more than $5 million annually or a contract term of 

more than 10 years. 

26There is also a regional project manager that is part of the prospectus development 

team.
Page 18 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

plan for the concessions contract, which they review and update as 

needed, according to the agency’s draft guidance and agency officials.

While the Park Service has taken steps to obtain more centralized 

information on the concessions program, we found that some 

concessioners’ financial reports were missing or data contained in the 

reports we reviewed were sometimes reported incorrectly. Standard 

concession contracts require concessioners to submit annual financial 

reports to the Park Service for each concessions contract they hold.

These reports provide data such as gross revenues, operational costs, 

and franchise fees paid. The Park Service uses these reports and the 

data they contain for several purposes, including to reconcile franchise 

fee payments received from concessioners annually and to generate 

financial projections that are used to develop prospectuses for contracts, 

according to agency officials. We found instances where these reports 

had not been submitted or data on the financial reports that were 

submitted were incorrectly reported by concessioners.

• Some financial reports were missing: Financial reports for 2015 had 

not yet been submitted for 23 of 485 concessions contracts as of 

November 2016.27 Under these contracts, a total of about $20 million 

in gross revenues and about $98,000 in franchise fees were reported 

on their most recently available financial report, which in most 

instances was from 2014. According to the standard contract 

language the Park Service uses for concessions contracts, these 

reports are due within 120 days of the end of a concessioner’s fiscal 

year, and Park Service officials said that most concessioners use a 

calendar year for financial reporting. This means that these 

concessioners should have submitted their 2015 financial reports by 

April 30, 2016. When we asked Park Service officials about this issue, 

they said that this was a recurring issue for some concessioners and 

that it can be hard to obtain financial reports from smaller 

concessioners because these concessioners sometimes have only 

one or two employees and these limited resources can make it difficult 

to submit reports on time.

• Financial reports sometimes contained incorrect data: For 39 of 485 

contracts, concessioners reported gross revenues, but did not report 

 27According to Park Service officials, they expect to receive annual financial reports for 

2015 for 485 contracts. This is less than the 488 contracts in effect in April 2016 because 

there are some contracts that began operations in early 2016 and would not need to 

submit an annual financial report for 2015. 
Page 19 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

paying a franchise fee in their 2015 financial report. Under these 39 

contracts, a total of about $21 million in gross revenues was reported 

in 2015. According to Park Service data, a franchise fee should have 

been paid under these contracts. Park Service officials said that they 

believed these were instances where the concessioner had paid 

franchise fees, but had not filled out the annual financial reports 

properly. They added that these inconsistencies should have been 

identified by the relevant park unit or the regional office during their 

review of these financial reports. Some park unit officials said that 

they are overwhelmed by the number of reports, including financial 

reports, they receive from concessioners and do not have time to 

review all of them. In addition, we found that the data from these 

financial reports are entered into a spreadsheet that does not contain 

edit checks that could identify possible errors. We used supplemental 

data from the Park Service to determine that franchise fees had been 

paid under some of these contracts, but we were unable to confirm 

franchise fees had been paid for all of them because these data were 

reported at a park unit level and not at a contract level.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,

28

agencies should obtain information from external parties in a timely 

manner and should have control activities to ensure that data are reliable.

However, not all financial reports were submitted in the time frames 

required by standard contract language, and some that were submitted 

contained errors that were not identified by Park Service staff during the 

review process. Without timely or accurate financial data from 

concessioners, the agency could be limited in its ability to oversee certain 

aspects of the concessions program such as determining whether 

concessioners have paid their franchise fees.

 28GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2014). 
Page 20 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

In interviewing Park Service officials and concessioners, we identified 

some challenges in the three steps of the concessions process: 

prospectus development can be a lengthy and expensive process, and it 

can be hard to generate competition for some contracts; the agency’s 

evaluation panels can sometimes have difficulty assessing proposals, and 

the award process can be lengthy; and contract management can be 

affected by limited staffing and confusion about how to fund capital 

improvements and maintenance. The Park Service’s commercial services 

strategic plan highlights many of the challenges we identified and 

identifies initiatives to potentially address them, but is missing certain 

information, such as performance measures that are quantifiable to track 

progress and determine where additional effort may be needed.

Several Park Service officials said that developing prospectuses can be a 

lengthy or expensive process, taking as long as 4 years to complete.

Some of these officials noted that the process is lengthy, in part, due to 

the multiple levels of Park Service review or the time it takes for 

consultants to conduct condition assessments of concessioner-assigned 

buildings or land. In addition, according to one consultant we interviewed, 

it can cost between $70,000 and $400,000 for a consultant to do a 

condition assessment of the buildings that are part of a concessions 

operation, depending on the size and scale of the operation. A Park 

Service headquarters official acknowledged that it can be costly to 

develop a prospectus but a future contract can generate revenues that 

greatly exceed these costs. For example, this official told us that the 

agency spent about $2 million for a condition assessment of 800 buildings 

for a concessions contract that was anticipated to generate over $100 

million in annual gross revenues and had a contract term of 20 years. In 

addition, several concessioners noted that responding to a prospectus 

can be time consuming or expensive. For example, some of these 

concessioners said that developing a proposal cost several tens of 

thousands to hundreds of thousands dollars.

A few Park Service officials and a trade association representing guides 

and outfitters suggested that a simplified prospectus development 

process for small contracts may help to reduce the time and costs of 

developing the agency’s prospectuses and concessioners’ proposals. The 

Park Service was directed by the 1998 Concessions Act to use a 

simplified process for small, individually owned entities seeking 

Concessions 

Program Continues 

to Face Challenges, 

Which the Park 

Service’s Strategic 

Plan May Address, 

but the Plan Is 

Missing Key 

Elements to 

Track Progress

Prospectus Development 

Can Be a Lengthy or 

Expensive Process
Page 21 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

concessions contracts.29 The Park Service has developed guidance for 

one part of the prospectus development process—determining franchise 

fees for small concessions contracts with projected annual gross 

revenues less than $250,000.30 In 2014, the agency began a pilot project 

designed to help it develop a simplified prospectus process, but it has not 

yet issued a prospectus using this process. According to Park Service 

officials, the agency plans to issue a prospectus under the pilot project by 

the end of 2016 and use the results of this effort to simplify the 

prospectus development process for small contracts.

According to Park Service officials, one of the goals of the 1998 

Concessions Act was to increase competition in the concessions 

program, but several Park Service officials and concessioners we 

interviewed said that increasing competition on concessions contracts 

continues to be a challenge. Competition for larger contracts is limited to 

a few companies, in part, because some contracts have high LSI 

balances, according to Park Service officials.31 High LSI balances can 

discourage competition because few companies have the resources to 

purchase these balances from the previous concessioner, as we found in 

2015.32

The Park Service has taken steps to manage LSI balances by either 

reducing high balances on existing contracts or limiting the LSI that a 

concessioner can incur on a new contract, as we found in 2015.33

 2954 U.S.C. § 101913(1) (2016). In draft guidance on the concessions program, the Park 

Service generally defines these small contracts as those that generate less than $100,000 

in annual revenues; such contracts accounted for about 36 percent (177 of 488) of the 

agency’s concessions contracts in 2015.

30National Park Service, Guidance for Franchise Fees for Small Concession Contracts, 

(Washington, D.C., Aug. 21, 2014). Under this guidance, for recreation service contracts, 

such as float trips or hunting, the minimum franchise fee is 3 percent of gross revenues or 

$1,000, whichever is more. For hospitality services contracts such as lodging or 

restaurants, the minimum franchise fee is 5 percent of gross revenues or $1,000, 

whichever is more. Regional offices are also given flexibility to determine an appropriate 

franchise fee.

31LSI accrues on capital improvements rather than contracts, but according to Park 

Service officials, they track LSI balances on individual improvements, and these balances 

are then added together to become a balance for a contract.

32GAO-16-166. 

33GAO-16-166.

Generating Competition 

for Some Concessions 

Contracts Can Be 

Challenging
Page 22 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Specifically, the Park Service has reduced high LSI balances by using 

franchise fees to buy down these balances on contracts that would 

otherwise have attracted few bidders. Most notably, the agency spent 

almost $100 million to reduce the LSI balance for capital improvements at 

Grand Canyon National Park to encourage competition. On another 

contract, concessioners informed the Park Service that they would not 

submit proposals since the LSI balance on a concessions contract was 

too high, according to a Park Service official. As a result of this input, the 

park unit plans to buy down the LSI to zero, which staff said may help 

generate competition. In addition, the Park Service has limited the 

amount of LSI that concessioners can incur on new contracts, as we 

found in 2015.34 However, according to some concessioners, not allowing 

concessioners to incur LSI could limit their interest in investing in 

concessioner-assigned buildings or land because they would not be paid 

for eligible capital improvements they make.

Competition is also limited because over half of the Park Service’s 

concessions contracts continue to have a preferential right of renewal, 

according to Park Service officials. While the 1998 Concessions Act 

generally prohibits the Park Service from granting a preferential right of 

renewal for larger contracts, the Park Service estimates that about 70 

percent of its concessions contracts continue to have a preferential right 

of renewal. These contracts generally have less than $500,000 in gross 

annual revenues or are for guide services or outfitters. Competition for 

contracts may be limited in such situations because the incumbent can 

match a better bid offered by a competitor. Some guiding concessioners 

we spoke with said that it was important to maintain a preferential right for 

guides and outfitters because these types of concessioners often have 

specialized equipment and skills unique to the park and service provided, 

such as mountain climbing.

Several Park Service officials and concessioners said that it can 

sometimes be challenging for evaluation panel members to determine if a 

bidder can perform all of the services listed in its proposal. According to 

the agency’s draft guidance on the concessions program, panel members 

are to typically review information that is submitted as part of the bidder’s 

proposal, and according to Park Service officials, panel members 

generally do not ask for additional information during the evaluation 

 34GAO-16-166.

Assessing Some 

Proposals Can Be 

Difficult and the Process 

for Awarding Concessions 

Contracts Can Be Lengthy
Page 23 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

process to help assess a bidder’s proposal. Some of these Park Service 

officials and concessioners said that this can sometimes result in the 

agency awarding the contract to a bidder who has a well-written proposal, 

but might have “overpromised” in its ability to implement its proposal. For 

example, a park unit official said that a concessioner submitted a 

proposal in response to a prospectus for a tour boat operation and 

included additional services not specifically required by the prospectus, 

such as offering a healthy food menu on board the boat. This 

concessioner was awarded the contract, in part, because of these 

additional services; however, it took years for the concessioner to follow 

through on providing this service, according to this park unit official.

A concessioner we spoke with said that it would be helpful for park unit 

staff knowledgeable about the concessions operations at the park unit to 

be included as an advisor to the evaluation panel to help determine if 

proposed services are feasible. According to the Park Service’s draft 

guidance, park unit staff typically serve as technical advisors to the panel. 

Park unit staff are not always included because of limited travel funds, 

according to a Park Service official. However, the evaluation panel may 

informally contact park unit staff when it has technical or park-specific 

questions, according to agency officials.

Another challenge with the contract award phase of the process is the 

length of time it takes to award a concessions contract, according to 

some Park Service officials and concessioners. For example, one park 

unit official we interviewed in July 2016 said that a contract had not been 

awarded by an evaluation panel that took place in the prior winter and for 

which only one proposal was submitted. According to Park Service 

officials, this contract is to be awarded in December 2016. The length of 

time to award a contract can be affected by the need for agency review. 

According to the agency’s draft guidance, agency officials are to review 

the evaluation panel’s recommendation on which concessioner submitted 

the better proposal before announcing the winner of a contract. There is 

also a need for review by the Office of the Solicitor during several stages 

of the concessions process, according to agency officials. In addition, the 

1998 Concessions Act requires that the Park Service submit 

headquarters-level contracts to specified congressional committees for a 

period of 60 days before they can be awarded.
Page 24 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Several Park Service officials as well as concessioners we interviewed 

said that the agency does not always have enough staff to adequately 

manage concessions contracts. These management activities include 

reviewing a concessioner’s performance and compliance with its contract 

and approving concessioner rates. For example, concessions staff at two 

park units said they found it difficult to review required reports submitted 

by concessioners because of the large number of concessions contracts 

they managed. According to the Park Service’s draft guidance on the 

concessions program, staff are to review and update required reports to 

ensure that concessioners are meeting their established operational and 

maintenance responsibilities and providing visitors with satisfactory 

services, among other things. Furthermore, two concessioners said that 

not having enough concessions staff at parks slows the review and 

approval of their requests, such as changes to their rates. For example, 

one concessioner said that it took several months for concessions staff at 

a park unit with limited staff to respond to a request to adjust the prices 

for food the concessioner sold.

Staff at some park units we contacted manage the concessions program 

as a collateral duty, meaning they have other primary responsibilities, 

such as law enforcement. A few of these park unit concessions staff said 

that managing the concessions program as a collateral duty works well 

because the concessions program is not large at their park. However, 

staff at other park units said that managing the concessions program as a 

collateral duty is challenging since their primary duties take up the 

majority of their time. As a result, they do not always have time to 

proactively manage concessions contracts, such as approving new prices 

for services. Park Service officials said headquarters offers a technical 

assistance program to parks that need support. In a typical year, the 

program funds a total of 10 onsite trips, during which headquarters staff

travel to park units to assist park unit staff in areas such as conducting 

inspections of concessioner operations.

For the 20 park units we contacted, we generally found that parks that 

had more contracts or headquarters-level contracts also had more staff 

managing the program (see table 6). One exception was at Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve, where two full-time concessions staff are 

responsible for overseeing 39 concessions contracts. In addition, parks in 

our review that had concessions contracts generating higher revenues 

generally had more staff. For more information on gross revenues 

generated at these different park units, see appendix II.

Contract Management 

Can Be Affected by 

Limited Staffing
Page 25 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Table 6: Number of National Park Service Concessions Staff and Number of Concession Contracts at Selected Park Units, as 

of 2016

National Park 

Service unit 

Number of fulltime concessions 

staffa

Number of 

collateral duty 

concessions staffa

Total number 

of concessions 

contractsb Number of headquarters-level concessions contractsb, c

Blue Ridge Parkway 1 0 7 0

Cape Cod National 

Seashore 1 0 3 0

Carlsbad Caverns National 

Park 0 1 1 0

Eisenhower National Historic 

Site 0 2 1 0

Fort Sumter National 

Monument 1 1 1 1

Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserved 2 0 39 5

Grand Teton National Park 7 2 25 3

Isle Royale National Park 0 3 4 0

Katmai National Park and 

Preserved 1 0 9 0

Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area 6 0 8 3

Mount Rainier National Park 1 2 5 1

Mount Rushmore National 

Memorial 1 0 2 1

National Capital Parks 

Centrale 4 0 2 2

Olympic National Park 1 2 5 1

Prince William Forest Park 0 1 1 0

Source: GAO summary of interviews with park unit staff and National Park Service data. | GAO-17-302

a

The information on staff numbers comes from our interviews with park unit staff, which were 

conducted between May and September 2016.

b

The information on contract numbers comes from data we received in April 2016.

c

A headquarters-level contract is one that has anticipated annual gross revenues over $5 million or a 

contract length over 10 years.

d

For both Glacier Bay and Katmai, the National Park Service counts them as two separate park 

units—a national park and a national preserve. However, we are counting them as single units 

because they are managed by the same management team.

e

According to National Park Service officials, National Capital Parks Central is a park name that is no 

longer used except to track data for two concessions contracts that have been in place since the 

1980s. We interviewed a concessioner that operates one of these contracts. According to Park 

Service officials, under this contract, the concessioner provides services across the following six park 

units: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, George Washington Memorial Parkway, 

National Capital Parks East, Rock Creek Park, President’s Park, and the National Mall, and we spoke 

to staff involved in managing this contract across these six units.
Page 26 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Limited staffing levels can also affect a regional office’s ability to support 

parks in the concessions program, according to Park Service officials.

According to regional officials, parks that do not have full-time 

concessions staff can rely on the regional offices for assistance in 

managing the concessions program. In 2015, the agency tried to address 

staff shortages in regional offices by allowing each of them to use funding 

from franchise fees to hire an additional full-time concessions 

management specialist to help with the workload, according to Park 

Service officials. As of November 2016, six of the seven regional offices 

have requested funding to hire additional staff and three of these offices 

have hired staff using this funding.

Some concessioners we interviewed said that it was challenging to 

determine how to fund maintenance or capital improvements.

Concessioners that have been assigned buildings or land, such as hotels 

or restaurants, are required to maintain these assets, and they may also 

be required to undertake capital improvement projects.35 In the area of 

maintenance and capital improvements, projects may be funded in 

several ways, depending on the type of work required:

• Routine maintenance: Activities, such as painting or replacing carpet, 

are paid for by the concessioner.

• Personal property: Includes certain items, such as removable 

equipment and furniture, which are paid for by concessioners.

• Replacement of building components: Concessions contracts may 

require concessioners to set aside a percentage of their revenues into 

a repair and maintenance reserve fund that they establish and 

manage.36 These funds can be used to replace a building component, 

such as a roof or windows, at the end of its useful life. These funds 

cannot be used for large-scale capital improvements that would 

qualify for LSI, and cannot be used for routine maintenance needs.

• Large capital projects or fixtures: Concessioners can also be required 

under their contracts to undertake capital improvements, which are 

eligible for LSI, such as constructing a new building, completing a 

 35Not all concessioners have been assigned buildings or land. For example, according to 

Park Service data, as of April 2016, 323 of the 488 contracts are category III contracts, 

which are contracts where concessioners have not been assigned buildings or land. 

36National Park Service, Repair and Maintenance Reserve Guidance (Mar. 25, 2011). 

Some Concessioners Find 

It Challenging to 

Determine How to Fund 

Maintenance and Capital 

Improvements
Page 27 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

major rehabilitation, or replacing fixtures.37 The Park Service tracks 

LSI balances during the contract term, and if a contract is awarded to 

a different concessioner when the contract ends, the 1998 

Concessions Act requires the previous concessioner to be paid for 

any LSI.

Figure 2 shows different types of maintenance or improvements that 

could be made by a concessioner in a lodging room and the applicable 

funding category. As this figure shows, a single project to update a lodge 

room could involve a concessioner determining whether a specific activity 

qualifies for one of the four categories mentioned above.

 37A “major rehabilitation” that qualifies for inclusion in the LSI is a planned, comprehensive 

rehabilitation of an existing structure approved in advance by the Park Service Director, is 

generally completed within 18 months, and has a construction cost that is more than 50 

percent of the structure value before rehabilitation. A “fixture,” such as a toilet, is a 

manufactured item of personal property of independent form and utility necessary for the 

basic functioning of a structure that are affixed to and considered to be part of the 

structure. 36 C.F.R. § 51.51 (2016). Replacing a fixture can qualify for LSI.
Page 28 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Figure 2: Example of Potential Types of Repairs or Improvements to a Lodge Room at a National Park and How They Might be 

Funded

Notes:

a

Leasehold surrender interest (LSI) generally represents the initial value of the capital improvements 

made by a concessioner to a property adjusted for inflation and depreciation that occurred during the 

contract term. These capital improvements include building a new structure, completing a major 

rehabilitation, or replacing a fixture.

b

Repair and maintenance reserve funds can be used to replace a building component, such as a roof 

or windows, at the end of its useful life, but these funds cannot be used for large-scale capital 

improvements that would qualify for LSI, and cannot be used for regular maintenance needs.

c

Personal property can include items such as removable equipment and furniture that are owned by 

concessioners or the federal government and not eligible for LSI or repair and maintenance reserve 

funds.

d

Routine maintenance includes activities such as general repairs, painting, or carpet replacement, 

which are paid for by the concessioner.
Page 29 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

A few concessioners said it was challenging to determine which category 

of funding a repair or improvement qualifies for within a single project. For 

example, one concessioner had to replace some carpet, furniture, and dry 

wall at a historic lodge due to mold, a project that cost about $50,000.

The concessioner said it was surprised to learn that the repair and 

maintenance reserve fund they manage would cover only the dry wall 

replacement, which cost about $4,000, and the rest of the expense would 

be the concessioner’s responsibility. Another concessioner said it was 

confusing to determine which “bucket” of money to use for improvements 

made as part of one project. As a result, the concessioner was still trying 

to determine how to account for different parts of this project completed 

years ago.

Confusion exists, in part, because the Park Service has not finalized 

certain guidance or made it publicly available. Park Service officials said 

that the agency provides information on the use of LSI and repair and 

maintenance reserve funds to concessioners upon request and that some 

information on these topics is in the contracts that concessioners sign.

However, we found that detailed guidance on how to fund particular 

repairs and capital improvements was not always readily available and 

that some of the guidance for these funding sources is still in draft. 

Specifically, the Park Service issued draft guidance on LSI in 2012 and 

updated it in another draft dated October 2015, but this guidance has not 

yet been finalized and is not available on the Park Service’s website as of 

December 2016. Two concessioners said that the agency’s list of fixtures 

that qualify for LSI, which are listed in the guidance, periodically changes, 

adding to the challenge of determining what qualifies for LSI. Similarly, 

the Park Service has developed internal guidance on the use of repair 

and maintenance reserve funds, but this guidance is also not available on 

its website for concessioners to consult, as of December 2016.

Under Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

agencies should communicate with external parties to achieve their 

objectives.38 According to Park Service officials, one of their goals in 

implementing the 1998 Concessions Act was for the Park Service to 

improve the maintenance of concessioner-assigned buildings. However, 

confusion about how to fund maintenance and capital improvements will 

likely continue without finalized guidance that is publicly available to

concessioners. This could lead to delays in undertaking needed 

 38GAO-14-704G. 
Page 30 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

maintenance projects and capital improvements, which could further 

contribute to the agency’s deferred maintenance in concessionerassigned buildings, which was over $400 million in fiscal year 2015, 

according to Park Service officials.39

The Park Service developed a 5-year commercial services program 

strategic plan in 2015, to help improve the commercial services program, 

including concessions management. This plan was an update to the 

commercial services improvement plan that had been place for the prior 

10 years. According to agency officials, the 2015 strategic plan provided 

the agency with an opportunity to review progress made on past goals 

and establish new plans going forward. The Park Service developed this 

plan based on interviews with concessioners, consultants, and park unit 

staff, according to a senior Park Service official. As a result, the strategic 

plan recognizes many of the challenges that we also identified in our 

interviews with Park Service officials and concessioners. For example, 

the plan has a goal to improve the prospectus and contract award 

process which aims to reduce costs and improve efficiency to the 

government and bidders. Similarly, the plan aims to attract more bids for 

concessions contracts, increase the accuracy of financial reporting, and 

increase the percentage of concessions staff who receive training.

While the Park Service’s strategic plan recognizes many challenges that 

the concessions program faces, we found that the plan is missing 

quantifiable and measurable performance goals, which would help ensure 

that these challenges are addressed. Specifically, the plan identifies 

various performance measures, but it has no related targets or time 

frames, which would clearly identify the level of performance the agency 

is trying to achieve and by when. For example, within the goal to improve 

the prospectus and contract award process, the agency has identified 

four performance measures, one of which is “change in percent of 

responses to prospectuses (increase).” While the plan notes that Park 

Service is aiming to increase the percent of responses, which provides a 

sense of what the agency is trying to achieve, it does not state by how 

much (target) or by when (timeframe)—two key aspects of a performance 

goal.40 According to agency officials, the strategic plan is still a work in 

 39Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed when it should have been 

or was scheduled to be and is delayed for a future period. 

40Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-11 – Preparation, Submission, and 

Execution of the Budget, Section 200 (July 2016).

Commercial Services’

Strategic Plan May 

Address Many of the 

Challenges We Identified, 

but Lacks Certain 

Elements Needed 

for Successful 

Implementation
Page 31 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

progress, and the agency plans to develop a process to track 

performance in 2017. Until this effort is complete, it is unclear whether 

this process will include targets and timeframes. 

As we previously found, a critical element in an organization’s efforts to 

manage for results is its ability to set meaningful goals for performance 

and to measure progress towards these goals.41 The performance 

planning and reporting framework put into place by the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as updated by the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010, provides important tools to decisionmakers.42

For example, agencies are to develop performance goals that define the 

level of performance to be achieved in each fiscal year, and express 

those goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measureable form. Without 

clearly defined performance goals that would provide a basis against 

which results can be compared, it will be difficult for the Park Service to 

track its progress in these areas and determine where additional effort 

may be needed to address identified challenges to the concessions 

program.

Concessioners help to provide a range of services to visitors to national 

park units. The Park Service has made positive changes in many of the 

areas that we identified as challenges in our 2000 report, such as 

obtaining more centralized information to oversee the concessions 

program. However, in some instances required reports from 

concessioners were not provided on time or those submitted contained 

incorrect financial data that was not identified in the review process.

Without more timely and accurate financial data from concessioners, the 

agency could be limited in its ability to oversee certain aspects of the 

concessions program, such as whether concessioners have paid 

franchise fees.

In addition, Park Service officials and concessioners identified ongoing 

challenges with the concessions program. Specifically, some 

concessioners said they find it challenging to determine how to fund 

maintenance or capital improvements on buildings or land they can be 

 41GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004). 

42The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 

285 (1993) was updated by the GPRA Modernization Act (Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 

3866 (2011). 

Conclusions
Page 32 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

assigned under their contracts. This is, in part, because some guidance in 

this area is not finalized or publicly available to concessioners.

The Park Service’s strategic plan for the commercial services program 

recognizes many challenges facing the concessions program and has 

identified goals that may address some of them. However, this plan lacks 

performance goals with targets that specify desired outcomes and 

timeframes. Without clearly defined performance goals, it will be difficult 

for the Park Service to track its progress in addressing these challenges 

and determine where additional effort may be needed.

To help improve oversight of the concessions program, we recommend 

that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the National Park 

Service to take the following three actions:

• review the financial reporting process and make any necessary 

adjustments to help ensure timely and accurate reporting of data on 

annual financial reports;

• finalize guidance on maintenance and capital improvements and 

make it publicly available to concessioners; and

• develop performance goals with targets and timeframes in its 

commercial services strategic plan.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 33 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for 

review and comment. The GAO Audit Liaison from the Department of the 

Interior responded via e-mail, stating that the department agreed with our 

recommendations and providing technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix III.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Our objectives were to examine (1) how the concessions program has 

changed since our 2000 report and (2) any ongoing challenges in the 

concessions program.

To address these objectives, we examined relevant laws, regulations, and 

Park Service documents. Specifically, we examined the National Park 

Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 (1998 

Concessions Act),1 its associated regulations,2 and the National Park 

Service Concessions Policy Act.3 We examined the Park Service’s draft 

guidance on commercial services, known as Reference Manual 48A,4

along with guidance on repair and maintenance reserve accounts, and 

draft guidance from 2012 and 2015 on leasehold surrender interest. We 

reviewed some of our prior reports on the concessions program.5 In 

particular, we reviewed our 2000 report on the concessions program, 

which identified management challenges facing the concessions program 

prior to the implementation of the 1998 Concessions Act. We also 

examined the Park Service’s commercial services program strategic plan, 

which includes initiatives to help address challenges in the concessions 

program, and compared this plan with our past work on leading practices 

in strategic planning, as applicable.6

In addition, we obtained and analyzed data on concessions contracts 

from the Park Service. Specifically, we analyzed administrative data that 

were provided to us in April 2016 on the concessions contracts in place, 

the services they provided, and their contract terms. We used these data 

 1

Pub. L. No. 105-391, tit. IV, 112 Stat. 3503 (codified as amended at 54 U.S.C. §§ 101911 

– 101926 (2016)). 

2

36 C.F.R. §§ 51.1 – 51.104 (2016). 

3

Pub. L. No. 89-249, 79 Stat. 969 (1965). 

4

National Park Service, Draft Reference Manual 48A. As of November 2016, Park Service 

officials said that this guidance is largely finalized and that the agency is using it to 

implement the program, but is awaiting final review by the Associate Director for Business 

Services, who started work at the Park Service in November 2016. 

5

GAO, Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems that Plague the 

Concessions Program, GAO/RCED-00-70 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2000) and GAO, 

National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations Increased, but Some 

Enhancements Are Needed to Continue This Trend, GAO-16-166, (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 15, 2015).

6

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

to conduct various analyses, including identifying the number 

concessions contracts, the services offered under these contracts, and 

whether these contracts were under an extension. We analyzed financial 

data on concessions contracts, including their gross revenues and 

franchise fees paid, for 2015, the most recent year for which data were 

available. We used these data to determine the gross revenues that were 

generated under concessions contracts and the franchise fees that were 

paid. To determine the reliability of these data, we interviewed agency 

officials who were familiar with these data and conducted electronic 

testing of these data. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes, which included providing information on the number of 

contracts, the services provided under contracts, the number of contracts 

under extension, and the total gross revenues and franchise fees in the 

concessions program. In our report, we noted some limitations in the 

financial data. Specifically, we found that some annual financial reports 

for the year 2015 were missing and that some of the financial reports 

contained incorrect data. However, we concluded that we could still use 

the financial data in our report because of the small number of contracts 

that had data issues, and we concluded that the data we report on total 

gross revenues and franchise fees would not be substantially affected by 

the data issues we identified.

We interviewed Park Service officials at the headquarters, regional, and 

park unit levels to better understand staff qualifications and training, the 

concessions program, as well as their perspectives on ongoing 

challenges in the program. We used a standard set of questions to obtain 

information on these topics. At the headquarters level, we interviewed the 

chief of the commercial services office,7 who oversees the concessions 

program, along with the branch chiefs of all four branches of the 

commercial services office—Asset Management, Planning and 

Development, Financial Analysis, and Contract Management. At the 

regional level, we interviewed regional commercial services chiefs in all 

seven regions—Alaska, Intermountain, Midwest, National Capital, 

Northeast, Pacific West, and Southeast—as well as concessions staff in 

these offices who help to manage the concessions program. At the park 

unit level, we interviewed concessions staff involved in managing 

 7

The commercial services program covers concessions contracts, leases, and commercial 

use authorizations. Through its leasing program, the Park Service leases buildings and 

associated property to businesses, individuals, and government entities. Commercial use 

authorizations are generally used for small-scale commercial activities in park units, such 

as leading workshops or tours.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

concessions at 20 park units that had one or more concessions contracts. 

Specifically, we interviewed staff from 2 park units in person (Mount 

Rainier and Olympic national parks) and staff from the remaining 18 park 

units via phone to ask about their experiences in managing concessions 

contracts. We selected a range of parks that varied by region; the number 

of visitors to the park; type of park (i.e. scenic versus historical); and the 

size of the concessions program at these parks. We interviewed officials 

from at least two park units in all seven of the Park Service’s regions.

Appendix II lists the park units that we contacted and information on the 

concessions contracts in these parks.

We also interviewed 21 concessioners, including at least one 

concessioner that operated in each of the 20 parks we contacted, to 

understand their perspectives on the concessions program. We selected 

a range of concessioners that varied by the gross revenues their 

operations generated and the types of services they provided under their 

contracts. We used a standard set of questions to obtain their views on 

the concessions process and any challenges they face. To identify the 

most common challenges mentioned in our interviews, we performed a 

content analysis of the answers to our interview questions for the 48 

interviews we conducted with Park Service officials and concessioners. 

For reporting purposes, we categorized their responses as follows: 

“several” represents an answer mentioned in more than 10 of these 

interviews; “some” represents an answer mentioned in 7 to 10 of these 

interviews.

We also interviewed two trade groups, the National Park Hospitality 

Association and America Outdoors Association because they represented 

a variety of concessioners in the program. In addition, we conducted 

interviews with stakeholders who were familiar with the concessions 

program, including consultants that help the Park Service implement the 

program, academics in the hospitality field, and lawyers who represent 

concessioners. The views from the interviews we conducted are not 

generalizable to all parks, concessioners, or stakeholders, but they were

used to provide a range of perspectives on the concessions program.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to February 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Information on Concessions 

Contracts at Selected Park Units

Page 37 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Table 7 provides information on the number of, gross revenues, and 

services offered under concessions contracts at park units we contacted.

Table 7: Information on Concessions Contracts at Selected Park Units

Park unit’s 

name

Park Service 

region

Total 

number of 

concessions 

contracts

Gross 

revenues from 

concessions 

contracts in 

2015 (dollars)

Concessions services offered in the park 

under these contracts 

Blue Ridge 

Parkway

Southeast 7 9,295,402 Food Service Operations, Lodging, Rentals, Retail

Operations

Cape Cod 

National 

Seashore

Northeast 3 1,255,757 Food Service Operations, Golf Courses, Lodging, Retail 

Operations

Carlsbad 

Caverns 

National Park

Intermountain 1 3,586,325 Food Service Operations, Kennel Service, Retail Operations, 

Vending Machines

Eisenhower 

National 

Historic Site

Northeast 1 179,918 Transportation

Fort Sumter 

National 

Monument

Southeast 1 5,711,319 Food Service Operations, Retail Operations,

Water Transportation

Glacier Bay 

National Park 

and Preservea

Alaska 39 111,256,617b Cruise Lines, Food Service Operations, Guide Services and 

Outfitters, Lodging, Rentals, Retail Operations, Scenic and 

Sightseeing Tours, Transportation, Water Guides, Water 

Transportation

Grand Teton 

National Park

Intermountain 25 62,533,155 Auto, Gas, and Service Stations, Campgrounds, Food Service 

Operations, Guide Services and Outfitters, Horse and Mule 

Operations, Lodging, Marinas, Medical Clinics, Rentals, Retail 

Operations, Scenic and Sightseeing Tours,

Shower and Laundry, Transportation

Isle Royale 

National Park

Midwest 4 3,168,986 Auto, Gas, and Service Stations, Food Service

Operations, Lodging, Marinas, Rentals, Retail

Operations, Scenic and Sightseeing Tours, Shower and 

Laundry, Transportation, Vending Machines, Water 

Transportation

Katmai National 

Park and 

Preservea

Alaska 9 2,179,534 Food Service Operations, Guide Services and Outfitters, 

Lodging, Rentals, Retail Operations, Scenic and Sightseeing 

Tours, Shower and Laundry, Transportation, Water 

Transportation

Lake Mead 

National 

Recreation 

Area

Pacific West 8 34,585,700 Auto, Gas, and Service Stations, Food Service

Operations, Lodging, Marinas, Rentals, Retail

Operations, Scenic and Sightseeing Tours, Shower and 

Laundry, Trailer Village Services, Water Guides, Water 

Transportation

Appendix II: Information on Concessions 

Contracts at Selected Park Units
Appendix II: Information on Concessions 

Contracts at Selected Park Units

Page 38 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Park unit’s 

name

Park Service 

region

Total 

number of 

concessions 

contracts

Gross 

revenues from 

concessions 

contracts in 

2015 (dollars)

Concessions services offered in the park 

under these contracts 

Mount Rainier 

National Park 

Pacific West 5 14,696,284 Firewood Sales, Food Service Operations, Guide Services 

and Outfitters, Lodging, Rentals, Retail Operations, Winter 

Sports Operations

Mount 

Rushmore 

National 

Memorial

Midwest 2 19,162,913 Food Service Operations, Parking Lot Services, Rentals, 

Retail Operations, Vending Machines

National Capital 

Parks Centralc National Capital 2 27,310,948 Food Service Operations, Golf Courses, Marinas, Rentals, Retail Operations, Tennis Courts

Olympic 

National Park 

Pacific West 5 14,712,037d Auto, Gas, and Service Stations, Campgrounds, Food Service 

Operations, Lodging, Rentals, Retail Operations, Swimming 

Pools, Water Guides

Prince William 

Forest Park

National Capital 1 477,036 Rentals, Retail Operations

Source: GAO summary of National Park Service data. | GAO-17-302.

a

For both Glacier Bay and Katmai, the Park Service counts them as two separate park units—a 

national park and a national preserve—but we are counting them as single units because they are 

managed by the same team.

b

As of November 2016, the 2015 annual financial report had not been submitted for six concessions 

contracts at Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. According to their most recently submitted 

annual financial reports, which were from 2014 for four contracts and from 2013 for two contracts, 

these contracts generated $18,101,276 in gross revenues.

c

According to National Park Service officials, National Capital Parks Central is a park name that is no 

longer used except to track data for two concessions contracts that have been in place since the 

1980s. We interviewed a concessioner that operates one of these contracts. According to Park 

Service officials, under this contract, the concessioner provides services across the following six park 

units: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, George Washington Memorial Parkway, 

National Capital Parks East, Rock Creek Park, President’s Park, and the National Mall, and we spoke 

to staff involved in managing this contract across these six units.

d

As of November 2016, the 2015 annual financial report had not been submitted for one concessions 

contracts at Olympic National Park. According to its 2014 annual financial report, this contract 

generated $51,161.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-17-302 National Park Service

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202)512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant 

Director), Scott Heacock, and Carmen Yeung made key contributions to 

this report. Additional contributions were made by Penny Berrier, Anna 

Brunner, Greg Campbell, Antoinette Capaccio, Cindy Gilbert, Benjamin T. 

Licht, Ying Long, Guisseli Reyes-Turnell, and Dan Royer.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100525)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.