WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) expressed his deep concern for the process employed by the National Park Service (NPS) that led the agency to end its longstanding relationship with the Acadia Corporation (Acadia Corp.) and asked the committee to review the pending contract and press NPS for answers regarding its selection process.

“I believe that the selection process for this contract was seriously flawed – flaws which will harmfully impact the Park and the surrounding community,” Senator King wrote. “I look forward to working with you [the Energy and Natural Resources Committee] to…undertake a substantive review of the contract and the selection process in your committee, and to exploring why the National Park Service (NPS) is operating in a manner detrimental to parks, host communities, and states. Further, I request that the committee exercise its right to hold the contract until such a review has occurred, past 60 days, if necessary.”

On September 23, 2013, NPS announced that a new, out-of-state concessioner had been selected to serve Acadia National Park. Maine-based Acadia Corp. has for the past 80 years provided concessions within the park. In response, Senators King and Collins pressed NPS Director John Jarvis in a November letter to provide answers concerning the agency’s decision and process. It took NPS more than two months to provide a response, and in his letter to the Committee, Senator King urged the Committee to press NPS for more answers and greater transparency than was provided.

“NPS must produce documents which set out and explain the process that it went through to determine which parts of the selected proposal were to be included, or not included, in the final contract that you have before you,” Senator King wrote.

The letter can be viewed by clicking HERE and is below:

+++

March 3, 2014

Dear Committee Members:

I write regarding an Acadia National Park (“the Park”) concessions contract (CC-ACAD0001-14) that was transmitted to your Committee for review on February 4, 2014. I believe that the selection process for this contract was seriously flawed – flaws which will harmfully impact the Park and the surrounding community. I look forward to working with you to exercise the committee’s right as set out under the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 to undertake a substantive review of the contract and the selection process in your committee, and to exploring why the National Park Service (NPS) is operating in a manner detrimental to parks, host communities, and states. Further, I request that the committee exercise its right to hold the contract until such a review has occurred, past 60 days, if necessary.

Pursuant to the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, a Congressional review period of at least 60 days runs from the day that NPS transmits a contract to the relevant House and Senate committees, after which time the contract takes effect, assuming no objections have been raised. I ask that – pursuant to the 1998 Act – you not discharge the contract from your committee until a thorough review has been completed. Due to this timing, I request the opportunity to work with your committee to schedule a briefing with NPS, and, if necessary, hold a hearing on NPS mismanagement of this selection process. This is particularly necessary because I have not been able to receive satisfactory information from NPS. 

The Maine-based Acadia Corporation, the long-serving concessioner at the Park, began providing concessions in 1933. Acadia Corp. operated the Jordan Pond House Restaurant and retail store, and retail services at the top of Cadillac Mountain, and at Thunder Hole, and has been an exemplary concessioner by all accounts – those of NPS, the Bar Harbor community surrounding the Park, and the Park itself.

In fact, NPS rated the Acadia Corp. as “one of the best concessionaires in the National Park Service” in its annual overall rating report for 2011. It is my impression that the winning bidder is also an exemplary concessioner.

Due to the expiration of Acadia Corp.’s contract, in July of 2012 NPS sought bids to provide concession services at the Park and Acadia Corp. participated in this process. On September 23, 2013, NPS announced that it had selected another applicant and that Acadia Corp. would lose its contract with the Park. I heard from many constituents who were outraged at this decision and, on their behalf, I investigated the process. As a result, I have discovered that the process was fundamentally flawed and that NPS did not follow its own procedure and did not select “the best proposal” as mandated by the 1998 Concessions Act.

Although the proper forum is a committee briefing, and perhaps a hearing, I would like to briefly outline my concerns with the selection process:

1. A technical advisor knowledgeable of Acadia National Park who was made available for the selection process was never utilized or consulted. In addition, no other person familiar with the Park, or its Management Plan, was involved in the process. This was in contravention of the procedure which NPS had specifically established for this selection process in order to ensure that the Panel members – who were deliberately selected because they were not associated with Acadia – would nonetheless make an educated decision. I believe that this process was inherently problematic, regardless of which National Park is involved, because each National Park is unique. It is critical that those unique qualities be included in any evaluation of which concessioner is best suited to operate in that location; by not consulting a technical advisor, these unique qualities were not considered by NPS.  
2. In addition, NPS apparently violated another safeguard set up for the evaluation by appointing a voting panel member familiar with the selected awardee, even though it prohibited any voting members who were familiar with Acadia Corporation. 
3. Although NPS has kept much of the relevant information secret, it is my understanding that there were serious discrepancies between the winning bidder’s response to the prospectus and the terms of the final contract. This resulted in a final contract that omits many of the key proposed terms that formed the basis for NPS assessing that proposal as “the best proposal.” 

I am concerned that NPS evaluates proposals without regard for the practicability of the offerors implementing the terms of their proposals. For example, NPS may have failed to recognize the deficiencies of a proposal to serve native sturgeon roe at the Jordan Pond House Restaurant. Obviously, this could not be implemented under the contract because the two species of sturgeon which are native to Maine are threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, it is my understanding that the winning offeror also included a proposal to significantly expand the parking facilities beyond what is feasible at the Park. Any failure by NPS to recognize these facts would demonstrate that NPS was not focused or aware of what actually is, and is not, possible at Acadia National Park.    

1. NPS has demonstrated a pattern of inadequate management of the selection process, including undue delay which has prejudiced the opening of concessions at the Park. This mismanagement is true both for NPS’s communications with the concessioners and with concerned constituents and representatives. For example, Senator Collins and I wrote to NPS on November 7, 2014 expressing our concerns. We did not receive a response from NPS until February 4, 2014. However, this letter was identical to a draft response that NPS inadvertently made public on December 4, 2013. In addition, the language was identical to a FAQ that NPS posted on November 22, 2013. This shows that NPS made their decision a number of months before their pro forma response to our offices.

Last year the Park opened late due to sequestration and lost significant revenue due to the partial government shutdown. I am concerned that NPS’s delay and mismanagement of the concessions process has jeopardized the ability of a concessioner to open Jordan Pond House on time this year, which will again adversely impact the Park.

In order for the briefing to be productive, NPS needs to produce copies of Acadia Corp.’s proposal as well as that of the selected awardee, and any other proposal that was rated higher than Acadia Corp.’s proposal, so that they may be compared to the final contract. In fact, Acadia Corp. has provided me with a copy of their proposal and is willing to provide it to the committee to facilitate a proper and thorough review. In addition, NPS must provide their evaluations for these proposals. NPS must also produce a detailed outline of their selection process, including a timeline, who was involved in the selection, their background and reason for being selected for the evaluation panel, and in what manner they were involved. Finally, NPS must produce documents which set out and explain the process that it went through to determine which parts of the selected proposal were to be included, or not included, in the final contract that you have before you.

For your reference I have attached our letter to NPS, dated November 7, 2014. I have also attached NPS’s final response to Senator Collins and me, as well as their draft and FAQ. I look forward to scheduling a briefing with your committee and NPS, at your earliest possible convenience, to learn the details of the selection process, and why established protocol was not followed. If you have any questions please have your office contact Chris Rauscher in my office.

Sincerely,

Angus S. King

U.S. Senator

###