2024-06-25_NPS_Industry_Day_Pass_Modernization_Initiative_-_Meeting_Minutes_6.pdf

National Park Service

Meeting Minutes for Opening Presentation for

NPS – Industry Day Modernization Initiative

Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 8:00am – 11:00am Rio Grande Room

Invitees:

Name Title Email Attendance

Tim Wind NPS – Contracting Officer tim_wind@nps.gov Yes

Christine Williamson

NPS – Recreation Fee Program Manager

Yes

Lena McDowell NPS – Deputy Director, Management and Administration

Yes

Penny Wu USDA Forest Service – Deputy Director, Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources

Yes

Jason Kirby Reclamation – Chief Realty Specialist, Supervisory Program Analyst

Yes

Linda Thurn NPS – Interagency Pass Program Manager

Yes

Tracy Thetford NPS – Deputy Recreation Fee Program Manager

Yes

Geoff McKim NPS – Recreation Fee Technology Manager

Yes

Todd Harbin USDA Forest Service – Assistant Recreation Fee Program Manager

Yes

Peggi Brooks NPS – Interagency Pass Program Special Projects Advisor

Yes

Jeff Beauchamp NPS – Interagency Pass Program Business Specialist

Yes

Todd Edgar NPS – Solutions Architect, National Info. Services Center

Yes

Allison Christofis NPS – Interagency Pass Program Business Specialist

Yes

Raukisha Talley BLM – Outdoor Recreation Planner

Yes

Andrew Ray USACE – Natural Resources Specialist

Yes

Chandler Berry Reclamation – Program Analyst, National Recreation Program

Yes

Roy Hewitt Fish & Wildlife – Digital Platforms Lead

Yes

Mahdieh Gholampoor

Abaco Strategy, Sr. Program Manager – Project Team mahdieh.gholampoor@abacostrat egy.com

Yes

Chandra Dommeti Ábaco Strategy, Enterprise Architect – Project Team

Yes

Roy Scales Ábaco Strategy, Sr. Acquisition Manager – Project Team

Yes

Emma Thatcher Ábaco Strategy, Documentation Specialist – Project Team

Yes

Shaun McInerney Symbology DC, LLC Smcinerney@symbologydc.com

Yes

Lalith Caldera Symbology DC, LLC Lcaldera@omniq.com

Yes

Keandrew Tee Symbology DC, LLC keandrew.tee@thalesgroup.com

Yes Barry Jerrels Symbology DC, LLC Bjerrels@symbologydc.com

Reginald Vaughn Arthur Grand Technologies Rvaughn@agfederal.com

Yes

Mike Tuddenham ECS Mike.Tuddenham@ecstech.com

Yes Christopher Yates ECS Christopher.Yates@ecstech.com Yes

Jason Pitts Parkspass Jason.pitts@utahtech.edu

Yes

Eric Pederson Parkspass Eric.pederson@utahtech.edu

Yes

Mikel Anwar ConsultingWhiz LLC Mikela@consultingwhiz.com

Yes

Mike Mabin Agency MABU Zandet@innovatar.io

Yes

William Healy Booz Allen Healy_will@bah.com

Yes

Jeff Leon Booz Allen Leon_jeffrey@bah.com

Yes

Kielan Ehlers PRRS Parking Kehlers@prrsparking.com

Yes

Geremy Rodamer PRRS Parking grodamer@prrsparking.com

Yes

Jordan Schawre PRRS Parking Jordan@getmyparking.com

Elisha Price IBM

Paul Badgley NuAxis Innovations Paul.badgley@nuaxis.com

Yes

Lawrence Abeyta NuAxis Innovations Lawrence.abeyta@nuaxis.com

Yes

Greg Gershman Ad Hoc LLC Greg@adhocteam.us

Yes

Paul Smith Ad Hoc LLC Paul@adhocteam.us

Yes

Angela Ashley Adobe Aashley@adobe.com

Yes

Scott Jung Adobe Minpham@adobe.com

Yes

Sohaila Narang Koniag Mbaker@koniag-gs.com

Yes

Michael Baker Koniag Snarang@koniag-gs.com

Randy Ellis Koniag

Keelyn Desmond Accenture Federal Services Keelyn.desmond@afs.com

Yes

Kate Winter Accenture Federal Services Kate.a.winter@afs.com

Yes

Bill Bryan Tyler Technologies Bill.bryan@tylertech.com

Yes

Cole Milne Hatchery LLC Cole@hatchery.com

Yes

Bernadette Roach Hatchery LLC Bernadette@hatchery.com

Yes Wende Nossaman Microsoft Wendeno@microsoft.com Yes

Austin Hagerty Microsoft Ahagerty@microsoft.com Yes

Reet Aulakh ServiceNow Reet.aulakh@servicenow.com

Yes

Marc Mouries ServiceNow Marc.mouries@servicenow.com

Yes

Gordon Ng CGI Federal Gordon.ng@cgifederal.com

Yes Hriday Keni CGI Federal Hriday.keni@cgifederal.com Yes

Kyle Reinertson Merp Systems Kreinertson@merpsystems.com

Yes Prem Nair Merp Systems Pnair@merpsystems.com

Yes

Kyle Dodd ICF Incorporated Kyle.dodd@icf.com

Yes

Ray Lopresti ICF Incorporated Hooman.kazerani@icf.com

Yes Gary Catt VenTek International GaryC@ventek-intel.com Yes

John Sinton VenTek International John.sinton@cavelle.com Yes

Jason O'Brien Iron Bow Technologies Jason.obrien@ironbow.com

Yes

Imran Aziz Salesforce Iaziz@salesforce.com

Ibrahim Khokhar Salesforce Ikhokhar@salesforce.com

Yes

Trey Rowan Mulesoft Trowan@mulesoft.com

Yes

Rishath Rias Mulesoft Rishath.rias@mulesoft.com

Yes

Mark Mathis Arctic Information Technology, Inc.

Mmathis@arcticit.com Yes

Wayne Foshay Arctic Information Technology, Inc.

Wfoshay@arcticit.com Yes

Steve Schmitz Arctic IT Government Solutions, LLC

Sschmitz@arcticitgov.com Yes

Eli Vaye Arctic IT Government Solutions, LLC

Evaye@arcticit.com Yes

John Adamson Planet Technologies, Inc Jadamson@go-planet.com

Yes

Antonio Sandoval Planet Technologies, Inc Asandoval@go-planet.com

Yes

Heidi Kim Boston Consulting Group Kim.Heidi@bcg.com

Yes Tiffany Chen Boston Consulting Group Chen.Tiffany@bcg.com Yes

Jeremy Crowley Yodel Pass Jcrowley@yodelpass.com

Yes

Tony Alex Yodel Pass Talex@yodelpass.com

Yes

Type of Meeting (Informational, Decision):

Industry Day – Informational Meeting

Background and Purpose:

The purpose of this event is to engage with industry regarding an anticipated solicitation for modernizing (and digitizing) the America the Beautiful – the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass Program (Interagency Pass Program). This opening meeting will serve as an introduction to the Pass Program and a way to highlight the participating agencies: the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). After the presentation (slides attached), we will have a question-and-answer session.

Supporting Documents:

Presentation slides are attached.

Day 1 Schedule and Introductions

• Moderator Todd Harbin's Introduction:

o Introduced the schedule for Day 1.

o Directed industry participants to their respective rooms, as indicated in the packet each person received.

Program Overviews and Authorities

• National Park Service (NPS):

o Lena McDowell: Introduced the National Park Service, emphasizing the Federal Lands

Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), the authority for collecting fees and retaining revenues across federal recreational lands, crucial for park maintenance. Highlighted the management of the project on behalf of all agencies and the need for the Pass modernization effort due to varied park entrance conditions (from staffed booths to areas with no staff and no connectivity). Noted the post-pandemic rise in visitation, along with an increased desire by these visitors for advances in technology.

• Bureau of Reclamation:

o Jason Kirby: Welcomed and introduced the Bureau of Reclamation, who is hosting this event, emphasizing their work through partnerships and the shared challenges in recreation management with other agencies.

• Forest Service (USDA-FS):

o Penny Wu: Welcomed the group. As you may or may not know, this program has evolved over time; and for each iteration of new pass the interagency team provided solutions….whether it was a new pass honoring Veterans and Goldstar families, or creating a pass to foster the next generation of land stewards - known as the 4th Grade pass, it’s in this same spirit of collaboration where we hope to update the program and create a modern, digital interagency pass.

o Each of our agencies deal with significant connectivity issues (whether its high elevation sites or locations below sea level, there are many remote geographic locations with little to no cell service); but we know a majority of our visitors are accustomed to paying with their phones – they want the ease and efficiency. As you will see in the forthcoming video, there’s not one solution that will address this initiative, because if it were a simple fix, it would have already been done. And that’s why we need your help – to provide the recreating public a convenient and efficient way to use an Interagency Pass.

Current Programs and Opportunities

• Interagency Pass Program:

o Linda Thurn: Presented the current Interagency Pass Program and related materials.

o Todd Harbin: Provided the history and background of the Interagency Pass Program, outlined opportunities for improvement and introduced modernization objectives o Tim Wind: Discussed how the participating federal agencies will meet the challenges presented. Last year the responses we got from the RFI gave us a lot of ideas, and this event is the next stage for finding a viable solution. We have engaged a consultant, Abaco Strategies LLC, who is here with us this week, to analyze the results of our market research, then identify potential solutions and undertake high level systems architecture for the minimum viable product (MVP).

o The next step is developing the requirements matrix and developing a draft scope of work for the future Request for Proposals.

Operational Issues and Agency Specifics

• Fish and Wildlife Service (Roy Hewitt, FWS):

o Out of about 8,000 employees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has about 130 visitor services employees to welcome visitors to more than 570 National Wildlife Refuges. 131 FWS sites collect FLREA fees. Of that number, 32 FWS sites collect an entrance fee.

More than half are unstaffed, but exact figure not known. This figure varies from season to season, with some staffed fee locations unstaffed during low-visitation periods.

o Cellular connectivity is hit or miss, not something we can rely on in most cases. Public Wi-Fi is rare, and generally provided in partnership with a national wildlife refuge’s friend’s group. A percentage of sites with connectivity issues is unknown, but many FWS sites are rural and remote. At least one location is using StarLink service.

o Primary methods for fee collection/pass issuance/acceptance:

▪ Some fee booths, generally staffed through seasonal surges in visitation.

▪ Some volunteers or staff selling passes or permits in a visitor center.

▪ Automated fee machines at some sites.

▪ Iron ranger self-payment stations at some sites.

▪ Online sales in advance through online platforms like Recreation.gov, who also provide pass validation applications.

o Primary technology(s) in use:

▪ Recreation.gov including advanced sales online and in-person sales with a credit card machine. Many stations have declined the purchase of a credit card machine because they don’t have the staff to dedicate to sitting at a terminal.

▪ Also use RecAccess, an online platform for recreational permits and passes.

Online sales only.

▪ Ventek self-service terminals.

▪ Pay.gov on a staffed computer.

o Staffing is our primary concern. The limited staff we have should spend as much time welcoming visitors and improving their experience as possible rather than focused on technical solutions for fee collections.

• Bureau of Land Management (Raukisha Talley, BLM):

o There are 3,400 developed recreation sites managed by BLM. Just over 400 charge a

FLREA fee. Average visits per year 75 million. About 90% of these locations are unstaffed and 90% have no connectivity.

o Primary collection methods at BLM are Sanistar remote off grid kiosk (ROK), Rec.gov, Ventek Automated Fee Machines Ventek, Honor Vault, and 3rd party vendors.

o BLM has a large majority of sites that are remote and without connectivity. We want to explore options for site that are inclusive of our sites that are unstaffed, have lack of infrastructure and no connectivity.

• National Park Service (Tracy Thetford, NPS):

o The National Park Service has 429 sites across every state, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Currently, only 108 of the

429 sites charge entrance fees (which the passes cover), 157 charge entrance and/or other types of fees, and 272 do not charge fees. For each of the NPS units that collect recreation fees there are multiple locations within that unit where fees are collected.

o Most sites have at least some areas that are staffed including entrance stations, visitor centers, and visitor contact stations. Primary methods of collection include our service wide point-of-sale system (RBMS) and recreation.gov. Connectivity is a challenge in many locations in both urban and remote areas. For example, at Gateway National Recreation Area located in New York City there are multiple locations with poor or no connectivity and Yellowstone National Park has several locations with fair or poor connectivity.

o Due to the number of pass choices (eight), we would really like to see a simple and quick way for visitors to select the pass that is right for them the first time. Additionally, due to the volume of visitors at many of our NPS units, the ability to validate pass ownership and the requirements for receiving the appropriate pass must be able to be verified in the most efficient way possible.

• Bureau of Reclamation (Chandler Berry, Reclamation):

o The Bureau of Reclamation’s recreation program differs from other agencies. Most of our 300 recreation areas are managed by a partner, some of which are the other agencies here today, others are state or local parks. Of the 69 recreation areas we directly manage only a few have a fee authority at all such as Hoover Dam, with only 4, soon to be 5, being FLREA sites that accept the interagency pass. Three of those sites are staffed at least part of the year with some seasonal changes in staffing.

o At these sites fees are collected in a variety of ways including, automated fee machines, QR codes through recreation.gov, and recreation.gov field sales, while interagency passes are exclusively sold through recreation.gov field sales. Due to how Reclamation’s Recreation program is managed, flexibility will be an important aspect of any potential solution.

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (Andrew Ray, USACE):

o Many people do not realize that the US Army Corps of Engineers manages recreation areas at all, let alone that we are a major provider with approximately 260 million annual visits. A primary reason for our high visitation is that 90% of our locations are within 50 miles of a major city. Our goal is to facilitate access to high quality outdoor recreation opportunities in a way that maximizes the benefit derived by our 260 million annual visitors and helps us protect and manage the lands entrusted to us in an effective and efficient manner.

o Over 60% of our 400+ lake and river projects collect some sort of recreation fee. Offering a variety of pass options (America the Beautiful and USACE annual pass) provides our visitors with ample choice and allows them to access our facilities in a way that meets their needs. We do not charge entrance fees (prohibited by law), but passes are used extensively for day use at swimming areas and boat launches and at campgrounds for camping discounts (when applicable).

o Staffed locations provide the best service as the attendant can help the visitor identify the right pass for them. Unstaffed locations allow for pass sales (specifically the USACE Annual Pass) in more remote locations and offer greater convenience to visitors.

Connectivity issues are sometimes a challenge at these locations. Visitors sometimes purchase a pass that is not the BEST fit for them. Most of these are honor vaults (iron rangers) or automated fee machines.

o Sites rely primarily on the ‘Pay and Display’ model for day use areas. Verify pass ownership when checking in campground visitors. Unstaffed camping locations present pass ownership verification challenges.

o The USACE is a major provider of outdoor recreation, and we want our visitors to access our facilities with as few barriers to entry as possible. Allowing visitors to use a pass allows for efficient access. Making sure they get the right pass minimizes their cost and maximizes their benefit. We need to be able to enforce proper use of each pass, with the biggest challenge area being use of Senior and Access passes for expanded amenity discounts.

• United States Forest Service (Todd Harbin, USFS):

o US Forest Service has about 3,000 sites across the country. 90% plus are unstaffed.

Staffed sites are the exception for Forest Service. Wi-Fi is essentially non-existent.

Cellular, actual data is unknown, but I would say its 50/50 as there are many factors such as provider, make/model/year of phone etc. The vast majority of sites are self-pay. We accept passes, whether it is IA Pass or local pass, so there is a multitude of options out there. We have some sites that during certain parts of the year, there is a staffed booth, sometimes that can even vary during the day.

o We have a commercial point of sale system-wide; however, most of our offices are far away from the sites themselves out in the field. We use rec.gov for reservations of our campgrounds, cabin, and fire lookout rentals, as well as scan and pay and digital site passes for day use sites.

o The vast majority of our sites are unstaffed, we generally do not interact with the visitors.

They are generally already out on the trail or on the water. Right now, people leave their form of payment on their dashboard, whether it is from a fee envelope, an automated fee machine receipt, or a physical pass.

o The vast majority of our sites are remote with little to no connectivity. Power is non-traditional- solar power maybe. We are unable to implement solutions that will require major infrastructure. The majority of our staff in the field do not have government cell phones.

Key Discussion Points

• Operational Challenges:

o Pass Security o Customer Service o Integration with Existing Infrastructure o Easy Validation and Use o Traffic Management at Entrances o Remote Sites with Low/No Connectivity o Limited Staff or Lack of Staff

Additional Information

• Slide and Material Availability: Copies of slides and materials will be made available at sam.gov a couple of weeks after the completion of Industry Day.

• One-on-One Sessions: Industry input sought during these sessions, with an emphasis on punctuality, confidentiality, and the fact that no agreements will be made during the event.

Q/A Discussion Points:

Question 1 Company: Koniag Question: Where are the entrances located regarding each other, and could entrances with traffic be directed to other entrances?

Answer: The entrances are far apart, making it impractical to redirect traffic between them. Instead, visitors may be referred to other public lands.

Question 2 Company: Boston Consulting Group Question: Do you want a custom solution, a commercial solution, or something in between?

Answer: We do not know

Question 3 Company: Koniag Question: Is there a revenue structure between agencies, and is there any confusion between state parks and federal parks in revenue splitting? Is that part of the scope?

Answer: Agencies currently share the program cost based on the percentage of pass sales. Revenue is distributed to agencies from Central Sales and directly to site locations for field sales. We still need to explore funding and the platform for revenue distribution with pass modernization. Revenue for state and federal recreation programs are not co-mingled since these are separate government entities.

NPS is not currently exploring partnerships involving state parks in terms of pass sales/fee collection or revenue distribution.

Question 4 Company: ICF Incorporated Question: Which passes (Interagency Passes, day pass, and other passes) will the RFP focus on? What is the contract's scope?

Answer: We have not yet defined the scope, but the focus is on Interagency Passes. There will likely be some integration between other federal pass systems such as day or week passes, regional passes, etc.

Question 5 Company: [Not provided] Question: How do digital site-specific passes work in locations with no connectivity?

Answer: Customers print a pdf version of their pass with a QR code and leave it on their dashboard. It is only valid for one location and a limited time, whereas Interagency Passes are valid for all locations for a longer period (one year or a lifetime). Depending on the location, Compliance officers can scan QR codes, use a license plate lookup system or, in areas without connectivity, use checksum to verify passes.

Question 6 Company: Arctic IT Question: Are you willing to collect PII for pass tracking so customers can replace lost passes? Are other agencies following NPS in data reporting and usage stats?

Answer: A solution that collects minimal PII or is operational without the government maintaining a database is preferable. Currently, there is no plan for other agencies to collect usage stats, but there is a desire to collect this information.

Question 7 Company: Salesforce Question: Where do we want to start with a pilot?

Answer: We do not know yet.

Question 8 Company: [Not provided] Question: Is there a desire to make the validation process as effective as possible, is validation dependent on type of facility visited? Are there plans to remove all physical passes?

Answer: Yes, the validation process should be as effective as possible. Validation method varies by location. Compliance officers match the pass signature with the driver's license or other ID signature.

There is no immediate plan to discontinue physical passes, but improvements to the validation process should not fall below current standards and ideally, should be functional in low/no connectivity settings with or without staff.

Question 9 Company: Koniag Question: What analysis is being done on digital vs. physical passes, and what parameters change over time?

Answer: We do not have much analysis on digital vs. physical passes. Physical passes are not ideal in hot climates like Arizona, where they can melt on the dashboard. License plates could be a better option for pass validation. The approach is to consider solutions from different scenarios rather than agency-specific ones due to overlap.

Question 10 Company: Microsoft Question: Have you prioritized the issues you want to solve?

Answer: Issues have not been prioritized yet; they are still in the challenge identification phase.

Question 11 Company: Salesforce Question: Are you taking a phased approach to digitization or focusing just on the passes?

Answer: It is too early to say, but the focus is mainly on digitizing Interagency Passes.

Question 12 Company: Ventek Question: Is there a form of revenue distribution for the agencies when a pass is sold?

Answer: If a pass is sold at a site, revenue stays at the site. If sold through Central Sales, which includes passes sold through USGS and third-party vendors, revenue is divided among the agencies.

Question 13 Company: Symbology DC Question: What happens after the one-on-ones?

Answer: No clear answer until the results of Industry Day are analyzed.

Question 14 Company: Yodel Pass Question: Can you talk about the results of the Digital Site-Specific Pass Pilot feedback? How well do they work?

Answer: Senator King and Senator Collins, along with Acadia National Park, reviewed three different company technology programs. They ended up using NIC, which later partnered with Booz Allen

Hamilton as part of Recreation.gov. Validation is done manually. Adoption rates have increased, but some customers find digital site passes unnecessary or are confused about when to use them versus the Interagency Passes. Issues include connectivity, difficult to validate. Staff use a work-around of asking visitors to print QR code, then using checksum. It can be a struggle to communicate all this with visitors.

Question 15 Company: [Not provided] Question: Can you use a digital pass without connectivity?

Answer: The Rec.gov Ranger app downloads validated license plates and has a manual refresh button to store data locally before rangers enter a no-connectivity zone.

Question 16 Company: [Not provided] Question: Will physical passes continue alongside digital ones, and how will "no guest left behind" be ensured?

Answer: Solutions need to incorporate customers who prefer physical passes. The goal is to create a digital version without replacing the physical pass, at least initially, based on the current proposed legislation.

Question 17 Company: Salesforce Question: Are there any hard restrictions when exploring solutions? I.E. Fedramp?

Answer: Specifically, FedRAMP constraints must be followed where applicable. It is a bit tricky to answer definitively, but nothing has been ruled out so far.

Question 18 Company: USGS (US Geological Survey) Question: Is there a strong preference for continuing physical passes, such as for keepsakes and collectibles, especially for groups like Gold Star families and veterans?

Answer: Some pass holders have a tremendous amount of affinity for physical passes, particularly for groups like Gold Star families and veterans.

Question 19 Company: Agency MABO Question: Will there be encouragement for inter-agency collaboration to find solutions?

Answer: Yes, that is one of the goals for the week. However, one-on-one vendor meetings will not be used for this purpose due to confidentiality, so networking time has been scheduled.

Question 20 Company: [Not provided] Question: Will federal agency representatives be the only ones in attendance for one-on-ones?

Answer: Yes, including representatives for our contractor, Ábaco Strategies.

Question 21 Company: CGI Question: How will federal third-party vendors be affected by modernization and how do they contribute to the revenue stream?

Answer: Revenue from third party vendors is considered central sales and divided among agencies. It is currently unclear how modernization will affect third-party vendors.

Additional Questions and Responses:

1. Is there a vendor providing strategy / advisory support around the acquisition of this procurement and subsequent change management needs?

We have engaged a consultant, Abaco Strategies LLC, who is here with us this week, to analyze the results of our market research, then identify potential solutions and undertake high level systems architecture for the minimum viable product (MVP).

2. What is the solicitation award timeline and strategy?

Acquisition strategy is being developed and has not been finalized yet. NPS will release a Solicitation to industry that will provide the requisite information required concerning this business opportunity. No firm dates are available at this time.

Projected Timeframes:

-2024-2025 – Market research, develop business solutions, design architecture -Late 2025 announce future solicitation and award contract -2026-2027 and beyond: commence implementation

3. What is the current state of the systems/what platforms are being used?

We use many systems and platforms currently. The USGS website handles online sales, agency websites provide information. There is currently some integration with point-of-sale systems and there is an internal website for managing the list of pass-issuing locations. Currently this program relies on physical passes. The NPS has an example of their Point-of-Sale System at the informational display related to integration. See inactive RFI - Interagency Pass Modernization from April 2023 (Notice ID 140P2123R0026).

4. How is data currently collected, analyzed, and used to inform decision-making?

There is no database collecting pass use information. We order physical passes based on inventory levels. NPS is the only agency that has started to gather statistics about pass use.

5. How do these systems integrate with each other, and are there any existing limitations?

Integration is currently very limited. Please visit our information station that discusses integration.

6. Do you require individual verifications and step-up processes such as validating documents like government issued IDs?

Verification and validation - Yes, pass purchasers must meet eligibility requirements including provision of acceptable documentation, which must be verified at time of purchase by gov. staff or by a 3rd party contractor.

7. What feedback have you received from users regarding the current website and mobile app?

We do not have a mechanism for feedback from USGS websites, except for customer calls to the USGS call center. The pass program does not currently have a mobile app. However, other agencies may have websites and apps to integrate with. Please see information station that discusses integration.

8. Do you have any numbers around the breakdown of park pass purchases (online vs. in-person, annual vs day pass, special access, etc.)?

The vast majority (about 90%) of Interagency Passes are purchased in person. Additional pass sales statistics are available in the 2021 Triennial Report and associated website.

https://doi.sciencebase.gov/flrea/interagency-pass-program-3

9. Will the government consider using pilots, back-offs, or other methods to evaluate technologies across multiple vendors.

The Government is developing its approach that shapes the Evaluation Process for received responses from industry. These can become approaches used to identify prospective awardees, etc.

10. Could you clarify the expectations for the networking session and the types of partnerships the National Park Service aims to foster?

Networking-type decisions are not an area that the Government seeks when it makes presentations to industry. The Government sees Industry Representatives as the vehicles that drive those associations and teaming decisions as they pursue participation within our business offerings.

11. Is enforcement, compliance, and data analytics part of the scope or just creating a digital pass with parameters?

We anticipate it being part of the scope.

12. What types of problems do citizens experience when engaging with NPS; and what are the biggest challenges faced by the program in terms of digital engagement, visitor experience, and operational efficiency?

Some problems: the program has grown complex; many different passes, difficult for customer to understand and select best pass. Difficult for agency staff to manage and communicate effectively. No way to manage already issued passes, such as re-issuing lost or stolen pass, renewing annual pass, deactivating for misuse, fraud, etc. See inactive RFI - Interagency Pass Modernization from April 2023 (Notice ID 140P2123R0026).

13. What are the program's objectives and goals?

The House of Representatives passed the EXPLORE Act (HR 6492) in April. This bill hasn't passed the senate, but it states that "upon completion of a transaction... [a pass will be] immediately available to the passholder [in] a digital version. Please see inactive RFI - Interagency Pass Modernization from April 2023 (Notice ID 140P2123R0026). The Solicitation document will also address this area with more specificity for contractor responses.

14. Who is included in the decision-making process for the Pass Modernization Project?

All participating agencies are included in the decision-making process, as the needs and capabilities of each agency vary.

15. Has it been determined and agreed upon by all programs that NPS will own this project long-term?

No determination has been made about ownership of the project.

16. What is the budget allocated for digital transformation and improvement projects?

Once viable solutions are determined, then a draft budget can be developed.

17. Are there vendors actively supporting these programs now? If so, can you please identify those contractors for networking purposes?

At this time, NPS is not addressing contractor (vendor) specific roles supporting various agencies.

18. Are payments an issue?

Payments - generally not an issue since passes are controlled by the government or authorized vendors with strict accountability requirements. The government is increasingly using noncash payment methods. Where cash is accepted, cash sales can be problematic in remote sites due to theft and vandalism, distance to transport cash to banks, safety of staff etc.

19. Will NPS consider commercial offerings or only FedRamped solutions?

The Government will thoroughly review all types of compliant responses received from industry as reflected in our future Solicitation.

20. What does success look like for the Inter-Agency working group?

This will be published within the released Solicitation document.

21. Does the agency have a go-to market strategy or will the chosen vendor be part of the initial launch and on-going educational process for public consumption.

We anticipate the contractor(s) receiving the award(s) will be part of the launch and roll-out.

22. Is there a list of requirements (technical and non-technical for the Pass Modernization Project)?

These areas will be addressed within the future Solicitation as system performance requirements for industry responses. Government award decisions will reflect the approaches that satisfy those requirements as evaluated by the requisite Government agencies.

23. Are you looking to build a custom technology solution, take something completely off the shelf or a hybrid?

The Government is looking to industry to convey high-quality Technical Approaches that are evaluated as "Technically Acceptable," will satisfy the Government's Performance Requirements, and present your proposed solution(s) as a compliant response that deserves a contract(s) award.

24. How does the program currently address accessibility and inclusivity for all users, including those with disabilities?

The Agencies’ goals for achieving greater social equity, access, diversity, and inclusion including those with disabilities must be incorporated into planning for modernization concepts for recreation and Interagency Passes.