This Company Gets 98% of Its Money From the U.S. Government. DOGE Is Coming for Firms Like It. - Memo calls for review of $65 billion in contracts that go to Booz Allen Hamilton and other big firms that do government work

By Chip Cutter
Feb. 28, 2025 5:00 am ET

1740753009179.png
Booz Allen employs more than 34,000 people to work on projects across the U.S. government. Photo: Peter Morgan/AP

The Trump administration is looking to cut federal contracts. Few companies stand as exposed as Booz Allen Hamilton.

The venerable Washington, D.C., area firm works on projects across the U.S. government. It operates a website visitors use to reserve campsites at national parks. It is modernizing healthcare records for veterans, beefing up technology at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and rolling out a suite of artificial-intelligence and cybersecurity tools across the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.

A memo sent this week from Stephen Ehikian, the acting administrator of the General Services Administration, calls on procurement officials at federal agencies to list and justify consulting contracts from 10 companies—including Booz Allen, Accenture, Deloitte and IBM—that the agencies intend to keep. The responses are due March 7.

1740753186494.png

Booz Allen generates 98% of its roughly $11 billion in annual revenue from contracts in which the end client is a U.S. government agency or department. It has told investors that it sees the U.S. government as the world’s largest consumer of management consulting and technology services. Since the election of President Trump in November, its stock is down about 30%.

In the memo, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, Ehikian said the GSA has identified that the 10 highest-paid consulting firms are set to receive more than $65 billion in fees in 2025 and future years. “This needs to, and must, change,” Ehikian wrote, bolding the sentence for emphasis.

Some consulting firms say it is unclear how the $65 billion figure was calculated. A spokesperson for the GSA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ever since 1940, when Booz Allen took on a project advising the secretary of the Navy ahead of World War II, the company has had a foothold in the federal government. Booz Allen separated its corporate-consulting arm from its government-advisory business in 2008, with the government business retaining the original name.

1740753028083.png
Booz Allen CEO Horacio Rozanski said the company has been through presidential transitions before, and will weather the reviews of federal contracts. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Today, the company, which employs more than 34,000 people, operates not as a consulting firm but as a technology company, CEO Horacio Rozanski said in an interview. Booz Allen says it now has one of the largest AI businesses in the federal government. About 70% of its employees work in technology today, up from about 20% in 2012.

Booz Allen has been through presidential transitions before, and will weather the reviews of federal contracts, Rozanski said. The company’s work also aligns with the Trump administration’s priorities, he said.

“We recognize that in the short-term there could be some disruption to the market, but in the long-term we are really well aligned,” he said. “If the government wants to operate with fewer people, it will need to operate with more technology, and technology that works. And our stuff works, and it works beyond the prototype.”

The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency has already claimed to cut a small number of Booz Allen contracts, including at the Labor Department and the Commerce Department. Some of the company’s competitors, such as Accenture and Deloitte, have also had contracts cut. Spokespeople for Accenture and Deloitte didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Accenture got 17% of its North American revenue from the U.S. government last year. Another big federal contractor, Leidos, got about 87% of its revenue from the government providing national security and technology services, including scanners at airport checkpoints.

1740753066600.png
VA Secretary Doug Collins said the department was canceling nearly $2 billion in contracts. Photo: Bill Clark/Zuma Press

A range of government officials have recently taken aim at consultants. In a post on X Tuesday, Doug Collins, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ newly confirmed secretary, said the VA was canceling nearly $2 billion in contracts. “No more paying consultants to do things like make Power Point slides and write meeting minutes!” he wrote.

The VA said earlier this week that no final decisions have been made, but nonmission-critical contracts, in areas such as executive support and coaching, will be eliminated.

Booz Allen’s Rozanski said the company is already talking to Trump officials about how the government can deploy its technology on everything from space defenses to using AI to reduce fraud.

“We are not in the business of writing PowerPoints. We’re in the business of writing code and of using commercial technology to create real results in the federal government,” he said.

1740753087668.png
The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency has already claimed to cut a small number of Booz Allen contracts. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The GSA memo also asks that agencies justify consulting contracts by explaining why they are “mission critical” and provide substantive technical support. The exact impact of the review remains to be seen, said Stan Soloway, CEO of the consulting firm Celero Strategies, and the former head of the largest trade association of government-service contractors.

“There’s a lot of questions,” Soloway said.

It is unclear what “mission critical” means, and how it might align with existing agency budgets and goals, said Soloway, a former defense official under President Bill Clinton. Executives within firms are trying to meet with Trump administration officials or explain the value of their services, but see the potential cuts as a risk.

“A lot of these companies are doing serious technology work,” Soloway said. “Now they don’t even know what the next six months or year might hold. Nothing disturbs a market more than uncertainty.”

Source (Archive)
 
For those of you wondering but don't we need those things, some of them we do. But I assure you, the giant government contractors intentionally scuttle projects or make them harder to fuck over other contractors all the time. And they do it on the taxpayer dime. They bill ludicrous rates even compared to most private sector work and will pass the grift to their middle and upper management while their actual work is subcontracted out and paid terribly with no benefits. You can have contracts 4 layers deep with someone taking their cut at every step.

It's a massively wasteful and disgusting system and any more details are too much PL. But fuck booze allen
 
All vague polemics

"Important government work"

"serious technology"

"you hate free enterprise if you won't subsidize it with no questions"

No.

No more of this.

If it's important? You can develop it as a private entity at-cost and make your money back on the open market.

If you can't? Then it's not "Serious" or "Important"

Same disease has infested them as academia.... a belief that they are entitled to as much public money as they like to just analyze blue curtains on the side while they tell investors that their line just keeps going up and up!
 
operates not as a consulting firm but as a technology company, CEO Horacio Rozanski said in an interview
The reason they say this is that "technology companies" trade at absurdly high multipliers based on future infini-growth. So startups trading at multipliers that imply they'll all be the next Google, or Uber losing money every year but valued on what they can hypothetically make once they become the sole rideshare monopoly and quadruple prices.

The reality is, of course, that they're just big consultant shops that have an IT department full of H1Bs and project management. The "technology" they do consists of midwit PMs writing Standard Operating Procedures documentation so the H1Bs can Do the Needful. Layers of babysitters and review processes to avoid the paralysis that comes from asking their drones to make decisions.
 
Last edited:
All vague polemics

"Important government work"

"serious technology"

"you hate free enterprise if you won't subsidize it with no questions"

No.

No more of this.

If it's important? You can develop it as a private entity at-cost and make your money back on the open market.

If you can't? Then it's not "Serious" or "Important"

Same disease has infested them as academia.... a belief that they are entitled to as much public money as they like to just analyze blue curtains on the side while they tell investors that their line just keeps going up and up!
So almost but also not. So here's the rub.

The government has special rules and laws about tech. You also often have to integrate with prior contractor done custom systems. There's literally in many cases no way to do what has to get done without making it partially or fully custom code.

Depending on the system it has to shove into govcloud or it has to run on government approved systems.

Some of that is complete horseshit and ancient lock in. Some of it is actually because no private firm will ever take the liability and risk of owning certain data and legally they can't. If it requires a TS to access, it's in some form of govcloud (or not cloud at all).

You're right about the cause and symptoms, but the solution if you actually want a functional thing is going to be split between the government figuring out how to use off the shelf software for some things (campsite reservations are likely a good candidate) and custom built.
 
Musk is going after some scary motherfuckers. I honestly don't know if he's going about it bravely or naively.
Naively, or rather, with necessary abandon to informal rules the job of Chief Tugboat Sinker requires.

But honestly? This "shadow government gonna try and take him out" idea is nonsense.

The shadow government, as we see more and more every day? Is made of incompetent broiler hens running around the chickenyard and stroking their fake penises in your direction when you tell them to get to work. They are not "scary motherfuckers", they're no threat, at all.

Well, scratch that, the only threat they can actually act on is endless lawfare.... other than that? They don't have the means or popular support to fight a public that has always hated them, but just couldn't get at them due to a sympathetic Executive.

They are midwits and malingerers, drunk on the tiniest bit of perceived power they ever got in their lives, and imagine themselves powerful enough to defy anyone. But will be quickly revealed as just so many reviled Quislings, and the Nazis just went home.......
 
Last edited:
If the right wasn't a compete waste of space, maybe some of these trumpian tech bros would take the hint and start their own tech consultation/ management companies without the DEI or HB1 visas and get that sweet federal cash, but that would require someone to get off their ass and do something, so I doubt it will happen. Just make another alt-right coffee company and hope Rogan picks it up, bro!
 
The thing is with government contracts, is about half are completely unnecessary and the other half that are necessary are doing it with shitloads of padding and upcharges.
In cases where it is easier, cheaper and quicker for the feds to just pay an industry contractor to do the work rather than create their own department and hire their own staff + admin/HR personnel, etc. there is still room to cut costs and get the contractors to do their jobs for cheaper.
 
So almost but also not. So here's the rub.

The government has special rules and laws about tech. You also often have to integrate with prior contractor done custom systems. There's literally in many cases no way to do what has to get done without making it partially or fully custom code.

Depending on the system it has to shove into govcloud or it has to run on government approved systems.

Some of that is complete horseshit and ancient lock in. Some of it is actually because no private firm will ever take the liability and risk of owning certain data and legally they can't. If it requires a TS to access, it's in some form of govcloud (or not cloud at all).

You're right about the cause and symptoms, but the solution if you actually want a functional thing is going to be split between the government figuring out how to use off the shelf software for some things (campsite reservations are likely a good candidate) and custom built.
I get it.

I had family in the defense contracting biz back in the day.

But I still think there's a big difference between having to contract out building an F-15 versus contracting out an email server... and then having to subcontract that 20 times...... to the point you're eventually paying someone six figures to be the "diversity consultant" over the changing of a light bulb.
 
The campground reservation one is interesting because national parks are clearly ‘a thing that polls sympathetically’ so they’re being pushed as an example in multiple media outlets
But really, a reservation system is not rocket science and it should be a good example of a quick audit:
What do you do?
How much does it cost us ?
How does that compare to other similar commercially available applications?
If it’s ten times the price why is that?
Keep or replace as needed.
I’d expect the same with other things. And there will be things that are needed, and beneficial. Some of them maybe can be done better by others, some will be grift all the way down.
 
The campground reservation one is interesting because national parks are clearly ‘a thing that polls sympathetically’ so they’re being pushed as an example in multiple media outlets
But really, a reservation system is not rocket science and it should be a good example of a quick audit:
What do you do?
How much does it cost us ?
How does that compare to other similar commercially available applications?
If it’s ten times the price why is that?
Keep or replace as needed.
I’d expect the same with other things. And there will be things that are needed, and beneficial. Some of them maybe can be done better by others, some will be grift all the way down.
The National Park reservation website is a perfect example of corruption and is incredibly unpopular.

Instead of billing a flat amount for the development of the website, like every other contracted website, the new park reservation website charges a fee for tickets that goes to the consulting company. Before the new website existed, tickets were free or had a nominal fee used for park upkeep (depending on the park). Many parks also didn't have any reservations until covid when they used "social distancing" as an excuse to have them. The reservations are also issued on a lottery system, and if you lose, you still have to pay the consulting company's fee, so many people pay them hundreds of dollars until they finally win the lottery.

National Park Visits Are Surging, and One Firm Is Making Unexpected Millions​

Small fees paid by visitors to Recreation.gov ultimately go to Booz Allen as per a government contract​

By Allison Pohle
April 6, 2023

1740759085224.png
Booz Allen Hamilton runs Recreation.gov, making money on user transactions such as vehicle passes for Montana’s Glacier National Park. ALAMY

Visitors driving into Montana’s Glacier National Park this summer must buy a vehicle pass on Recreation.gov. The pass is free, but visitors pay a $2 fee to book the reservation.

Visitors might assume that, like entrance fees, the reservation charges help pay for improving trails around the park’s Running Eagle Falls or expanding the park’s volunteer program. But a chunk of the money ends up with consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Booz Allen runs Recreation.gov, the website and app where people book campsites, hikes and permits on U.S. public land. The company has a five-year contract that is up for renewal this year. In its bid for the work, Booz Allen used data provided by the government to estimate that over the first five years of the contract, it would receive $87 million, and a total of about $182 million over 10 years.

1740759102881.png

Booz Allen gets paid every time a user makes a reservation on Recreation.gov, per its government contract. That has earned the company money far beyond the projections in its bid.

Booz Allen invoiced the government for more than $140 million from October 2018 to November 2022, the most recent date available, according to documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal in a public-records request. Ten months remain to be counted for that initial five-year period.

This arrangement for the Recreation.gov program, in which the government and Booz Allen work together on a number of services including a reservation website, contact center and data sharing, has led to criticism from some park goers. They have questioned whether the government negotiated a payment structure that is in the public’s best interest.

Government officials say this payment structure shifts the risk onto the contractor. Asked about the Recreation.gov contract over time, the government said it continuously re-evaluates market trends when striking a deal related to reservations on public lands.

Visits to public lands surged during the pandemic as Americans vacationed outdoors, prompting many parks to add reservation systems to manage crowds and protect natural resources.

That has meant travelers often cannot visit popular public lands like Rocky Mountain National Park without booking on Recreation.gov first and paying a fee. Charges from around the nation include $2 to book an entry time to a park, $9 to enter a hiking lottery, and many others.

Booz Allen leadership has described the benefits of per-transaction fee structures like the one Recreation.gov uses. “One thing I learned in B-school, for all that money, it’s a small number times a big number is a big number,” Booz Allen president and chief executive Horacio Rozanski said at the 2019 Citi Global Technology Conference.

1740759111940.png
Applications to a lottery to visit the Wave, a popular spot at Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, cost $9. Photo: ALAMY

He also pointed to upgrades the company made to the site and called the per-transaction model a “much more effective and productive” way of doing business than by-the-hour payment models.

The arrangement has its critics, including members of a lawsuit against Booz Allen seeking class-action status, and other die-hard national park visitors. They say the government has let a multibillion-dollar company profit by charging for access to public lands—access that used to cost less, or nothing. The lawyers said in the suit that the company is “forcing American consumers to pay Ticketmaster-style junk fees to access national parks and other federal recreational lands.”

Booz Allen says such claims mischaracterize its work and its compensation structure. Recreation.gov officials say the arrangement is an example of efficiency in government: Users get a technologically sound website at no cost to taxpayers. Park officials say the system has eliminated hours spent processing cash transactions. Government officials also say the government has earned significantly more fee revenue than it would have without the contract and that Booz Allen’s bid was “substantially lower” than its competitors’ bids.

The site​

The pay-per-transaction model has existed for federal reservation services like Recreation.gov since the mid-1990s, federal officials say. They say the structure gives contractors incentive to continuously improve Recreation.gov.

Booz Allen isn’t the first company to run Recreation.gov. When the company bid for the contract in 2016, government officials gave it historical reservation data and figures for projected growth to inform how much operating the site might cost, the website’s government staffers say.

Since Booz Allen took over, the site’s scope has grown, along with the number of fees. Recreation.gov offers reservations at over 121,000 individual sites. Federal officials say the expanded services give park managers more tools to manage visitation, including venue reservations, timed-entry tickets, even permits to cut down Christmas trees on public land.

More than 23 million users had Recreation.gov accounts in the 2022 fiscal year. The site covers services from 13 different federal agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

Booz Allen’s contract allows it to run Recreation.gov for five years, with five subsequent one-year options based on performance. In addition to running the reservation system, the company also manages a customer call center and an internal mobile app for agencies.

It is hard for park visitors to know where their money goes when they make a reservation. Dozens of Recreation.gov users said they assumed all fees go to benefit the lands they visit.

1740759122878.png
Over 23 million people used Recreation.gov in the 2022 fiscal year to access spots like the Angels Landing trail at Zion National Park in Utah. Photo: ALAMY

In the invoices obtained by the Journal, the per-transaction amounts paid to Booz Allen were redacted, due to what the government says are trade secrets. Booz Allen has made a similar claim about these amounts in response to the recent suit.

About 10 million reservations were made on Recreation.gov in the 2022 fiscal year, up from 3.76 million in the 2019 fiscal year, according to Recreation.gov officials. They say the amount paid to Booz Allen for each transaction hasn’t changed in the five years and the recent visitation boom brought unexpected revenue through Recreation.gov, and thus to Booz Allen.

The Forest Service oversees the Recreation.gov contract. Gordie Blum, the agency’s acting director of recreation, heritage and volunteer resources, says having the company run the reservations system is a great value, given the technical requirements needed. It has generated hundreds of millions in recreation fees that go back to parks, forests and public lands, distinct from the fees that fund Booz Allen’s operation, Forest Service officials say.

The visitors​

Some visitors have welcomed the reservation programs as a tool that reduces crowds, which protects park wildlife and improves the experience for park goers. Others have criticized the restriction of entry to public lands and have lamented the difficulty in getting reservations.

“It really galls me that my tax dollars are going to maintaining that public asset, but then somebody is privately profiting off of it,” says Spencer Heinz, a 29-year-old mechanical engineer from Portland, Ore., who uses Recreation.gov for backpacking permits.

The lawsuit filed in January in Virginia by seven outdoor enthusiasts claims the fees deceive visitors into thinking that the money goes directly to aid public lands. The complaint says Booz Allen is charging fees similar to ambiguous entertainment and travel surcharges President Biden labeled “junk fees” in his February State of the Union address.

Booz Allen is seeking to dismiss the suit. A company spokeswoman said the 13 federal agencies determine whether to charge fees on Recreation.gov and how those fees are structured, collected and ultimately used.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers say the fees violate a federal rule that allows public lands to charge recreation fees.

The lawyers cite a March 2022 ruling in a separate case, which found that a $2 Recreation.gov processing fee to access Nevada’s Red Rock Canyon wasn’t adopted properly because it wasn’t subject to public notice. The 2023 suit argues that the current fees are similarly illegal, and should be refunded to Recreation.gov users.

In its response to the suit, Booz Allen said in a legal filing that it can’t be tried separately from the federal agencies that use Recreation.gov. The company also said it doesn’t have the authority to refund the fees because it doesn’t charge travelers. “Booz Allen does not charge any fees to—nor does it receive any fees from—the users of Recreation.gov, including the plaintiffs,” the Booz Allen spokeswoman said in an email.

The company earns a commission for each transaction processed on Recreation.gov, according to 2022 testimony from Rick DeLappe, interagency program manager for Recreation.gov. The processing fees are first held in a U.S. Treasury account before they are paid to Booz Allen each month, he added.

Christine Wong, a 36-year-old physician from Honolulu, says she has submitted at least 10 applications to visit the popular destination known as the Wave near the Utah-Arizona border in Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. Applying to the lottery for a chance to visit the Wave, which can accommodate 64 people each day, costs $9, whether the application is successful or not.

Of the $9, $5 ultimately goes to Booz Allen and $4 goes to the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the site, a BLM spokesman said.

Recreation.gov users submitted about 130,000 applications for permits to hike the Wave last year, generating about $648,200 for Booz Allen and $518,600 for the BLM, a BLM spokesman says. The BLM also collected about $35,500 in permit fees from successful applicants, he says.

Ms. Wong says she considered her numerous unsuccessful applications a donation, not a payment to a third party.

“I always assumed the fee went to the park,” she says.

—Inti Pacheco contributed to this article.

Corrections & Amplifications
In an earlier version of this story, a caption misidentified a photograph’s location. The photograph depicted Nevada’s Valley of Fire State Park, not Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. The photograph has been removed. (Corrected on April 9)
Source (Archive)
 
Last edited:
The National Park reservation website is a perfect example of corruption and is incredibly unpopular.
That is a perfect example then of the Grift. Should be stopped and any profit made should go back into the park itself. Surely they can hire two people to make a booking system for all the parks and let the parks run it? Just ridiculous to let private interests benefit from it.
One thing I’ve had some traction with normal people on getting them to listen is pointing out how Covid was an opportunity to take money from the public purse to the private with zero due diligence or oversight. It’s quite shocking how much was spent
 
Back