I don't think this has anything to do with open source. Booz Allen could've still charged all these fees, developed everything out in the open, MIT licensed it, and that wouldn't have changed anything about the fee structure.
In fact, from my understanding, recreation.gov is built on top of tons of open source software (they use docker on Kubernetes, react, etc).
Also "coalition of open source volunteers" sounds absolutely scary to me, government or not. Is there anything anywhere that runs this way? At some point, SOMEONE has to be accountable and pay the bills and receive the money.
It's only partly about the source, and mostly the fact that hosting and operating a web site is something developers and other IT people can do and don't mind doing.
"Is there anything anywhere that runs this way?"
Co-ops exist at all levels all over the place, and even outperform traditional commercial organizations so, yes.
A co-op is quite a different thing to a loose knit group of volunteers. I’d love to see co-ops picking up this sort of contract, but I do think it’s important people get paid for that work, and the contract is assigned to a specific organisation, otherwise you will eventually end up with a bunch of burnt out people keeping national infrastructure running for free.
I didn't see any such proposal that explicitly described a lack of organization. I assumed the actual implimemtation details were simply handwaved in a casual high level comment. Of course there would have to be some sort of structure.
In fact, from my understanding, recreation.gov is built on top of tons of open source software (they use docker on Kubernetes, react, etc).
Also "coalition of open source volunteers" sounds absolutely scary to me, government or not. Is there anything anywhere that runs this way? At some point, SOMEONE has to be accountable and pay the bills and receive the money.