Live data from Hacker News

It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

blogs.microsoft.com

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think he bought it because he really likes journalism?

Here's an interview with him here about it [1] It seems he had a mix of reasons, he says. No doubt now that it's a functioning entity he has an added bonus. I remember at the time though most people thought he was throwing good money after bad. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2018/09/19/why...

The reasons he gives for buying it don't tell us anything. His net worth is in the 12 figures. Everything he says publicly is crafted by a well paid and highly competent PR team.

If he bought it to gain political influence, which seems to me the only reason that makes any sense whatsoever, or for any other reason that would put him in a bad light, he would not in a million years come out and say that openly.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for MS but don't know anything about the bidding process. I was a little surprised we won, but now it makes sense. I feel like even if they can't get the DoD to let them re-bid now that they have proprietary information on us and our bid, they'll tie us up in court as long as they can to keep us from successfully delivering. They want to maintain the head start they made with GovCloud as long as possible and k…

I agree, it’s terribly unfair when companies use their dominant market position to crowd out would-be entrants.

I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mixing up "DC the actual city" and "DC as a synonym for politics". DoD couldn't care less about Bezos' mansion or HQ2's impact on the city's economy. And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians. Especially when that politician you're annoying is known to have a somewhat vin…

>And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians. At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.

That's what our current President and his "deep state" wants you to believe. However, after three + years it's pretty obvious that our President has a firm grip on power. He still plays the victim every once in a while. But all the departments are quite clearly bowing and pleasing him as best they can.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians. At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.

That's what our current President and his "deep state" wants you to believe. However, after three + years it's pretty obvious that our President has a firm grip on power. He still plays the victim every once in a while. But all the departments are quite clearly bowing and pleasing him as best they can.

Or giving that appearance while they wait it out?

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#85

My take on this whole thing, is the Amazon basically wrote the entire scope...so they just thought they were going to win because only they would meet it (this was a bit of a scandal just a few months back.) They bid high, and then they lost. Now they are mad that their lobbying wasn't a 100% success, so they are suing. It's all so very Amazon.

There's considerable evidence that Amazon lost this because the President doesn't like The Washington Post. Even assuming the accusations against Amazon are true as well: what's worse? (a) A vendor gaining unfair advantage and overcharging by 10%? Or, (b), the President using the power of the federal government to punish journalists for criticising him? The Washington Post was, by the way, the newspaper that uncovere…

Mind linking to or sharing some of the evidence for b? I had heard rumors about that on reddit, but hadn't seen anything concrete.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it’s terribly unfair when companies use their dominant market position to crowd out would-be entrants.

I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...

oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit.

playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to whitewash a (well-deserved) reputation that they themselves have had to work to disavow (both in word, publically, and in deed) for years. incidentally, this feels quite similar to how the Bill Gates Foundation whitewashes its eponymous benefactor's legacy having been the driving force behind said ruthlessness.*

* please don't make me put in a disclaimer about how people / companies can change, etc.-- we all know-- this is about preserving the past, not casting aspersions on these entities in the present

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#87

My take on this whole thing, is the Amazon basically wrote the entire scope...so they just thought they were going to win because only they would meet it (this was a bit of a scandal just a few months back.) They bid high, and then they lost. Now they are mad that their lobbying wasn't a 100% success, so they are suing. It's all so very Amazon.

When JEDI was first proposed, AWS had already been the vast majority of cloud services for the Intelligence community. This led to them having a distinct advantage because they already had the certified infrastructure to handle US Secret and Top Secret information. This was (in my own thoughts) why that immediate capability was stressed so much in the initial request for proposal.

The intelligence community uses SIPRNet or JWICS, not AWS that can be breached by some dev-ops as evidenced by the capital one incident.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#88
post #7

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/pentagon-amazon-tru... > The Pentagon’s inspector general “could not definitively determine” whether the White House influenced the procurement process for a major cloud computing contract because senior Defense Department officials were barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews, according to a 313-page report released on Wednesday.

A quote past the first paragraph of the story: > the IG said "we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated proposals and made the source-selection awarding Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured about their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House." As with most articles, the juicy, sal…

Well, let's read the actual report [1]

"We sought to review whether there was any White House influence on the JEDI cloud procurement. We could not review this matter fully because of the assertion of a “presidential communications privilege,” which resulted in several DoD witnesses being instructed by the DoD Office of General Counsel not to answer our questions about potential communications between White House and DoD officials about JEDI. Therefore, we could not definitively determine the full extent or nature of interactions that administration officials had, or may have had, with senior DoD officials regarding the JEDI Cloud procurement.

We provided the DoD Office of General Counsel with a list of questions, separated specific to each witness, and requested that they convey these questions to the White House Counsel’s Office for review and determination as to whether the White House would in fact invoke the presidential communications privilege. The DoD Office of General Counsel told us they then asked White House Counsel to review the list of questions and identify the subject areas, or specific questions, over which the President would assert the presidential communications privilege.

After our repeated requests for a response, on February 25, 2020, the DoD Office of General Counsel stated that White House Counsel was only willing to allow witnesses to provide written answers to our questions where the presidential communications privilege was invoked; however, it stated that no representation could be made as to the number or extent of questions that could be answered, and that any written responses would require further review by White House Counsel on the issue of maintaining the privilege. We carefully considered this response and concluded it would not be an appropriate and practical way to conduct our review, because there was no assurance as to which questions would be answered, it would unduly delay the report, it would not allow for an interview and inevitable follow up questions, and it would not assure that we would be receiving full information from the witnesses. We therefore declined to proceed in this manner. We further discuss the details regarding this matter in Section III below.

However, we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated the contract proposals and awarded Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured regarding their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House. We interviewed the personnel involved in the factor evaluation and source selection processes, including factor and selection board chairs, the Source Selection Authority, and the Procuring Contracting Officer. Most of their identities and involvement in the procurement award were unknown to White House staff and even to the senior DoD officials. None of these witnesses told us they felt any outside influence or pressure for or against a particular competitor as they made their decisions on the award of the contract. These witnesses also told us that public statements from the President and “media swirl” about the contract did not directly or indirectly influence the integrity of the procurement process or the outcome of the JEDI Cloud source selection.

Yet, these media reports, and the reports of President Trump’s statements about Amazon, ongoing bid protests and “lobbying” by JEDI Cloud competitors, as well as inaccurate media reports about the JEDI Cloud procurement process, may have created the appearance or perception that the contract award process was not fair or unbiased."

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REP...

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#89
"Much of the $1 billion (USD) we spend on security each year goes toward Azure. Even if you believe that Amazon may have started as the front runner, it’s clear our team worked hard to catch up and surpass them by investing in our technology and listening to the DoD." How much does Amazon spend as a company on "security" and how much of it goes to AWS, specifically? Interesting talking point, but worthless without a real comparison.

Also, "we delivered new innovations including native edge devices that can withstand the challenging environments in which the DoD operates." What the heck is a "native edge device"? Is it a server hosted on the back of a drone? Is it fortified compute hosted in a storage container in a forward operating base? Is it just Azure Stack HCI on a warship? Really interested in that one.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...

oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit. playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to wh…

What Microsoft did with Internet Explorer maybe looked dirty back in the day but ironically enough United States v. Microsoft Corp. suit started in 1998, the same year when Google was founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser. Innovations will always displace dominant products and the cycle goes on and on.
Post reply on HN