8 ms·

Oracle on why it thinks AWS winning the Pentagon's $10bn Jedi contract stinks

60 points by notlukesky 7y ago

fencepost 7y ago
Can't they just say "multiple key decision makers have worked with Oracle projects, Oracle sales and Oracle license audits in the past."?
johnmarcus 7y ago
boo hoo for Oracle. So sad.
valar_m 7y ago
They wrote a 50 page filing, apparently, but the issue comes down to this: AWS is an existential threat to Oracle as a going concern.
- simion314 7y ago
  If the accusations are correct then I would say that the Oracle part is irrelevant, were the public money spent legally?
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Oracle's argument is that it shouldn't be delivered as a single contract and should be split among multiple cloud vendors. Anyone whose used AWS/Azure/Oracle Cloud will tell you why that idea is problematic. Particularly when dealing with a hardened government version of these cloud environments. The only potential corruption their complaint indicates is the hiring of a decision maker at the DoD. It is a bad look. I'd need to see the timeline/understand more about it to form an opinion.
    - simion314 7y ago
      I did not read the full complaint, but it is possible that something fishy happened there even if Oracle has it's own interests. Having more then 1 company that provides the service could help preventing vendor locking and provide better proces c in future.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on how AWS is an "existential threat" to Oracle?
  - urda 7y ago
    Is it not clear that they both are competitors in similar spaces to you as the reader?
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      That's an unusually unhelpful and unfriendly comment for HN.
      - urda 7y ago
        It's literally in the article.
  - valar_m 7y ago
    They are direct competitors, as another replied said. Case in point: the Pentagon contract in question. Edit: To expand a bit further: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-oracle-to-amazon-redshift/ https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-orac...
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      Thanks! Oracle is an RDB and app provider, mostly web-based. AWS is a cloud platform provider. Unless one (or both?) have changed while I wasn't looking... but even then, is the Cloud now so central to Oracle that its existence depends on it? EDIT thanks for the link. "Oracle data warehouse" isn't Oracle's central business. Also, I'm not a fan of Oracle, but I doubt it's so easy to steal their customers. Finally, how can the loss of one govt contract be so harmful? Few of their customers, not even govt ones, are so security conscious... BTW I realize you're just reporting their claim, not making it.
      - 7y ago
snaky 7y ago
> Oracle also accused Amazon of breaking the rules by hiring two senior DoD staff, Deap Ubhi and Anthony DeMartino, who were involved in the JEDI procurement process. Ubhi is described as "lead PM". A third name is redacted in the publicly released filing.
- Jtsummers 7y ago
  More important is the next paragraph (apparent typo on the name left in): > It is alleged that Amazon failed to notify the DoD that it was offering Udhi, the DoD's lead for the procurement project, a job. AWS has always denied any wrongdoing. If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon.
  - consumer451 7y ago
    > If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon. Honest questions coming out of legal ignorance: isn't this just normal m.o. in the USA these days? Isn't that what "revolving door"[0] is all about? Is this really a legal issue for the participants in this scheme at-large? If not, what did the AWS hires do differently that was more egregious? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - javagram 7y ago
      Revolving door is a concept but various bodies have different rules limiting when and how it is acceptable. Oracle is alleging that AWS/DoD violated those rules, now it’s up to the court to decide if they did. Edit: I’m sure that Wikipedia link doesn’t cover the full universe of rules, but it does say: > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." [21]
segphault 7y ago
What's funny about this is that Oracle has a long and colorful history of doing the exact same thing[1] that they are accusing AWS of doing in this case. It feels like Oracle is just unhappy that they got outmaneuvered at a game they practically invented. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-oracle4-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-oracl...
- mathattack 7y ago
  Yes. Anyone taxpayer who has used Oracle’s Cloud (or dealt with their salespeople) is probably happy that the Pentagon chose someone else.
- suyash 7y ago
  Wrong is a wrong.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - akoncius 7y ago
    so when others do wrong it’s wronger :D
jsty 7y ago
> Oracle's filing said that US "warfighters and taxpayers have a vested interest in obtaining the best services through lawful, competitive means... Instead, DoD (with AWS's help) has delivered a conflict-ridden mess in which hundreds of contractors expressed an interest in JEDI, over 60 responded to requests for information, yet only the two largest global cloud providers can clear the qualification gates." Changing the thing being procured shines a light on just how bad this argument is: "Over 60 potential manufacturers declared an interest in designing and building the latest jet fighter, yet all but two were excluded by the qualification gates of being able to provide a product capable of remaining airborne. Hundreds of potential suppliers could provide the odd wing or ejector seat, which put together stand a good chance of resembling a plane." (Realisations that this is actually maddeningly close to how some jet fighters are built are welcomed)
- pron 7y ago
  The question is whether the requirements are real or the bid was tailored to pick a preferred supplier.
  - kstrauser 7y ago
    I'm not gonna lie: I think tailoring a bid to not pick Oracle is probably a legitimate and ethical business decision.
    - Liquix 7y ago
      Not picking Oracle for the sake of not picking Oracle is a legitimate business decision, especially considering their dubious track record. A government agency tailoring a bid to favor or not favor any company is entirely illegitimate (and illegal).
      - nwallin 7y ago
        Sadly, legal or not, tailored specs are the norm. At a previous job, our company and three other companies operated similar programs, supporting the military. Call it company A, company B, and company C. Our company (company A) were doing a really good job. Our metrics were outstanding, we had the enthusiastic support of 3 consecutive commanders of the unit we were supporting, life was grand. Company B was also doing a great job, and they were better than us at certain things, but as a whole, we were slightly better. Company C suuuucked. Their metrics were shit, so they started gaming the metrics. Their metrics still sucked. The people in the unit we were supporting were well aware of their bullshit, and they regularly got dressed down in front of all us. They were absolute dogshit. Imagine Firefox vs Chrome vs IE6. In the general case, you want Firefox, (Company A) unless you spend a significant amount of your time using Google Docs, in which case you want Chrome. (Company B) You don't want IE6. Anyway, the Pentagon needed to select one of these programs to build into a long term DoD program, as opposed to a live in theater prototype, so they commission a study to evaluate the three programs. They hired an outside contractor to perform this study. The company they hired to perform this study was Company C. Company C's study showed that Company C's product was the most effective one. Their numbers were straight up lies- they literally made up bullshit and wrote it down on a piece of paper and submitted it to the Pentagon as a formal document. The unit we were attached to was livid, and wrote up a formal complaint to the Pentagon. This was ignored. Our program was canceled, I was laid off. I don't work in defense anymore.
pankajdoharey 7y ago
In all fairness Oracle does have a superior cloud infrastructure, their cloud control code and user application code does not run on the same physical hardware.

60 points by notlukesky 7y ago

Can't they just say "multiple key decision makers have worked with Oracle projects, Oracle sales and Oracle license audits in the past."?

johnmarcus 7y ago

boo hoo for Oracle. So sad.

valar_m 7y ago

They wrote a 50 page filing, apparently, but the issue comes down to this: AWS is an existential threat to Oracle as a going concern.

simion314 7y ago
If the accusations are correct then I would say that the Oracle part is irrelevant, were the public money spent legally?
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Oracle's argument is that it shouldn't be delivered as a single contract and should be split among multiple cloud vendors. Anyone whose used AWS/Azure/Oracle Cloud will tell you why that idea is problematic. Particularly when dealing with a hardened government version of these cloud environments. The only potential corruption their complaint indicates is the hiring of a decision maker at the DoD. It is a bad look. I'd need to see the timeline/understand more about it to form an opinion.
  - simion314 7y ago
    I did not read the full complaint, but it is possible that something fishy happened there even if Oracle has it's own interests. Having more then 1 company that provides the service could help preventing vendor locking and provide better proces c in future.
hyperpallium 7y ago
Can you elaborate on how AWS is an "existential threat" to Oracle?
- urda 7y ago
  Is it not clear that they both are competitors in similar spaces to you as the reader?
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    That's an unusually unhelpful and unfriendly comment for HN.
    - urda 7y ago
      It's literally in the article.
- valar_m 7y ago
  They are direct competitors, as another replied said. Case in point: the Pentagon contract in question. Edit: To expand a bit further: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-oracle-to-amazon-redshift/ https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-orac...
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    Thanks! Oracle is an RDB and app provider, mostly web-based. AWS is a cloud platform provider. Unless one (or both?) have changed while I wasn't looking... but even then, is the Cloud now so central to Oracle that its existence depends on it? EDIT thanks for the link. "Oracle data warehouse" isn't Oracle's central business. Also, I'm not a fan of Oracle, but I doubt it's so easy to steal their customers. Finally, how can the loss of one govt contract be so harmful? Few of their customers, not even govt ones, are so security conscious... BTW I realize you're just reporting their claim, not making it.
    - 7y ago

snaky 7y ago

> Oracle also accused Amazon of breaking the rules by hiring two senior DoD staff, Deap Ubhi and Anthony DeMartino, who were involved in the JEDI procurement process. Ubhi is described as "lead PM". A third name is redacted in the publicly released filing.

Jtsummers 7y ago
More important is the next paragraph (apparent typo on the name left in): > It is alleged that Amazon failed to notify the DoD that it was offering Udhi, the DoD's lead for the procurement project, a job. AWS has always denied any wrongdoing. If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon.
- consumer451 7y ago
  > If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and Amazon. Honest questions coming out of legal ignorance: isn't this just normal m.o. in the USA these days? Isn't that what "revolving door"[0] is all about? Is this really a legal issue for the participants in this scheme at-large? If not, what did the AWS hires do differently that was more egregious? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - javagram 7y ago
    Revolving door is a concept but various bodies have different rules limiting when and how it is acceptable. Oracle is alleging that AWS/DoD violated those rules, now it’s up to the court to decide if they did. Edit: I’m sure that Wikipedia link doesn’t cover the full universe of rules, but it does say: > "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or their boards without waiting." [21]

segphault 7y ago

What's funny about this is that Oracle has a long and colorful history of doing the exact same thing[1] that they are accusing AWS of doing in this case. It feels like Oracle is just unhappy that they got outmaneuvered at a game they practically invented. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-oracle4-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-oracl...

mathattack 7y ago
Yes. Anyone taxpayer who has used Oracle’s Cloud (or dealt with their salespeople) is probably happy that the Pentagon chose someone else.
suyash 7y ago
Wrong is a wrong.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- akoncius 7y ago
  so when others do wrong it’s wronger :D

jsty 7y ago

> Oracle's filing said that US "warfighters and taxpayers have a vested interest in obtaining the best services through lawful, competitive means... Instead, DoD (with AWS's help) has delivered a conflict-ridden mess in which hundreds of contractors expressed an interest in JEDI, over 60 responded to requests for information, yet only the two largest global cloud providers can clear the qualification gates." Changing the thing being procured shines a light on just how bad this argument is: "Over 60 potential manufacturers declared an interest in designing and building the latest jet fighter, yet all but two were excluded by the qualification gates of being able to provide a product capable of remaining airborne. Hundreds of potential suppliers could provide the odd wing or ejector seat, which put together stand a good chance of resembling a plane." (Realisations that this is actually maddeningly close to how some jet fighters are built are welcomed)

pron 7y ago
The question is whether the requirements are real or the bid was tailored to pick a preferred supplier.
- kstrauser 7y ago
  I'm not gonna lie: I think tailoring a bid to not pick Oracle is probably a legitimate and ethical business decision.
  - Liquix 7y ago
    Not picking Oracle for the sake of not picking Oracle is a legitimate business decision, especially considering their dubious track record. A government agency tailoring a bid to favor or not favor any company is entirely illegitimate (and illegal).
    - nwallin 7y ago
      Sadly, legal or not, tailored specs are the norm. At a previous job, our company and three other companies operated similar programs, supporting the military. Call it company A, company B, and company C. Our company (company A) were doing a really good job. Our metrics were outstanding, we had the enthusiastic support of 3 consecutive commanders of the unit we were supporting, life was grand. Company B was also doing a great job, and they were better than us at certain things, but as a whole, we were slightly better. Company C suuuucked. Their metrics were shit, so they started gaming the metrics. Their metrics still sucked. The people in the unit we were supporting were well aware of their bullshit, and they regularly got dressed down in front of all us. They were absolute dogshit. Imagine Firefox vs Chrome vs IE6. In the general case, you want Firefox, (Company A) unless you spend a significant amount of your time using Google Docs, in which case you want Chrome. (Company B) You don't want IE6. Anyway, the Pentagon needed to select one of these programs to build into a long term DoD program, as opposed to a live in theater prototype, so they commission a study to evaluate the three programs. They hired an outside contractor to perform this study. The company they hired to perform this study was Company C. Company C's study showed that Company C's product was the most effective one. Their numbers were straight up lies- they literally made up bullshit and wrote it down on a piece of paper and submitted it to the Pentagon as a formal document. The unit we were attached to was livid, and wrote up a formal complaint to the Pentagon. This was ignored. Our program was canceled, I was laid off. I don't work in defense anymore.

pankajdoharey 7y ago

In all fairness Oracle does have a superior cloud infrastructure, their cloud control code and user application code does not run on the same physical hardware.