4 ms·

> Oracle's filing said that US "warfighters and taxpayers have a vested interest in obtaining the best services through lawful, competitive means... Instead, Do

by 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.
    - zigzaggy 7y ago
      US Government agencies tailor bids to favor companies every single day. We call them "wired bids." Government agencies are made up of people. Those people develop relationships with their providers, when they like them. They've been around long enough to have seen good providers and bad providers. When they find a good one, they hang on to them for a while. Eventually someone above them shakes things up a little, and a new provider upsets the incumbent and takes over the work. After a few tries - or the first if they're lucky - they'll find another good provider, and the cycle starts over. That's why bidding on a job isn't where the opportunity is won. You almost always win or lose the job before the solicitation is released. You win by building relationships with the people that make up these agencies. Do research, set up meetings, go talk to people, figure out what gives them heartburn, and develop a solution to their problems. That solution becomes the framework for the new solicitation. You have then influenced the requirements. And congratulations, the bid has now been tailored to favor your company. You will probably win!
  - pron 7y ago
    Not if the alternative is Amazon. There's old-school corporate bad, and there's the terrifyingly horrendous. Never mind that Amazon is a company that's destroying most of retail without direct cache infusions from the US government (other than tax relief), it's a company that terribly mistreats its employees and eavesdrops on its customers.
Liquix 7y ago
Great metaphor. To play devil's advocate: if only one or two companies can satisfactorily make cars, should other less capable/affluent manufactures accept defeat and hand over the automobile market to them? Look for another line of business to break into? There's no question that Amazon and Google are the most capable (perhaps the only viable) choices for a contract of this scope. But giving them 10 billion dollars and relative corporate invinciblity (Amazon will not go under unless the US government decides so/collapses) is just exacerbating the problem. A government concerned with preserving the free market (and thus the prosperity/happiness of their citizens) should be stimulating smaller competitors, not funneling all available resources to a small handful of megacorps they're in bed with.
- abakker 7y ago
  The trouble is, the government gets constant complaints about services not working, or not being up to par with the public. The government should probably not be a proving ground for manufacturers that have not successfully delivered before. Instead, private enterprise can do that, and success with private enterprises should be a qualifying event for future public delivery. An interesting observation, though, might be that consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. many companies could build vehicles that couldn't meet emissions or crash test requirements. But, if we want to guarantee those things, then it necessarily reduces the competitive pool to those enterprises willing to invest to be able to meet those standards. It is probably not of primary significance, but I like how policies aimed at saving consumers/the public from harm can also cause the public harm in the form of reduced competition and increased income inequality down the road.
  - toyg 7y ago
    > consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. I had a relative in the chemical industry, and she was always bitching about this: "small players can never match the big ones in certain areas, because they can not afford the red-tape to certify this or that". On the other hand, these regulations exist for a reason - most legislators don't wake up in the morning excited to ban some obscure compound. I'd rather have fewer jobs and money, if I can be sure I won't be poisoned so that someone else can make a quick buck.

by jsty 7y ago

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.
  - zigzaggy 7y ago
    US Government agencies tailor bids to favor companies every single day. We call them "wired bids." Government agencies are made up of people. Those people develop relationships with their providers, when they like them. They've been around long enough to have seen good providers and bad providers. When they find a good one, they hang on to them for a while. Eventually someone above them shakes things up a little, and a new provider upsets the incumbent and takes over the work. After a few tries - or the first if they're lucky - they'll find another good provider, and the cycle starts over. That's why bidding on a job isn't where the opportunity is won. You almost always win or lose the job before the solicitation is released. You win by building relationships with the people that make up these agencies. Do research, set up meetings, go talk to people, figure out what gives them heartburn, and develop a solution to their problems. That solution becomes the framework for the new solicitation. You have then influenced the requirements. And congratulations, the bid has now been tailored to favor your company. You will probably win!
- pron 7y ago
  Not if the alternative is Amazon. There's old-school corporate bad, and there's the terrifyingly horrendous. Never mind that Amazon is a company that's destroying most of retail without direct cache infusions from the US government (other than tax relief), it's a company that terribly mistreats its employees and eavesdrops on its customers.

Liquix 7y ago

Great metaphor. To play devil's advocate: if only one or two companies can satisfactorily make cars, should other less capable/affluent manufactures accept defeat and hand over the automobile market to them? Look for another line of business to break into? There's no question that Amazon and Google are the most capable (perhaps the only viable) choices for a contract of this scope. But giving them 10 billion dollars and relative corporate invinciblity (Amazon will not go under unless the US government decides so/collapses) is just exacerbating the problem. A government concerned with preserving the free market (and thus the prosperity/happiness of their citizens) should be stimulating smaller competitors, not funneling all available resources to a small handful of megacorps they're in bed with.

abakker 7y ago
The trouble is, the government gets constant complaints about services not working, or not being up to par with the public. The government should probably not be a proving ground for manufacturers that have not successfully delivered before. Instead, private enterprise can do that, and success with private enterprises should be a qualifying event for future public delivery. An interesting observation, though, might be that consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. many companies could build vehicles that couldn't meet emissions or crash test requirements. But, if we want to guarantee those things, then it necessarily reduces the competitive pool to those enterprises willing to invest to be able to meet those standards. It is probably not of primary significance, but I like how policies aimed at saving consumers/the public from harm can also cause the public harm in the form of reduced competition and increased income inequality down the road.
- toyg 7y ago
  > consumer/public safety are opposed in some form to a truly competitive market. I had a relative in the chemical industry, and she was always bitching about this: "small players can never match the big ones in certain areas, because they can not afford the red-tape to certify this or that". On the other hand, these regulations exist for a reason - most legislators don't wake up in the morning excited to ban some obscure compound. I'd rather have fewer jobs and money, if I can be sure I won't be poisoned so that someone else can make a quick buck.