3 ms·

Didn't Oracle just sue the DoD claiming they wrote the requirements in such a way that only Amazon could get it?

by hpoe 7y ago

robmiller 7y ago
Wouldn't surprise me. I heard the person who wrote the legislation left when they were completed and took a job with AWS.
- buckminster 7y ago
  The British civil servant who championed the use of AWS by the British government took a job with AWS after the deal was done. It is shameful.
sp332 7y ago
I hadn't heard of that side of the argument. According to https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/oracle-argues-jedi-defense-contract-bid-tarnished-by-amazon-conflicts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/oracle-argues-jedi-defense-c..., Oracle had complained about this before, then kinda dropped it, then revived it one week after Amazon launched their new complaint.
robbyt 7y ago
Ironic, because normally Oracle are the ones doing this
partiallypro 7y ago
My view is that Amazon did help write the requirements, and then lost the contract thinking it was in the bag. So now they are taking it to court because they were shocked their in the bag contract wasn't rewarded.
j-c-hewitt 7y ago
The court ruled in favor of the government: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1880-102-0 https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv... There were some improprieties found as it relates to the conduct of Amazon's agents and in the RFP process, but it got the greenlight overall. This might be the problem with Amazon litigating the changes to the RFP process. Oracle already litigated the previous version of the RFP. It looks like the process changed in part to head off the perception that it was rigged in favor of Amazon. Now, Amazon alleges that this re-rigging made it rigged out of its favor. So, it went: Oracle: "This is rigged for Amazon! These requirements can only be met by Amazon! Also it's unfair that it can only be won by a single entity!" Judge: "The Pentagon didn't want to have multiple clouds because it would defeat the reason for the project. We didn't find that the RFP was corrupt to the point of breaking the law, but it was definitely sort of corrupt, particularly in the case of the dude who was on the committee creating the RFP while simultaneously selling a startup to Amazon while simultaneously telling the Pentagon that he wasn't breaking the law and telling Amazon he was not breaking the law, but he was totally breaking the law." This obviously put the Pentagon between the rock of leaving the RFP as-is and being sued again for corruption and the hard place of changing the RFP and being accused of improper political influence. If Trump had avoided taking a public stance on the issue it would have been much better for the Pentagon's situation, as this now creates a situation in which no matter what the Pentagon decided they could be credibly accused of corruption.

Didn't Oracle just sue the DoD claiming they wrote the requirements in such a way that only Amazon could get it?

by hpoe 7y ago

Didn't Oracle just sue the DoD claiming they wrote the requirements in such a way that only Amazon could get it?

Wouldn't surprise me. I heard the person who wrote the legislation left when they were completed and took a job with AWS.

buckminster 7y ago
The British civil servant who championed the use of AWS by the British government took a job with AWS after the deal was done. It is shameful.

sp332 7y ago

I hadn't heard of that side of the argument. According to https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/oracle-argues-jedi-defense-contract-bid-tarnished-by-amazon-conflicts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/oracle-argues-jedi-defense-c..., Oracle had complained about this before, then kinda dropped it, then revived it one week after Amazon launched their new complaint.

robbyt 7y ago

Ironic, because normally Oracle are the ones doing this

partiallypro 7y ago

My view is that Amazon did help write the requirements, and then lost the contract thinking it was in the bag. So now they are taking it to court because they were shocked their in the bag contract wasn't rewarded.

j-c-hewitt 7y ago

The court ruled in favor of the government: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1880-102-0 https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv... There were some improprieties found as it relates to the conduct of Amazon's agents and in the RFP process, but it got the greenlight overall. This might be the problem with Amazon litigating the changes to the RFP process. Oracle already litigated the previous version of the RFP. It looks like the process changed in part to head off the perception that it was rigged in favor of Amazon. Now, Amazon alleges that this re-rigging made it rigged out of its favor. So, it went: Oracle: "This is rigged for Amazon! These requirements can only be met by Amazon! Also it's unfair that it can only be won by a single entity!" Judge: "The Pentagon didn't want to have multiple clouds because it would defeat the reason for the project. We didn't find that the RFP was corrupt to the point of breaking the law, but it was definitely sort of corrupt, particularly in the case of the dude who was on the committee creating the RFP while simultaneously selling a startup to Amazon while simultaneously telling the Pentagon that he wasn't breaking the law and telling Amazon he was not breaking the law, but he was totally breaking the law." This obviously put the Pentagon between the rock of leaving the RFP as-is and being sued again for corruption and the hard place of changing the RFP and being accused of improper political influence. If Trump had avoided taking a public stance on the issue it would have been much better for the Pentagon's situation, as this now creates a situation in which no matter what the Pentagon decided they could be credibly accused of corruption.