6 ms·

Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon

152 points by jbegley 7y ago

HenryKissinger 7y ago
I think Amazon will lose this case. It will be impossible to prove that Donald Trump's public attacks on Jeff Bezos influenced the decision of the Department of Defense to award the JEDI contract to Microsoft. Amazon wants to depose Donald Trump, SecDef Mark Esper, and former SecDef James Mattis. I don't see Donald Trump willingly testifying to a court under oath. If Esper and Mattis have to testify, they will say that the contract was awarded fairly and based on a neutral and thorough review of both proposals, and that Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better. The SecDef, being the most important individual in the DoD, is in the best position to determine the department's needs. While this doesn't mean that corruption of the decision making process is impossible, these contracts have a paper trail and review/counter-review processes by a multitude of procurement officers and committees, and a federal judge unilaterally deciding the winners of military contracts would set a terrible precedent. At worst the contract could be voided and the competition restarted, but the final decision would most likely be the same.
- eganist 7y ago
  > At worst the contract could be voided and the competition restarted, but the final decision would most likely be the same. Assuming Trump interfered, a rebid is the best possible outcome. It took well over a year for that bid to be completed, meaning by the time this matter is adjudicated, we'll know whether or not Trump is on his way to a second term. And if not, then there's no way the JEDI contract re-bid will be completed before he's out on Jan 20, 2021.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fooey 7y ago
    There's no assumption needed, he directly and publically interfered. Trump specifically ordered DoD to review the fundamental deal to make sure it didn't favor Amazon.
    - eganist 7y ago
      Well since you're drawing out my personal politics: I agree, personally. I'm also among a population his team have indicated are unwelcome, but I'm trying to give some amount of respect to the justice system even if I feel he doesn't. Now with that aside, please keep the absolutist politics off of Hackernews. It's the last good sanctuary we have from what the rest of the internet has devolved into. There are plenty of people drawn into the administration's orbit who still have good ideas about product development which I'd like to learn.
- wyxuan 7y ago
  Agreed. They might be able to turn up some emails discussing Trump's pressure but I think those emails (unless truly damning)won't be able to meet the bar.
  - DannyB2 7y ago
    Nothing, no matter how bad, can overcome the Barr.
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better Which it's not even up for debate that it did. The Pentagon already runs a ton of Microsoft software - something Amazon has no ability to properly support at this scale.
  - mrgordon 7y ago
    Of course it’s up for debate. Everyone thought Amazon would win the contract because they had such a lead in cloud services until Trump got involved as part of his personal vendetta with Bezos for the Washington Post
    - m0zg 7y ago
      >> Everyone thought Citation needed. I didn't think that for a minute. If anything MS was the only sane choice here, for reasons I wrote of above. >> Trump got involved Citation needed.
      - fooey 7y ago
        > when JEDI was issued, on the day Congress recessed for the summer, the deal appeared to be rigged in favor of a single provider: Amazon. According to insiders familiar with the 1,375-page request for proposal, the language contains a host of technical stipulations that only Amazon can meet https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-more-powerful-in-dc-than-trump https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-mor...
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        >>Citation Needed (Everyone Thought) [0][1][2] Oracle certainly thought Amazon was the front runner, unfairly so, to the point that they began a lawsuit prior to all this current mess. >>Citation Needed (Trump Got involved) [3][4] When the President expresses a desire to "screw" over a potential vendor, that's getting involved. [0] https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557 https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557 [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-msft-amzn-ibm.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-p... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-favored-to-win-the-10-billion-jedi-contract-2018-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-... [3]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losing-jedi-cloud-contract.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losi... [4] https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-into-pentagon-s-jedi-cloud-contract-aws-and-microsoft-are-pursuing https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-i...
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I think it will hinge on what, if any, communications took place between the administration and the DoD. If there were written communications, those will be discoverable during the lead up to a trial. Conversations that took below the SecDef level where (if) personnel felt pressured to skew things a certain way could also come out. I don't think people watching this case would tend to thing the courts would award the contract to Amazon though. That is very much outside the scope of this case, and does not appear to be what Amazon is seeking. The case hinged on the more narrow question of whether the process followed was proper. Even apart from first-hand testimony on pressure, this can be determined in part from the timing and changes to requirements. If the requirements were changed at the last minute to include things that only Microsoft, by definition, could provide, then it's a problem for the DoD. For example, an 11th hour change to stipulate "selected contractor must currently offer per-minute billing on services" could easily be interpreted as unduly biased towards MS. A stipulation saying "Vendor branding of products must reference a shade of blue" (Azure) then that would be a bit of a smoking gun. I mean sure, a ridiculous example, but you see what I mean. And, being a civil case, the burden of proof is not "reasonable doubt", but the much lesser "preponderance of evidence" threshold.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    How about: "Vendor must be able to quicky fix bugs in Microsoft software"? Would that be "undue" or not? Seems like a desirable capability for a government entity that runs on Microsoft software.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Why would Microsoft have to stop providing any such support they currently give to the DoD? Do you think Dell or HP or whoever they get servers from does this sort of thing instead of MS? And why do you seem to think that the infrastructure vendor would be required to support the code base of any & all software that runs on it? This isn't a contract for everything that will run in their cloud. This is an infrastructure contract.
    - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
      That's not inherently disqualifying AMZN, they can contract MSFT for that.
- tssva 7y ago
  The judge would not decide who would win the contract. The judge would determine if the contract needs to be re-competed. This has happened many times with DoD contracts and nothing about the judge deciding it needs to be would be precedent setting. Asking for Trump to be deposed is the smartest thing Amazon has done in this case. Of course he will refuse which will lead to an extended court battle to try to force him to be. This will extend the case passed the election and at that point a different administration may decide themselves to scrap the contract award and re-compete it.
  - ticmasta 7y ago
    Which itself will likely cause a payout to MS. Not $10B but I'd bet substantial...
    - tssva 7y ago
      Most likely not. Almost all federal government contracts allow the government to cancel them for any reason without penalty.
- javagram 7y ago
  > If Esper and Mattis have to testify, they will say that the contract was awarded fairly and based on a neutral and thorough review of both proposals, and that Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better. You are making the assumption that Trump didn’t actually interfere, or that if he did, Esper and Mattis would lie under oath to protect him. Everything we know about Trump says he would have no problem interfering. He asked Comey to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. He ordered OMB to halt disbursement of military aid for his personal political purposes. He was obeyed and if not for a single whistleblower almost got away with it. Why would we assume he wouldn’t order DoD similarly?
  - topkai22 7y ago
    The source of the quote saying the Trump pressured him to make sure Amazon lost the competition includes a follow up quote from Mattis telling his work group that they would be doing the acquisition by the book. There is reason to believe that Trump tried illegally influence the award. There is also plenty of reason that he was unable to do so because senior subordinates ignored him and protected the process.
ineedasername 7y ago
Well there's at least one positive outcome from this whole debacle so far with Oracle's lawsuit being heavily undercut by the award to MS.
sergiotapia 7y ago
short MS
- kevas 7y ago
  Stop. Full stop... This contract would add about $250m in additional each quarter. Their last Q’s revenue was somewhere in the neighborhood of $33b. Just stop with your nonsense.
  - orf 7y ago
    Obviously getting the JEDI contract has implications for Azure/Microsoft far, far beyond the monetary value of the contract itself.
    - kerng 7y ago
      Agreed, and the majority of the positive press and Azure being seen as being a more then viable alternative has already been done. AWS won't be able to revert that change in public perception that Azure has grown up. That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, because it just makes them look immature now. Better to move on and focus on providing customer value, keep innovating and build better tech. And its very likely MS will win this and get another ego boost over AWS.
      - vkou 7y ago
        The public perception that Azure is a viable alternative to AWS has been secure long before the JEDI contract was awarded. > That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, because it just makes them look immature now. In a big enough procurement, if you dig deep enough, there is always some impropriety that you can find, that may get you anything from a small payout to the contract being reversed. It's not a matter of maturity, or technical merits - it's a matter of politics and money.
  - sergiotapia 7y ago
    I guess I should have put in an /s forgot this isn't wsb
keanzu 7y ago
"In December, Amazon filed a challenge to the deal in federal court, saying that Mr. Trump used “improper pressure” on the Pentagon at its expense." "Microsoft said Amazon “only provided the speculation of bias, with nothing approaching the ‘hard facts’ necessary” to demand them." He may have applied improper pressure but I wasn't able to find where they presented any evidence to support this accusation. Was there any evidence or is the point of the court process to get some?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdm2212 7y ago
  This lawsuit is an effort to get hard evidence. This is just an injunction while they sort out how to go forward and what paperwork/depositions to grant Amazon.
threeseed 7y ago
Seems a bit pointless. Even if Amazon wins there will likely be a re-bid process. At which point they will simply select Microsoft again. As we've seen with the DOJ Trump can exert significant influence without having to actually tell them what to do.
- fooey 7y ago
  The original reporting on JEDI was pretty much that it was written specifically with Amazon in mind, and that the RFP was a formality. Someone at Oracle with access with Trump brought it to his attention, and Trump personally intervened, ordering DoD to ensure Amazon was not favored for the contract.
- mayneack 7y ago
  If Trump is really the only thing giving the contract to Microsoft, rebidding might land in 2021 at which point there's some chance Trump isn't in a position to exert influence.
- jahlove 7y ago
  These large proposals can take many years to award. There could very likely be a new administration by that time. See the KC-X tanker program as an example: 01/2007 - RFP comes out 02/2008 - Northrop Grumman wins 03/2008 - Boeing successfully protests 08/2008 - Revised RFP comes out, then cancelled 09/2009 - Third RFP comes out 02/2011 - Boeing wins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition
- RobRivera 7y ago
  Sometimes all a competitor needs is to impact competitor schedules to overtake market share.
jimbob45 7y ago
"On Thursday, Judge Campbell-Smith also required that Amazon pay a $42 million deposit that will be held by the court in case it later determines that the injunction was wrongfully issued and that Microsoft is owed damages." I know $42MM is pocket change to these companies but this goes a long ways toward removing my perception of the judge being biased.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > my perception of the judge being biased. That perception was possibly influenced by the HN title "Siding with Amazon" vs the title the NY Times used "Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon". At no point in the article do the words "sides" or "siding" appear. Edit: The HN title has been changed since I wrote this.
  - XMPPwocky 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 The NYT changed their headline after publication.
    - mugwort13 7y ago
      Typical
    - ejstronge 7y ago
      They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B tested over time.
  - muststopmyths 7y ago
    "Judge sides with side A" is to my recollection pretty standard terminology in legal reporting. Interesting that they felt the need to change it.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  It's a fig leaf. It's not about the judge being biased, but about amazon really having nothing to lose compared to what they could gain, and swinging for the fences. It's also about the next contract. They're unlikely to prevail, and have already, through their past actions, turned a lot of DoD people against them. If they had performed better with their previous contracts, they would likely have won this.
crmrc114 7y ago
The pissing contest between Jeff and Larry (AWS and Oracle) has only resulted in MS getting Oracle + Azure. That may not seem like much, but to most enterprise and government bodies that is a huge + on the MS side is it not? Also not mentioned here AWS already has GovCloud- there are a number of agencies both federal and state that use AWS. Its not like this contract is the _only_ contract there is to win. Its just a big one. Jeff is a pretty damn sore loser.
- fooey 7y ago
  Oracle is a McGuffin, they're only mentioned at all in this drama as an excuse for Trump to interfere. They were never any kind of contender for the contract.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. In any normal time, that would be an administration ending scandal. Right now, it hardly rates, but on an absolute scale it's still a big deal and completely justifies this lawsuit.
  - outside1234 7y ago
    There is no evidence that he actually did this. People have speculated that he might have and he clearly doesn't like Bezos, but that is not proof.
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-jim-mattis-pentagon-contract/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-... Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.
williesleg 7y ago
Activist judge again.
dude3 7y ago
Should be a factor. Guy involved in the JEDI decision was pursuing a job at Amazon. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-department-jedi-contract/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-departmen...
vkaku 7y ago
Microsoft will win this, is what my gut feeling says. And Amazon may be forced to pay compensation by the people in the process. How about they actually prove they can focus on privacy and be a good implementor for the government? I doubt if they will ever do that. That's the concern.
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
My hunch is that Amazon is desperate for this because of looming regulations. We regularly see companies that cozy up to the government get special treatment.
ykevinator 7y ago
This is insane. Why does the government award a $2b contract to buy a $20m product. This is the joke of privatization.
- sorenn111 7y ago
  That the government is a poor spender and over pays is a joke of privatization? please elaborate because it seems to me that it is the joke of government purchasing: gov spends more than it takes in by people who are never in office long enough for the bill to come due.
srb4 7y ago
I used to work for a defense contractor and was involved in several proposals. A similar situation happened to us. RFP was written in a way that strongly favored our product. The proposal team thought we were the only contractor that could deliver the requirements and we priced it to reflect that. We lost to a competitor we didn’t even anticipate (a new entry into the space) and who probably massively underbid us. I don’t know anything about Amazon’s proposal or if Trump has anything to do with the decision, but I imagine they may have believed all the hype and not priced it as competitively as they should. Or perhaps they misjudged the importance of certain requirements or Microsoft’s capabilities. Regardless, I imagine this was a wake up call at Amazon. Oh yeah, that contract we lost - we protested it and ended up getting some work out of it after all.
axaxs 7y ago
Look, I understand that in a perfect world, all contracts would be neutral and fair. But we live in a decidedly imperfect world, full of bribes, vendettas, and good ole boy clubs. We live in an age where you can be fired for expressing an opinion or character that doesn't align with your employer on social media. Imagine making a new twitter account in your own name, and doing nothing but insulting your company. What do you expect to happen? That's not far from the case here. Are we more sympathetic because the players are rich? Bezos bought a company that, for better or worse, constantly antagonizes the current government administration. Why is he shocked that his alt account didn't get a contract from them?

152 points by jbegley 7y ago

I think Amazon will lose this case. It will be impossible to prove that Donald Trump's public attacks on Jeff Bezos influenced the decision of the Department of Defense to award the JEDI contract to Microsoft. Amazon wants to depose Donald Trump, SecDef Mark Esper, and former SecDef James Mattis. I don't see Donald Trump willingly testifying to a court under oath. If Esper and Mattis have to testify, they will say that the contract was awarded fairly and based on a neutral and thorough review of both proposals, and that Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better. The SecDef, being the most important individual in the DoD, is in the best position to determine the department's needs. While this doesn't mean that corruption of the decision making process is impossible, these contracts have a paper trail and review/counter-review processes by a multitude of procurement officers and committees, and a federal judge unilaterally deciding the winners of military contracts would set a terrible precedent. At worst the contract could be voided and the competition restarted, but the final decision would most likely be the same.

eganist 7y ago
> At worst the contract could be voided and the competition restarted, but the final decision would most likely be the same. Assuming Trump interfered, a rebid is the best possible outcome. It took well over a year for that bid to be completed, meaning by the time this matter is adjudicated, we'll know whether or not Trump is on his way to a second term. And if not, then there's no way the JEDI contract re-bid will be completed before he's out on Jan 20, 2021.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fooey 7y ago
  There's no assumption needed, he directly and publically interfered. Trump specifically ordered DoD to review the fundamental deal to make sure it didn't favor Amazon.
  - eganist 7y ago
    Well since you're drawing out my personal politics: I agree, personally. I'm also among a population his team have indicated are unwelcome, but I'm trying to give some amount of respect to the justice system even if I feel he doesn't. Now with that aside, please keep the absolutist politics off of Hackernews. It's the last good sanctuary we have from what the rest of the internet has devolved into. There are plenty of people drawn into the administration's orbit who still have good ideas about product development which I'd like to learn.
wyxuan 7y ago
Agreed. They might be able to turn up some emails discussing Trump's pressure but I think those emails (unless truly damning)won't be able to meet the bar.
- DannyB2 7y ago
  Nothing, no matter how bad, can overcome the Barr.
m0zg 7y ago
>> Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better Which it's not even up for debate that it did. The Pentagon already runs a ton of Microsoft software - something Amazon has no ability to properly support at this scale.
- mrgordon 7y ago
  Of course it’s up for debate. Everyone thought Amazon would win the contract because they had such a lead in cloud services until Trump got involved as part of his personal vendetta with Bezos for the Washington Post
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> Everyone thought Citation needed. I didn't think that for a minute. If anything MS was the only sane choice here, for reasons I wrote of above. >> Trump got involved Citation needed.
    - fooey 7y ago
      > when JEDI was issued, on the day Congress recessed for the summer, the deal appeared to be rigged in favor of a single provider: Amazon. According to insiders familiar with the 1,375-page request for proposal, the language contains a host of technical stipulations that only Amazon can meet https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-more-powerful-in-dc-than-trump https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/has-bezos-become-mor...
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      >>Citation Needed (Everyone Thought) [0][1][2] Oracle certainly thought Amazon was the front runner, unfairly so, to the point that they began a lawsuit prior to all this current mess. >>Citation Needed (Trump Got involved) [3][4] When the President expresses a desire to "screw" over a potential vendor, that's getting involved. [0] https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557 https://apnews.com/3f36de42be3d45b7bee0d2c5febd2557 [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-msft-amzn-ibm.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-p... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-favored-to-win-the-10-billion-jedi-contract-2018-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-... [3]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losing-jedi-cloud-contract.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losi... [4] https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-into-pentagon-s-jedi-cloud-contract-aws-and-microsoft-are-pursuing https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-i...
ineedasername 7y ago
I think it will hinge on what, if any, communications took place between the administration and the DoD. If there were written communications, those will be discoverable during the lead up to a trial. Conversations that took below the SecDef level where (if) personnel felt pressured to skew things a certain way could also come out. I don't think people watching this case would tend to thing the courts would award the contract to Amazon though. That is very much outside the scope of this case, and does not appear to be what Amazon is seeking. The case hinged on the more narrow question of whether the process followed was proper. Even apart from first-hand testimony on pressure, this can be determined in part from the timing and changes to requirements. If the requirements were changed at the last minute to include things that only Microsoft, by definition, could provide, then it's a problem for the DoD. For example, an 11th hour change to stipulate "selected contractor must currently offer per-minute billing on services" could easily be interpreted as unduly biased towards MS. A stipulation saying "Vendor branding of products must reference a shade of blue" (Azure) then that would be a bit of a smoking gun. I mean sure, a ridiculous example, but you see what I mean. And, being a civil case, the burden of proof is not "reasonable doubt", but the much lesser "preponderance of evidence" threshold.
- m0zg 7y ago
  How about: "Vendor must be able to quicky fix bugs in Microsoft software"? Would that be "undue" or not? Seems like a desirable capability for a government entity that runs on Microsoft software.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Why would Microsoft have to stop providing any such support they currently give to the DoD? Do you think Dell or HP or whoever they get servers from does this sort of thing instead of MS? And why do you seem to think that the infrastructure vendor would be required to support the code base of any & all software that runs on it? This isn't a contract for everything that will run in their cloud. This is an infrastructure contract.
  - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
    That's not inherently disqualifying AMZN, they can contract MSFT for that.
tssva 7y ago
The judge would not decide who would win the contract. The judge would determine if the contract needs to be re-competed. This has happened many times with DoD contracts and nothing about the judge deciding it needs to be would be precedent setting. Asking for Trump to be deposed is the smartest thing Amazon has done in this case. Of course he will refuse which will lead to an extended court battle to try to force him to be. This will extend the case passed the election and at that point a different administration may decide themselves to scrap the contract award and re-compete it.
- ticmasta 7y ago
  Which itself will likely cause a payout to MS. Not $10B but I'd bet substantial...
  - tssva 7y ago
    Most likely not. Almost all federal government contracts allow the government to cancel them for any reason without penalty.
javagram 7y ago
> If Esper and Mattis have to testify, they will say that the contract was awarded fairly and based on a neutral and thorough review of both proposals, and that Microsoft's offer fulfilled the needs of the DoD better. You are making the assumption that Trump didn’t actually interfere, or that if he did, Esper and Mattis would lie under oath to protect him. Everything we know about Trump says he would have no problem interfering. He asked Comey to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. He ordered OMB to halt disbursement of military aid for his personal political purposes. He was obeyed and if not for a single whistleblower almost got away with it. Why would we assume he wouldn’t order DoD similarly?
- topkai22 7y ago
  The source of the quote saying the Trump pressured him to make sure Amazon lost the competition includes a follow up quote from Mattis telling his work group that they would be doing the acquisition by the book. There is reason to believe that Trump tried illegally influence the award. There is also plenty of reason that he was unable to do so because senior subordinates ignored him and protected the process.

ineedasername 7y ago

Well there's at least one positive outcome from this whole debacle so far with Oracle's lawsuit being heavily undercut by the award to MS.

sergiotapia 7y ago

short MS

kevas 7y ago
Stop. Full stop... This contract would add about $250m in additional each quarter. Their last Q’s revenue was somewhere in the neighborhood of $33b. Just stop with your nonsense.
- orf 7y ago
  Obviously getting the JEDI contract has implications for Azure/Microsoft far, far beyond the monetary value of the contract itself.
  - kerng 7y ago
    Agreed, and the majority of the positive press and Azure being seen as being a more then viable alternative has already been done. AWS won't be able to revert that change in public perception that Azure has grown up. That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, because it just makes them look immature now. Better to move on and focus on providing customer value, keep innovating and build better tech. And its very likely MS will win this and get another ego boost over AWS.
    - vkou 7y ago
      The public perception that Azure is a viable alternative to AWS has been secure long before the JEDI contract was awarded. > That's also the reason I don't understand Amazon fighting the decision, because it just makes them look immature now. In a big enough procurement, if you dig deep enough, there is always some impropriety that you can find, that may get you anything from a small payout to the contract being reversed. It's not a matter of maturity, or technical merits - it's a matter of politics and money.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  I guess I should have put in an /s forgot this isn't wsb

keanzu 7y ago

"In December, Amazon filed a challenge to the deal in federal court, saying that Mr. Trump used “improper pressure” on the Pentagon at its expense." "Microsoft said Amazon “only provided the speculation of bias, with nothing approaching the ‘hard facts’ necessary” to demand them." He may have applied improper pressure but I wasn't able to find where they presented any evidence to support this accusation. Was there any evidence or is the point of the court process to get some?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jdm2212 7y ago
This lawsuit is an effort to get hard evidence. This is just an injunction while they sort out how to go forward and what paperwork/depositions to grant Amazon.

threeseed 7y ago

Seems a bit pointless. Even if Amazon wins there will likely be a re-bid process. At which point they will simply select Microsoft again. As we've seen with the DOJ Trump can exert significant influence without having to actually tell them what to do.

fooey 7y ago
The original reporting on JEDI was pretty much that it was written specifically with Amazon in mind, and that the RFP was a formality. Someone at Oracle with access with Trump brought it to his attention, and Trump personally intervened, ordering DoD to ensure Amazon was not favored for the contract.
mayneack 7y ago
If Trump is really the only thing giving the contract to Microsoft, rebidding might land in 2021 at which point there's some chance Trump isn't in a position to exert influence.
jahlove 7y ago
These large proposals can take many years to award. There could very likely be a new administration by that time. See the KC-X tanker program as an example: 01/2007 - RFP comes out 02/2008 - Northrop Grumman wins 03/2008 - Boeing successfully protests 08/2008 - Revised RFP comes out, then cancelled 09/2009 - Third RFP comes out 02/2011 - Boeing wins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X#Initial_competition
RobRivera 7y ago
Sometimes all a competitor needs is to impact competitor schedules to overtake market share.

jimbob45 7y ago

"On Thursday, Judge Campbell-Smith also required that Amazon pay a $42 million deposit that will be held by the court in case it later determines that the injunction was wrongfully issued and that Microsoft is owed damages." I know $42MM is pocket change to these companies but this goes a long ways toward removing my perception of the judge being biased.

keanzu 7y ago
> my perception of the judge being biased. That perception was possibly influenced by the HN title "Siding with Amazon" vs the title the NY Times used "Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon". At no point in the article do the words "sides" or "siding" appear. Edit: The HN title has been changed since I wrote this.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 The NYT changed their headline after publication.
  - mugwort13 7y ago
    Typical
  - ejstronge 7y ago
    They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B tested over time.
- muststopmyths 7y ago
  "Judge sides with side A" is to my recollection pretty standard terminology in legal reporting. Interesting that they felt the need to change it.
tomohawk 7y ago
It's a fig leaf. It's not about the judge being biased, but about amazon really having nothing to lose compared to what they could gain, and swinging for the fences. It's also about the next contract. They're unlikely to prevail, and have already, through their past actions, turned a lot of DoD people against them. If they had performed better with their previous contracts, they would likely have won this.

crmrc114 7y ago

The pissing contest between Jeff and Larry (AWS and Oracle) has only resulted in MS getting Oracle + Azure. That may not seem like much, but to most enterprise and government bodies that is a huge + on the MS side is it not? Also not mentioned here AWS already has GovCloud- there are a number of agencies both federal and state that use AWS. Its not like this contract is the _only_ contract there is to win. Its just a big one. Jeff is a pretty damn sore loser.

fooey 7y ago
Oracle is a McGuffin, they're only mentioned at all in this drama as an excuse for Trump to interfere. They were never any kind of contender for the contract.
throwaway5752 7y ago
The president told the secretary of defense to "screw" one vendor in a competition for a $10B contract because of personal biases unrelated to the contract. In any normal time, that would be an administration ending scandal. Right now, it hardly rates, but on an absolute scale it's still a big deal and completely justifies this lawsuit.
- outside1234 7y ago
  There is no evidence that he actually did this. People have speculated that he might have and he clearly doesn't like Bezos, but that is not proof.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-jim-mattis-pentagon-contract/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/amazon-donald-trump-... Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.

williesleg 7y ago

Activist judge again.

dude3 7y ago

Should be a factor. Guy involved in the JEDI decision was pursuing a job at Amazon. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-department-jedi-contract/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-departmen...

vkaku 7y ago

Microsoft will win this, is what my gut feeling says. And Amazon may be forced to pay compensation by the people in the process. How about they actually prove they can focus on privacy and be a good implementor for the government? I doubt if they will ever do that. That's the concern.

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago

My hunch is that Amazon is desperate for this because of looming regulations. We regularly see companies that cozy up to the government get special treatment.

ykevinator 7y ago

This is insane. Why does the government award a $2b contract to buy a $20m product. This is the joke of privatization.

sorenn111 7y ago
That the government is a poor spender and over pays is a joke of privatization? please elaborate because it seems to me that it is the joke of government purchasing: gov spends more than it takes in by people who are never in office long enough for the bill to come due.

srb4 7y ago

I used to work for a defense contractor and was involved in several proposals. A similar situation happened to us. RFP was written in a way that strongly favored our product. The proposal team thought we were the only contractor that could deliver the requirements and we priced it to reflect that. We lost to a competitor we didn’t even anticipate (a new entry into the space) and who probably massively underbid us. I don’t know anything about Amazon’s proposal or if Trump has anything to do with the decision, but I imagine they may have believed all the hype and not priced it as competitively as they should. Or perhaps they misjudged the importance of certain requirements or Microsoft’s capabilities. Regardless, I imagine this was a wake up call at Amazon. Oh yeah, that contract we lost - we protested it and ended up getting some work out of it after all.

axaxs 7y ago

Look, I understand that in a perfect world, all contracts would be neutral and fair. But we live in a decidedly imperfect world, full of bribes, vendettas, and good ole boy clubs. We live in an age where you can be fired for expressing an opinion or character that doesn't align with your employer on social media. Imagine making a new twitter account in your own name, and doing nothing but insulting your company. What do you expect to happen? That's not far from the case here. Are we more sympathetic because the players are rich? Bezos bought a company that, for better or worse, constantly antagonizes the current government administration. Why is he shocked that his alt account didn't get a contract from them?