7 ms·

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

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.

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.