4 ms·

From the AWS blog post [0]. > This time, AWS offered a lower cost by several tens of millions of dollars. On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions real

From the AWS blog post [0]. > This time, AWS offered a lower cost by several tens of millions of dollars. On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference? [0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-continue-protest-politically-corrupted-contract-award/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-c...

ciarannolan 6y ago
That is probably the weakest and least-relevant argument in the entire post.
- jakear 6y ago
  And a good lesson on why you should never include known-weak talking points in an argument -- many think that components of an argument are additive, when in reality they're more multiplicative: if you have one weak link, all the opposition needs to do is shape the narrative to make it seem like that's a critical component, then dismantle the whole argument by tearing that single point apart.
Bedon292 6y ago
Yes. If two proposals both of the same exact technical level and Amazon was a cheaper price, then the government is supposed to go with the one that saves the taxpayer money. The government should provide detailed evidence to the taxpayers as to why it needs to go with a more expensive options. I am all for having competition in the space, but if Microsoft is not giving a clearly superior product for the money then why should the taxpayers spend extra money on it? Although, I am willing to listen to the case that the government needs to have the competition in the space to ensure its own future interests and that is worth an extra cost. But that is not the case that is being presented. At least not that I have seen.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Hence the joke about everything from bridges to the Space Shuttle being "built by the lowest bidder."
dragonwriter 6y ago
> On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference? In government contracting, if cost is supposedly the formal deciding criteria, yes. The allegation isn't that the cost amount was significant as a value amount, but that it's one of many examples raised of the DoD allegedly making decisions for which pretexts are offered that are inconsistent with the facts. The laws of government contracting don't allow the kind of arbitrarily moving goalposts that Amazon’s description of the DoD behavior would indicate, and the reason it doesn't is as a safeguard against corrupt political favoritism with contracts as patronage. Focussing on whether the cost qua cost is significant in isolation is focussing is missing the forest for the trees.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The laws of government contracting? What laws do you speak of? By the way there is corrupt political favoritism going on at all levels of government and it is naive to assume otherwise.

ciarannolan 6y ago

That is probably the weakest and least-relevant argument in the entire post.

jakear 6y ago
And a good lesson on why you should never include known-weak talking points in an argument -- many think that components of an argument are additive, when in reality they're more multiplicative: if you have one weak link, all the opposition needs to do is shape the narrative to make it seem like that's a critical component, then dismantle the whole argument by tearing that single point apart.

Bedon292 6y ago

Yes. If two proposals both of the same exact technical level and Amazon was a cheaper price, then the government is supposed to go with the one that saves the taxpayer money. The government should provide detailed evidence to the taxpayers as to why it needs to go with a more expensive options. I am all for having competition in the space, but if Microsoft is not giving a clearly superior product for the money then why should the taxpayers spend extra money on it? Although, I am willing to listen to the case that the government needs to have the competition in the space to ensure its own future interests and that is worth an extra cost. But that is not the case that is being presented. At least not that I have seen.

dehrmann 6y ago
Hence the joke about everything from bridges to the Space Shuttle being "built by the lowest bidder."

dragonwriter 6y ago

> On a contract worth $10bn does tens of millions really make a difference? In government contracting, if cost is supposedly the formal deciding criteria, yes. The allegation isn't that the cost amount was significant as a value amount, but that it's one of many examples raised of the DoD allegedly making decisions for which pretexts are offered that are inconsistent with the facts. The laws of government contracting don't allow the kind of arbitrarily moving goalposts that Amazon’s description of the DoD behavior would indicate, and the reason it doesn't is as a safeguard against corrupt political favoritism with contracts as patronage. Focussing on whether the cost qua cost is significant in isolation is focussing is missing the forest for the trees.

chrisco255 6y ago
The laws of government contracting? What laws do you speak of? By the way there is corrupt political favoritism going on at all levels of government and it is naive to assume otherwise.