
Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon - jbegley
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/technology/amazon-jedi-pentagon-contract-microsoft.html
======
jimbob45
"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
> 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
[https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736](https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736)

The NYT changed their headline after publication.

~~~
ejstronge
They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B
tested over time.

------
dude3
Should be a factor. Guy involved in the JEDI decision was pursuing a job at
Amazon.

[https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-
departmen...](https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-department-
jedi-contract/)

------
crmrc114
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.

~~~
throwaway5752
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.

~~~
unlinked_dll
Not to be too cynical, but if we started investigating every DoD contract
where personal biases decided who won and who lost... the military industrial
complex would probably crumble overnight.

~~~
lostcolony
This isn't that though. This isn't every individual's personal bias; this is a
publicly declared bias by the commander in chief. A little different.

~~~
balls187
It's not even bias.

It's a __vendetta __

~~~
chrisco255
Awarding a perfectly capable competitor (Microsoft) a contract isn't a
vendetta. Somehow I think Amazon will continue to thrive with or without the
JEDI contract.

~~~
nkozyra
Why does Amazon's survival preclude a vendetta?

------
ineedasername
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.

------
HenryKissinger
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.

~~~
m0zg
>> 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
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
>> 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.

~~~
ineedasername
>>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-p...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-
pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-msft-amzn-ibm.html)

[2] [https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-
heavily-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-
favored-to-win-the-10-billion-jedi-contract-2018-10)

[3][https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-
losi...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-blames-trump-for-losing-jedi-
cloud-contract.html)

[4] [https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-
stepping-i...](https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-
into-pentagon-s-jedi-cloud-contract-aws-and-microsoft-are-pursuing)

~~~
zaroth
Your [3] is just a story reporting this story, citing nothing but Amazon’s
complaint. Your [4] quotes Trump saying lots of companies are complaining, and
an internal ethics investigation at the DoD which turned up someone working on
the contract who worked at AWS;

> _The Pentagon found potential ethical violations by a former Amazon Web
> Services employee who had worked on JEDI during a stint at the Defense
> Department, according to a New York Times story. Those potential violations
> were referred to Office of Inspector General for further investigation._

~~~
ineedasername
Read more closely. #3 Has a direct quote from President Trump about wanting to
"screw" Amazon. Again, #4 shows the President speaking in a way that could
cause DoD to feel pressured and might indicate he took further more direct
action, though also maybe not: that will come out in pre-trial discovery. You
asked for citations that showed the President's involvement. Both of these
provide it.

~~~
m0zg
But it doesn't: "when a book charting then-Defense Secretary James Mattis’
tenure at the White House claimed the president told Mattis to “screw Amazon”
out of the contract"

That's not a "direct quote" by any stretch of imagination.

This is "walls are closing in" and "sources familiar with president's
thinking" style news reporting.

~~~
ineedasername
It doesn't have to be a spoken live on TV or written out on twitter for it to
be true, accurate, verbatim quote. You're right, "direct" is not the correct
word in such a case though. But there's nothing wrong with using sources for
reporting, the quality of the reporting simply depends on the quality of the
sources. And this one quote is not the only evidence of the President's
involvement. There is the other source I cited, as well as plenty of other
examples of President Trump expressing displeasure with Amazon for other
reasons.

~~~
m0zg
All of which use either circular reasoning or mind reading to support their
assertions. Face it, you have _zero_ evidence for what you stated (third hand
account in a vehemently anti-trump publication does not reliable evidence
make), but pretend to have bulletproof evidence. That's simply not the case.

~~~
ineedasername
It's not mind reading when the President himself has expressed animosity
towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos. Comb through his twitter feed for amble examples.

As for someone like Mattis, he has shown nothing in his career that I'm aware
of that undermines his integrity and desire to serve his country. Yes, he may
bear some ill will towards the president, but at least from an outsider view
they parted over legitimate policy differences, and there's no reason to
believe Mattis would have outright fabricated a quote like "screw Amazon". If
we were talking about someone else (maybe John Bolton) I would be more
skeptical. Mattis... I'm not saying it's %100, but I'd be more likely than not
to believe he was honest in his recounting of that quote. That quote aside,
instances where President Trump has bashed Amazon & Bezos are common-- again,
the President's twitter feed is a good record on this topic.

This is not the type of circular reasoning you refer to, but I acknowledge
that can be an problem... one person speculates, another news source reports
on it, a third uses both the first two to paint a picture of consensus. That
Mattis quote and President Trumps direct statements elsewhere don't fit that
mold.

But lets link it back to the main point at hand: Could even the directly
attributable statements from President Trump be taken as involvement, or as
potentially influencing the procurement process? That is something reasonable
people might disagree about. That is why there is this legal fight. At this
point, there is simply too little publicly available information to say "yes"
or "no". There is enough to suggest the possibility. The discovery portion of
pre-trial will have to investigate to gather more evidence, or fail to do so
and not prevail. Currently there's enough to suggest the possibility that a
court agrees a case can move forward, but it's important to note this isn't
some partisan "never Trumper" decision. The court was still skeptical enough
to require nearly $50,000,000 be set aside against the possibility they are
wrong and therefore need to cover damages resulting from the suit & project
delay.

Regardless, I think we've both said our piece here. I've clarified as best I
can, as have you. I don't see much to be gained by going forward. I'll say
only that I disagree with your assessment of the situation, but appreciate a
dissenting point of to make me think more critically about the topic, and hope
you can appreciate that my own opinions come from a place of honest opinion,
not some partisan position (I don't fit the mold on either side, and am
generally criticized by people on both sides when I don't reflexively support
"the party line.) So, thanks for a thought provoking thread.

~~~
m0zg
>> As for someone like Mattis

But the book in question _wasn't by Mattis_. :-)

>> expressed animosity towards Amazon & Jeff Bezos

And Bezos "expressed animosity" towards Trump. Are you suggesting that WaPo
doesn't have editorial independence now? Which I'm pretty sure it does not,
but it might be news to you if you follow your own logic where "expressing
animosity" equates to "interference".

------
vkaku
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.

------
keanzu
"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?

~~~
jdm2212
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.

------
axaxs
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?

------
srb4
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.

------
threeseed
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.

~~~
jahlove
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)

------
sergiotapia
short MS

~~~
kevas
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
Obviously getting the JEDI contract has implications for Azure/Microsoft far,
far beyond the monetary value of the contract itself.

~~~
kerng
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
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.

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

~~~
sorenn111
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.

------
clSTophEjUdRanu
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.

