
Jedi: We will continue to protest this politically corrupted contract award - ENOTTY
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/jedi-why-we-will-continue-protest-politically-corrupted-contract-award/
======
013a
Amazon: "We have the broadest range of services and the most secure and
reliable data centers, we meet every technical qualification and then some,
why were we not picked."

Government: "All of that is true, but what's your managed Active Directory
story look like."

Amazon: [bugs chirping] uh [crickets] we have, a, um, active directory
service, it, uh [sweating] works [perjury] pretty well.

They could argue all day about the technical merits; Amazon can complain about
political motivations. I think its all bullshit. The Government is, and always
has been, for better or worse, a Microsoft shop. Amazon checks boxes.
Microsoft solves problems. Amazon was never going to be able to walk in thirty
years into the Federal Government / Microsoft relationship and steal this
contract.

And, frankly, its better this way. The biggest cloud provider doesn't need to
get bigger.

I've got contacts inside Azure who say that many, if not most, teams across
_the entire org_ are heads down on JEDI right now. The government invested
billions of dollars into Microsoft, but Microsoft is investing right back (and
always has for the government). Amazon's complaints are going to amount to
absolutely nothing; Microsoft knows it, the Federal government knows it, and
it seems most people even here know it. So, all this amounts to is a really,
really bad look for them; like sore losers who would rather complain about
losing out on billions of dollars than fix or improve the myriad of issues
customers like Us have with AWS.

~~~
sneak
> _Amazon was never going to be able to walk in thirty years into the Federal
> Government / Microsoft relationship and steal this contract._

And then, just like Boeing, we have yet another state-subsidized, substandard,
doesn’t need to compete, “too big/important to fail” defense vendor. (Remember
who you’re supporting with each GitHub push and npm publish. Let’s not forget
that the PRISM slides are _PowerPoint_.)

What’s the material difference between these and state-owned enterprises?

~~~
rsynnott
> What’s the material difference between these and state-owned enterprises?

Where the profits go.

~~~
bassman9000
I guess you don't have a 401k.

~~~
nr2x
Not everybody who pays the taxes that fund JEDI do.

~~~
bassman9000
We all should.

Setting aside $50 a month, no initial investment.

[https://www.calculator.net/investment-
calculator.html?ctype=...](https://www.calculator.net/investment-
calculator.html?ctype=endamount&ctargetamountv=1000000&cstartingprinciplev=0&cyearsv=20&cinterestratev=6&ccontributeamountv=50&ciadditionat1=monthly&printit=0&x=111&y=12)

$100/month

[https://www.calculator.net/investment-
calculator.html?ctype=...](https://www.calculator.net/investment-
calculator.html?ctype=endamount&ctargetamountv=1000000&cstartingprinciplev=0&cyearsv=20&cinterestratev=6&ccontributeamountv=100&ciadditionat1=monthly&printit=0&x=88&y=17)

If you can't afford that, you're not funding JEDI.

~~~
nr2x
Well, the people getting evicted from their homes during a pandemic because
the US spends money on JEDI instead of a social safety net are also "paying",
and no, they don't have $100 for a 401k.

~~~
bassman9000
They're not getting evicted because the money is spent on JEDI. They're
getting evicted because the State doesn't allow them to work. Ask your
representatives why.

------
amscanne
What’s interesting about these mega contracts is that I’m sure there is
consideration of second-order and long term effects, beyond the contract
itself.

E.g. If awarding the JSF contract to Boeing would have caused Lockheed to go
out of business, that could be quite bad in the long run, as now you have just
a single major aerospace provider. As long as both planes meet the
requirements and are competitive, I could certainly imagine that tipping the
scales.

I think the same argument could easily apply here. AWS is the market leader by
far. As long as the price and services are competitive and both meet
requirements, giving the boost to #2 keeps the market more competitive for the
long-haul.

Occam´s razor would suggest that there probably was some influence. But there
was also likely influence in the initial creation of the RFP, favoring AMZ. In
any case, the FUD in this post about ‘inferior technology’ is pretty effective
at wiping away any sympathy for Amazon that I might have had..

~~~
giantg2
The Boeing-Lockheed example isn't the best. Most defense contractors
subcontract portions of the work, even to companies they competed against.

But I do agree that a systems thinking approach is _usually_ taken,
contemplating the N-order impacts. Also, I'm pretty sure that some agencies do
use AWS already (or recently did). So I don't think it's fully exclusive.

------
mark_l_watson
When I was young I worked in the defense industry. If I remember correctly,
pushing back hard when not winning a contract was not done. I can’t imagine
how much this would sour future contracts and future negotiations.

I admit a little bias since I preferred Microsoft winning this contract. I am
a very happy Amazon and Google customer, but as a taxpayer I felt better about
Microsoft winning this. This is just an opinion that admittedly is not based
on any expertise in government procurement of cloud services.

~~~
op00to
Why is Microsoft better for taxpayers?

~~~
busterarm
Because the investment prevents Amazon having a total monopoly on Cloud and
helps keep the price from skyrocketing in the future.

I say that as someone who is all in on AWS.

~~~
DetroitThrow
I don't think winning a federal contract is what would allow or disallow
Amazon from having a monopoly on cloud, and I don't think the current state of
the market is monopoly (though oligopoly or duopoly might be appropriate).

~~~
Bedon292
Amazon already has GovCloud and C2S. If they also got JEDI, they would have
complete lock in / monopoly for all of the federal government's cloud
services. And with the length of all these contracts, they get guaranteed lock
in for a long time. There needs to be competitors in the space to prevent
complete lock in. Otherwise the price of re-doing all the systems for a
different cloud would be immense. They could basically set whatever price they
want on their services, as long as it cheaper than the cost of moving they
will keep the contracts for decades to come.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Amazon already has GovCloud and C2S. If they also got JEDI, they would have
> complete lock in / monopoly for all of the federal government's cloud
> services.

GovCloud isn't a contract, it's a region certified to meet FedRAMP-HIGH and
other federal data requirements (and is available to non-federal-government
customers that need that, as well as federal government.) Microsoft has an
equivalent (Azure Government), and it's public regions are FedRAMP-HIGH
certified. GCP also has FedRAMP-HIGH certification in many of their public
regions but doesn't seem to have anything directly comparable to AWS GovCloud
or Azure Government currently.

So, no, JEDI wouldn't give AWS a monopoly either on federal government cloud
or cloud for people dealing with federal mandates like FedRAMP.

~~~
Bedon292
I did not mean to imply that GovCloud was a contract. I though it was the
exclusive provider of isolated cloud services. I didn't realize Azure had its
Government region. Glad that exists, I want to see that competition.

However FedRAMP is not relevant to what I was trying to say. My understanding
is government itself directly uses just the AWS and now Azure isolated
regions. What I was meaning to say was for the DoD, which I though was
exclusively under AWS GovCloud, and AWS C2S, rather than the whole government.
They could certainly be using Azure Government though.

I am glad to know there is more competition than I though. Thanks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> My understanding is government itself directly uses just the AWS and now
> Azure isolated regions.

This is not true, at least based on the discussions I've been involved in with
AWS reps (while my employer is a state government entity, how the feds use AWS
has frequently come up.) There are US Government customers without the
requirements that are only provided on the isolated regions that use the
commercial offerings that have the appropriate guarantees for their data, and
there are non-federal customers that use the isolated government regions for
data which has the higher-level federal requirements that require those
guarantees. FedRAMP isn't the only force here, but it's a key requirement that
drives the choice. (Also, GovCloud was cleared for some requirements before
commercial offerings, so some customers, including some federal ones, are
currently on GovCloud with workloads that could be served on the commercial
regions now.)

------
jsnell
So what exactly is Amazon claiming? That Microsoft didn't actually meet the
RFP conditions? That Microsoft was given the contract despite a higher price?
That Amazon should have been granted the contract despite a higher price and
both providers meeting the requirements, since AWS deserves it due to some
unquantifiable market leader je ne sais quoi?

~~~
HenryKissinger
This reflects poorly on Amazon. Contesting the initial award is one thing.
Continuing their protests after a year of legal proceedings ended in favor of
their competitor demonstrates a sense of entitlement.

~~~
bob33212
This is an all or nothing situation for Bezos. Either they win this or they
say "Fuck it, FedGov/FedRamp are EOL. Have fun with MSFT/ORCL/IBM"

~~~
oreaway
What are you talking about? AWS has an absurd amount of government contracts,
JEDI notwithstanding. A quick Google estimates that ~20% of AWS revenue comes
from govcloud, and I don't think that even includes the secret contracts AWS
supposedly has with the three letter agencies.

~~~
Bedon292
[https://aws.amazon.com/federal/us-intelligence-
community/](https://aws.amazon.com/federal/us-intelligence-community/) not so
secret

------
Danieru
"We currupted the selection criteria fair and square! How dare such a currupt
contract get awarded to anybody else."

Signed your neighborhood indie bookstore; Amazon.

~~~
themacguffinman
Is there any evidence at all that Amazon initially corrupted the contract?

~~~
nickff
It appears as though Amazon likely helped to write the requirements, such that
they would be selected. If you write a strict and tailored set of
requirements, you can basically select the contractor/product before you even
put out the RFP (request for proposal); this is relatively common.

~~~
DetroitThrow
Source? I've heard this claim several times but I've not seen it
substantiated. The original poster was asking for evidence explicitly as well.

~~~
nickff
Taibbi, Matt (25 February 2019). "This Battle of Billionaires Was Inevitable".
Rolling Stone. Retrieved 25 February 2019. "This started as a lawsuit filed by
would-be bid competitor Oracle, whose co-CEO, Safra Catz, is reportedly one of
Trump's biggest supporters in Silicon Valley. The suit suggested Pentagon
procurement officer Deap Ubhi's involvement in the JEDI negotiations
constituted a conflict. Ubhi used to work for Amazon and in 2017 tweeted,
"Once an Amazonian, always an Amazonian.""

~~~
tankenmate
Is there anything beyond the appearance of impropriety, is there anything
technical in the RFP that strongly suggests either direct or indirect
influence from AWS? (I ask this in all sincerity).

~~~
wmf
There are some requirements in the RFP, like RAM sizes and ruggedized
hardware, that exactly matched AWS specs but not Azure (at the time).

------
nsajko
A little context:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Defense_Infra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Defense_Infrastructure)

------
Cyphase
> by AWS Public Sector Blog Team

I think this probably came down from a few levels higher up the corporate
ladder than that..

------
themacguffinman
Perhaps a bit off topic but "Jedi" in the title should be uppercased to
emphasize that it's an acronym.

~~~
Cyphase
Right up through "corrupted", I think part of my brain thought this might be a
Star Wars reference, referring to a corrupt empire.

------
mattacular
Amazon throwing a little tantrum and complaining about the lack of "a fair and
even playing field" is basically pure karma.

------
Hnrobert42
I got annoyed when they misused “begs the question” immediately followed by
“inspector generals” instead of inspectors general. Not sure who is writing
Amazon’s press releases, but I expect more from a trillion dollar company.

------
halcy0n
This does seem questionable but the VA and DoD are Microsoft shops and imo
AWS' offerings for Windows are a bit lacking...

------
rubyist5eva
megacorp complaining about another megacorp because they didn't get the
government handout contract, yawn

------
mynegation
I am not saying this is how DoD contract went, but many enterprise cloud
accounts were won by Microsoft by throwing the weight of the Office behind it.
Basically Microsoft is saying: you are using Excel and Word and
Exchange/Outlook already, now we are going to host it all in the cloud. As a
company you look at AWS and think - sure startup do their Unixy things in AWS,
but what is Amazon’s Exchange? What is Amazon’s Excel? Will they PaaS my MSSQL
instanceS? Who knows..

------
flubert
Anyone know if Microsoft has a more recent response than:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2020/05/07/amazon-...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2020/05/07/amazon-jedi-re-do-dod/)

?

------
throw_m239339
I had to check twice if it was really the title of the official blogpost.
Amazon isn't being very diplomatic, taking a cheap shot at Microsoft.

------
stefan_
Amazon casting its vote early in this election

------
smitty1e
Irrespective of the legal issues, Amazon needs some competition in the
government market.

------
Zaheer
>There is a recurring pattern to the way President Trump behaves when he’s
called out for doing something egregious: first he denies doing it, then he
looks for ways to push it off to the side, to distract attention from it and
delay efforts to investigate it (so people get bored and forget about it).

Regardless of what you think about Amazon, this sentence alone is incredible.

~~~
MattGaiser
Amazon must be quite sure of the polls.

~~~
jedberg
It doesn't matter to them who wins the next election. If Trump stays in office
they aren't getting contracts anyway, because of Jeff Bezos and his ownership
of the WaPo.

~~~
Supermancho
> It doesn't matter to them who wins the next election. If Trump stays in
> office they aren't getting contracts anyway,

These statements seem at odds. If Trump is elected, then Amazon doesn't get
contracts, but Amazon doesn't care if Trump is elected?

~~~
jedberg
In other words they don’t have to play nice and bend the knee to the current
admin in case they win because it will make no difference.

------
perl4ever
>This begs the question, what do they have to hide?

I was on board until this.

------
supernova87a
Would they protest if they had won it?

------
ZeroCool2u
When the initial JEDI contract was announced and having used AWS, GCP, and
Azure I imagined a few scenarios that might come to fruition. Considering the
scale and complexity of a large 'enterprise' org AD deployment, I found it
hard to believe that Microsoft would come away with nothing.

The most realistic outcome seemed like the DoD would rely on AWS for most
infrastructure simply because the people at the top wouldn't know better and
regulatory capture. I figured they would, almost begrudgingly, bring Azure
into the mix, simply because Microsoft makes it nearly impossible these days
to retain a completely on prem AD deployment and how in the hell is a
bureaucratic monstrosity like the DoD going to disentangle itself from Active
Directory?

Another scenario is that if whomever is in charge of making the final decision
is a bit more forward thinking and has some vision, they'll go all in on a
multi-cloud strategy for maximum redundancy and resiliency and we might see
GCP get thrown in the mix. I think it's really hard to argue against this
strategy for an org as important as the DoD frankly. Some people often make
the argument that starting with one cloud platform and incrementally moving
beyond that is the way to go, but I strongly disagree with this. A true multi-
cloud strategy has to start by incorporating multiple platforms from the
beginning or else you're extremely likely to get locked into a single platform
due to organizational inertia. Not to mention the cost benefits. Locking
yourself into a single vendor basically removes all your leverage to take your
business and go elsewhere. You really can't bluff your way out of that one
either, because what are you going to do? Go redeploy all your applications
that were built with proprietary platform specific tools on a _different
platform_? Nope.

I think the most unlikely, but also most interesting outcome would have been
the DoD goes all in on GCP and the chromebook style of computing, basically
tearing everything down and starting from scratch. If ever there was an
opportunity for that, this would be it, though there are many arguments
against that. I think there's a scenario in which something similar might have
been possible for AWS, but in reality it doesn't seem possible, because AWS
doesn't really have a competitor to G-Suite / Office365. I know they have
WorkDocs, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Having used all three, including Azure, myself though, I really didn't believe
a Microsoft only scenario would come about. Among other reasons, and to be
fair its been a while, but last I remember Azure's annual downtown far exceeds
the other two platforms, which seems like a pretty critical point when
considering the systems running on here may hold soldiers lives in the
balance.

Anyways, I do hope we see a more reasonable scenario come about eventually.
Any single vendor locking in the DoD would be a disaster for national
security, soldiers lives, and frankly the federal budget.

~~~
busterarm
I very recently have built a multi-cloud empire of machines, effectively, and
from my experience it is best to build for each cloud one at a time. The
difference here is you have the day 1 assumption that you will be on all
clouds and you don't lock yourself into vendor-specific features and make sure
your platform can run anywhere with no functional differences to your users.

~~~
ZeroCool2u
That's fair and totally makes sense from the perspective of someone that is
able to enforce that assumption. In my experience in large orgs that condition
is very difficult to enforce and that's when organizational inertia kicks in.
But your method is objectively better if you can prevent people from doing
dumb stuff while you keep working.

~~~
busterarm
We handled it by spinning up everything via terraform and forcing dependency
on those modules & resource bundles. Separate sets for each cloud provider and
it all gets code reviewed by one team.

Essentially we built a platform on top of each cloud.

The difficulty there is groking the differences in network topology and access
control and building something functionally equivalent everywhere.

------
blaisio
I think this is meant to try and make it more of a political issue. Of course
the problem is I don't think most regular people care at all if Microsoft or
Amazon get the contract. Actually many regular people would probably prefer
nobody get the contract.

In other words, this comes across as a hail mary.

To be fair, Trump probably did cause the contract to go to Microsoft.

~~~
bscphil
> I think this is meant to try and make it more of a political issue.

> To be fair, Trump probably did cause the contract to go to Microsoft.

Ironically, you're right, most people don't care about the issue at all (I
certainly don't). But it sounds to me by your own account it's already a
deeply political issue.

------
m0xte
This is the thinly veiled next round of Trump vs Bezos by the sounds.

Hint: There are no winners.

------
padraic7a
Hands up who else is thinking "last days of the Empire"?

------
bfieidhbrjr
Urban liberals from the city of CHAZ want you to know that the orange man is
bad and responsible for all problems. News at 11.

~~~
dang
Please don't post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to HN. We're trying
for something a bit more interesting than internet default here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
kpmcc
This is hilarious. Amazon: "How can you choose MICROSOFT?! We're the best"
DoD: "Uh, sure, but we like Microsoft." Zon: "BUT WE'RE THE BEST. DONT YOU
UNDERSTAND" DoD: "Uh, no" Zon: "BUT, BUT, BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR" DoD: "Tough."

~~~
DetroitThrow
Choosing a contractor out of personal preference of the president is why the
laws around federal bidding were created in the first place - contracts paid
by taxpayers are intended to be based on the merit of the bid.

~~~
smabie
Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are often explicitly favored in
the bidding process. It really depends though, as different government
agencies have different priorities and criteria.

~~~
DetroitThrow
>Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are explicitly favored in the
bidding process.

The exact opposite is true: [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-
owned-biz-rec...](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-owned-biz-
receive-fraction-of-fed-contracts/)

Where did you even hear this claim?

~~~
smabie
I didn't hear about this. I was a party to such a bidding process at a
government agency.

~~~
DetroitThrow
Your updated comment is much less untrue, though the GAO reports widespread
fraud in the procurement processes for these minority, veteran, and women
owned businesses as described in the above link.

~~~
srtjstjsj
That's the only practical response to a ridiculous law.

Affirmative Action for _capital owners_ is absurd.

