
Tech companies can now bid on the Pentagon’s $10B cloud contract - IN4RA3D
https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/26/jedi-10-billion-department-of-defense-bidding/
======
throwaway180728
Using throwaway account.

This is all Oracle’s doing. AWS was originally awarded this contract but Safra
Catz (co-CEO Oracle) is on Trump advisory committee. She planted the seeds
that Bezos can’t be trusted due to his ownership of Washington Post and what
that publication has been saying about Trump.

Fully expect Oracle to make a huge run at this business. And don’t forget,
Oracle was started as a company from an initial contract with the CIA. There’s
not a single tech company more aligned with the US government than Oracle.

[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/04/16/pentagon...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/04/16/pentagon-
jedi-cloud-contract-amzn-orcl-catz-trump.html)

~~~
gaius
That in a world in which Azure, AWS and GCP exist there also exist people who
would choose Oracle or IBM clouds literally boggles the mind. Who on Earth are
these people?

Aliyun is just as bad of course but at least it’s users have the ultimate
excuse

~~~
seanhunter
It's completely absurd that anyone would choose IBM or Oracle, but having
heard first hand the sales pitch that IBM cloud give you I understand it a bit
given that a lot of people with decision-making power don't have enough tech
expertise to detect nonsense and FUD when they hear it.

In my case, the guy spent half the pitch flat out lying to me about AWS and
how Amazon charges etc. (sample lie "They basically don't let you transfer any
data out once it's in the cloud"). I let him go for quite a while before I
revealed that I actually know what I'm talking about and calling out his bs
("Gee that's pretty weird because I host quite a few servers in AWS and I'm
able to get data from them just fine. I wonder how that works?")

~~~
orf
> They basically don't let you transfer any data out once it's in the cloud"

And how much does transferring 1PB of your data from AWS to say GCP cost, with
those outrageous egress costs?

That's how they stop you.

------
stefan_
_The Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) lack of a coordinated enterprise-level
approach to cloud infrastructure and platforms prevents warfighters and
leaders from making critical data driven decisions at “mission-speed”_

From the _Statement of Objectives_ [1]. Though it's probably more about the
"Online marketplace offering" mentioned. I can see it now, bunch of office
workers deploying some PHP software to their JEDI cyber cloud.

1:
[https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=9283ca4f1d895893346235548a...](https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=9283ca4f1d895893346235548a631d39)

~~~
philipov
> _the "Online marketplace offering" mentioned. I can see it now,_

Generals who bought this item also bought...

~~~
um_ya
"Now with multi-colored tracers!"

------
snarfy
My guess is Oracle Cloud will make the most aggressive bid. Getting in bed
with the government and negotiating long term contracts is how they compete.

~~~
oneplane
Yep, and it's not just quantity over quality with them, but also legal over
quality... Business-wise a sound strategy, but morally bankrupt and
technically offensive.

~~~
posixplz
Have you used the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure product, formerly Bare Metal
Compute? It's not a low quality product, by any means. I'm not sure I
understand your criticism, unless the point was to be intentionally nebulous.

------
jftuga
When I toured the Las Vegas Switch data center a month ago, I asked what all
the AR-15s were for. The response was that it is required by their all ex-
military security team as a requirement to host highly classified government
servers.

~~~
jonwachob91
I'd imagine you mis-understood the statement...

I previously used to do "Physical Security Assessments" of Classified
environments. An armed guard was never a requirement... The data center should
be following physical security requirements listed in AR 380-5 [0]

As for the all ex-military bit, that's just b/c veterans are the only people
with security clearances and little to no professional skills. The DoD will
give an 18 y/o infantryman a security clearance just b/c he asks. Good luck
getting one from industry or any other government agency if you haven't
demonstrated a 100% need for one in a professional capacity.

[0]
[https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR_Details.asp...](https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR_Details.aspx?ID=0902c851800103a7)

~~~
briandear
> 18 y/o infantryman a security clearance just b/c he asks.

Not true at all. Most enlisted infantry don’t have a security clearance. An
standard infantry platoon officer typically has only a Secret clearance — only
getting Top Secret in special cases and with special units. An 18 year old
enlisted Ranger would have a clearance, but some grunt in the 3th Infantry
Division almost never has a clearance unless there is a specific mission need.

The standard for clearances is based on the need to access classified
information. An industry or professional partner working in those areas has a
higher risk profile because they are typically accessing or building
classified systems — which is a far greater risk than the access afforded to a
typical infantry enlisted soldier.

clearances for non-military working on DoD projects were, until 2018 handled
by OPM which has a significant backlog. So that made OPM clearances much
slower. However in 2018, the law was changed to allow DoD to bypass OPM for
clearances.

As far as ex-military with little or no professional skills, that’s a bit
insulting and heavily generalizing. It really depends on their role. If they
are physical security, then “professional” skills (as you might define it)
aren’t relevant. Their job is physical security. As far as other ex-military
with no professional skills, that’s ridiculous. Many ex military have highly
developed professional and technical skills.

But nobody gets a clearance “because he asks.” An 18 year old kid in the
infantry doesn’t get to ask for anything, let alone a clearance.

Also, an 18 year old has considerably less background to check than a 35 year
old software engineer. I had a clearance from State that took 18 months to
process because I had lived in 5 different countries, including countries that
weren’t considered “friendly.” But an 18 year old who lived his whole life in
the same town — those clearances are issued very quickly.

And you should have a 100% need to get a clearance. I am not sure why that
would even be worthy of debate.

~~~
halbritt
When I was in my early 20s, I picked up a confidential clearance in a very
short period of time. IIRC it only took a couple of days.

The need was very well defined. I required escorted access into a missile lab
to service their network equipment. My background was also quite limited. I'd
never traveled much at the time, lived in a couple of states.

~~~
maimeowmeow
Confidential clearance does not seem stringent. You can avoid reinvestigation
for 15 years, while secret needs to be reinvestigated every 10 years.

I've generally heard that secret level work is pretty boring, so I doubt
confidential would be better.

~~~
dx87
You're right about secret level work being boring, it's normally related to
stuff like the exact time and location of a military flight or convoy, or
other things that can impact people at a smaller level, but aren't really
dangerous to the nation as a whole if they get leaked. I think I only ever saw
something marked as confidential one time while I was in the military; general
information was normally unclassified and anything that was deemed sensitive
was bumped up to secret because it was easy to get for anybody that had a
need-to-know.

------
ToFab123
Should a single cloud supplier be considered a single point of failure in the
event of war?

~~~
nickpsecurity
I think it's possibly a single, point of subversion by foreign intelligence.

~~~
swarnie_
Similar to say.... a president?

~~~
rexpop
Abolish the presidency!

------
dandigangi
Doesn't Bezos already have a seat at the Pentagon? I thought he was locked in.
Maybe that was the CIA I'm thinking of.

------
writepub
This kind of contact makes no sense!! Even an iPhone has alternate vendors for
every external part used, how can the Pentagon award it to a single vendor?

They need to pick 3, in my opinion, and make the 3 constantly compete against
one another for higher shares in profits and revenues - you know - an open
market

------
mygo
So what if tech companies can bid? It’s $10B, they likely already know who
they’re going to give it to. Most of this stuff is wired anyways.

~~~
stephengillie
There's usually a fulfillment requirement - basically proving the company can
handle contracts of this size, often from prior contracts.

~~~
mygo
Right. Of course there is. That’s not my point. My point is that, before
accepting any applications, the administration likely already knows who they
want to give this contract to. That entity will be capable of doing the work,
of course, but there’s too much politics in $10B for it to be given solely on
merits.

~~~
dahdum
The terms are also important, and assigning the contract without any
competition ensures they will be incredibly one sided.

~~~
mygo
Yep they use it to drive up the price of the contract.

Reminds me of when I was a pledge a decade ago. The fraternity with one of the
best houses was kicked off campus. So the owner, seeking new occupants, put
the house up for bidding. There were a lot of implications to having your
letters on that house— anyone who had that house would automatically be
guaranteed an excellent fraternity experience. Everyone who was in the know
already knew the seller was going to give it to one specific fraternity that
wanted it. So most fraternities who were eyeballing the house didn’t even
bother. Still, my fraternity engaged, and in the end it was the remaining
bidder along with the aforementioned. Ultimately, even though we gave the best
bid (we could fill up all the rooms and at a better price), it still ended up
going to the other fraternity, because politics. However the biggest winner
was the seller, because they not only gave it to who they wanted to give it to
from the start, but they also got to drive up the price for it.

Even though that was my first real exposure to this kind of stuff, I’ve seen
over the years that this is par for the course. Actually just last month my
company, partnered with two universities, was involved in what turned out to
be a wired $10 million grant. Truly open bids are rare for contracts with
major implications. For any big contract, it’s good practice for interested
parties to use their connections to try to find out if it is wired or truly
open before spinning their wheels and dumping their resources into it.

------
qazwe
Interesting.

------
yters
Do we want to speed up war? Some dev accidentally merges the "launch the
nukes" PR, and nuclear apocalypse commences.

~~~
Bahamut
Even if the US doesn’t do this, you can bet some other countries like China
will have no scrupples with investing in capabilities. US military dominance
shouldn’t be taken for granted. I would expect China to eventually surpass the
US given the people advantage, more top down decision making across the board
(protesting unpopular decisions is less tolerated), and China’s rapid progress
in technology.

I don’t think this is as simple of a decision as some tend to make it out to
be. Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical
spheres.

~~~
mr_spothawk
> US military dominance shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Should it be taken as positive on the whole, though? Dominance is a reality
that we live with, and one that the US certainly benefits in some ways from.
However, there are another 7b (or so) people on the planet who suffer the
consequences of our military dominion (their backyards), national interests
(their natural resources), etc...

> Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres.

there's a bias on HN towards blaming "the tech" for all "the things"... how
about: social unrest, resource extraction, and empire building? these are much
less tech-centric, yet real and studied causes for geopolitical reshapement.

~~~
Bahamut
My comment on military dominance was a neutral one - I was making no judgment
on it being a good or bad thing. However, if you are an American, you almost
certainly would rather have it where your country is in command versus the
other possibility (Note: I am a first generation American who has served in
the Marine Corps as an infantryman).

My comment on technology is not just confined to electronics - there is a long
history of military technology affecting battles, and perceived
advantages/disadvantages of countries, which results in decisions being made
according to that calculus. One small slice of that history is the
introduction of guns to Native Americans. I purposefully did not say it was
the only cause, and it is a complete misreading of my comment to state
otherwise.

~~~
kazagistar
There is a lot of money being dumped into war capabilities, and as an American
I would rather it go into making lives directly better rather then killing for
unclear overall benefits.

------
qop
As long as Amazon doesn't get it, I'll be pleased.

------
mattlondon
It will be interesting to see how this plays out considering the huge
controversy around project maven & google. I fully expect the HN moral outrage
machine to kick into overdrive when this is signed.

I would suspect that the major providers would be better off to work with a
third party on this, rather than run it themselves. E.g. had Project Maven
been done through some random contractor who used GCP just like any other
customer does, I dont imagine it would have got the same level of hysteria
that it did with Google being the main contractor.

~~~
stevehawk
Amazon already provides the IC's main cloud. I'd imagine they're expected to
win this one as well.

