Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon (nytimes.com)
152 points by jbegley 6 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 99 comments

"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.

> 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.


The NYT changed their headline after publication.

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

"Judge sides with side A" is to my recollection pretty standard terminology in legal reporting. Interesting that they felt the need to change it.

Not sure where the 42 came from, but requiring the party seeking an injunction to post a bond is pretty standard on a case like this. I would read absolutely nothing into it.

Why would you have that perception at all?

Because it's pretty standard in government contracts to sue after you lose just-in-case. Another example is Sig Sauer winning the M17 / M18 contract and Glock suing. When I hear of this, I assume it's just a frivolous lawsuit.

But what does that have to do with the judge being biased?

Not the judge being personally biased, per se, but in a frivolous lawsuit the defendant is made a victim of otherwise unnecessary legal fees and process, which is a bias in the system. It seems more fair that in a case where there's a high chance the lawsuit is frivolous and the plaintiff party can reasonably part with the money for a time, putting in a provision like this helps even things a bit.

It's a fig leaf.

It's not about the judge being biased, but about amazon really having nothing to lose compared to what they could gain, and swinging for the fences. It's also about the next contract.

They're unlikely to prevail, and have already, through their past actions, turned a lot of DoD people against them. If they had performed better with their previous contracts, they would likely have won this.

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


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.

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.

> Right now, it hardly rates

This is an underrated commentary.

I'm continually amazed at what transpires in the public forum, leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open.

Or, it could be like this https://youtu.be/aI0euMFAWF8

> leading me to believe that the US Government has been corrupt for quite some time, but never out in the open.

I feel the same way - Trump is not different from other presidents, except that he does everything right out in the open, while the other Presidents kept a veneer of respectability on things.

Turns out most people really prefer to believe that everything is above board.

There is variance in all things.

Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable.

And side note: corruption in politics is a weighted term. From one perspective, politics is literally the business of corruption. I.e. how to use democratic support to influence policy and procurement.

In the US, until ~1878 (Rutherford B. Hayes presidency), it was the overt policy of both parties that political contributions were the price of office.

And it took the assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned, insane spoils seeker to finally pass reform into law.

We only have to look at our stance on eating meat vs factory farming.

Or, "ignorance is bliss."

It's one thing to not be secretive of impropriety--it's another thing to boast about it.

There is no evidence that he actually did this. People have speculated that he might have and he clearly doesn't like Bezos, but that is not proof.


Was sourced in Mattis's biography, written by a "former Mattis speechwriter and communications director". That is absolutely evidence. Now, proving it simply involves this lawsuit and then deposing Mattis to confirm the claim.

It is not evidence, it is hearsay. Even if Mattis testified that Trump said it Trump may have witnesses who’d say he didn’t say it.

We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.

Eyewitness testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is quite often admissible.

It isn't, it isn't. Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder.

It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.

> Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court

Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

> If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay.

If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2].

That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)).

> It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder.

This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part.

It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay.

[1] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/

[2] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/

It's embarrassing to be wrong, thanks for the correction. I knew that witnessing a confession was admissible evidence but not that it was an exception to hearsay.

> Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court.

Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible)

There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).

Hearsay rules are quite complicated and there are many instances where it is allowed.

It absolutely is but it’s not sufficient if both sides have credible witnesses. All we have now is an unverified claim in a biography. I am not arguing that Trump didn’t say it, he may have. We just shouldn’t rush to judgement on anything like this regardless of who is President. Let the court do it’s job.

The public realm isn’t a legal trial. The standards of evidence are different. We can’t subpoena anyone, as presumably a competent attorney would do to verify Mattis’ claim.

> We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.

Who’s getting convicted in this case?


I didn't downvote your parent comment, but I was preparing to send you a couple of links that educate you about what hearsay actually is, like https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802, and https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid... to correct what you mistakenly think hearsay is.

In this case, Mattis is a witness and would be called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination, about statements the president made to him. The president or other witnesses could dispute that, also under oath and subject to perjury charges/cross examination. If they conflict, as they often do, the judge or jury as the case may be decides the case on the merits.

It would be hearsay if they called the biographer and asked him about Mattis's statement.

Furthermore, hearsay is admissible evidence in a number of exceptions that are described in the links I gave you (including excited utterances or statements against interest which may apply here)

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.

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.

It's not even bias.

It's a vendetta

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.

Why does Amazon's survival preclude a vendetta?

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of awarding MSFT the contract.

Rather Trump has a vendetta against Bezos (instead of personal bias).

> if we started investigating every DoD contract where personal biases decided who won and who lost... the military industrial complex would probably crumble overnight

You have in fact described exactly how most long-term DoD contracts are decided.

There's almost always a losing party who sues.

Perhaps, but they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And on contracts of this size, I would expect the standard of fairness to be higher.

> they should meet some minimal bar of effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety

why not just call a spade a spade?


But that didn't happen, because Obama understood the rule of law, you can't defend Trump illegal actions by saying that if Obama had done that then the "leftists" would be cheering that.

Obama did not understand the rule of law. DACA is completely unconstitutional. The President cannot change immigration law as written by congress. If you believe Obama had the right to create DACA then the same broad executive powers to rewrite immigration laws should apply to Trump, right?

> 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.

On Twitter it sounds like Trump has animosity for Bezos, but is there evidence Trump was involved in the process or the process was biased?


MFLoon 6 days ago [flagged]

That's a shallow reading of his character. Trump loves few things more than being petty and vindictive towards his perceived enemies, and if big money is involved all the better.

I have seen multiple people saw "Jeff is a sore loser" and I truly don't get it. Do you not understand how these businesses work? Every single one of the executives at Amazon (and AWS) are under a fiduciary duty to make sure their business is protected, which includes pursuing legal action when a contract is possibly wrongfully awarded. This isn't Jeff just being salty (I honestly doubt Bezos even cares as AFAIK he isn't very involved in AWS at all). Hell, these same legal cases happen in countless government contracts all the time, they just aren't as publicized as this one because they aren't as large.

Oracle is a McGuffin, they're only mentioned at all in this drama as an excuse for Trump to interfere. They were never any kind of contender for the contract.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's not inherently disqualifying AMZN, they can contract MSFT for that.

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.

Which itself will likely cause a payout to MS. Not $10B but I'd bet substantial...

Most likely not. Almost all federal government contracts allow the government to cancel them for any reason without penalty.

> 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?

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.

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.

Nothing, no matter how bad, can overcome the Barr.

> 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.

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.

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.

>> 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.

Why would Amazon need to support Microsoft software? The contract is to build out cloud infrastructure, not every single product and service and application that might run on it. No vendor could do that.

If the DoD currently has MS systems on traditional infrastructure that they'd like to migrate to the JEDI cloud, there's no reason those couldn't continue to be supported by MS, just as the many other systems that run on the new cloud infrastructure will be supported by their own vendors. I no more expect Amazon to support every piece of software I run on their services than I would expect my appliance repairman to assist with my Hello Fresh cooking (if I had a subscription) just because they "support" my oven.

The various government agencies already have contracts for Microsoft software support. The JEDI contract is for cloud infrastructure.

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

>> 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.

> 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


>>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

[1] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/11/oracle-p...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-amazon-is-heavily-...


[4] https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/trump-mulls-stepping-i...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>> 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".

It was up for debate only among people who think "cloud" is web apps written in NodeJS, Go and Python rather than the old boring applications that used to be ran locally. Microsoft and Oracle are gigantic specialized vendors in that space. "Cloud" part is a commodity.

It's a cloud computing contract, not for desktop services.

If anything, the terms of the contract were specifically written with features only Amazon can provide, and it was assume it would go to them until Trump cronies at Oracle got his ear.

Is MS Exchange a "cloud" or a "desktop" service in your opinion? How about MS SQL or Sharepoint? Do you have any doubt that Microsoft would be able to deliver these products with higher quality if it didn't have to go through an intermediary like AWS?

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


Sometimes all a competitor needs is to impact competitor schedules to overtake market share.

If Trump is really the only thing giving the contract to Microsoft, rebidding might land in 2021 at which point there's some chance Trump isn't in a position to exert influence.

The original reporting on JEDI was pretty much that it was written specifically with Amazon in mind, and that the RFP was a formality.

Someone at Oracle with access with Trump brought it to his attention, and Trump personally intervened, ordering DoD to ensure Amazon was not favored for the contract.

short MS

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.

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

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.

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.

Stop being so hostile (and wrong). The implications of JEDI are far larger than short term revenue. This will set the stage for decades of government cloud work.

I guess I should have put in an /s forgot this isn't wsb

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

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.

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.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact