Top Amazon Boss Privately Advised US Government on Web Portal Worth Billions To Tech Firm (theguardian.com) 56
A top Amazon executive privately advised the Trump administration on the launch of a new internet portal that is expected to generate billions of dollars for the technology company and give it a dominant role in how the US government buys everything from paper clips to office chairs. From a report: Emails seen by the Guardian show that the Amazon executive Anne Rung communicated with a top official at the Government Services Authority (GSA) about the approach the government would take to create the new portal, even before the legislation that created it -- known to its critics as the "Amazon amendment" -- was signed into law late last year. Amazon and the Trump administration appear to have an antagonistic relationship because of the president's frequent Twitter attacks on the Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post. But the behind-the-scenes lobbying by Amazon officials underscores how the company has quietly amassed an unrivalled position of power with the federal government.
The 2017 correspondence between Rung -- a former official in the Obama administration credited with transforming the federal government's procurement policies before she joined Amazon -- and Mary Davie at the GSA, offers new insights into how Amazon has used key former government officials it now employs -- directly and as consultants -- to gain influence and potentially shape lucrative government contracts. It has not yet been determined which companies will build the US government's new e-commerce portal, but Amazon is widely expected to take on a dominant role, giving it a major foothold in the $53bn market for federal procurement of commercial products.
The 2017 correspondence between Rung -- a former official in the Obama administration credited with transforming the federal government's procurement policies before she joined Amazon -- and Mary Davie at the GSA, offers new insights into how Amazon has used key former government officials it now employs -- directly and as consultants -- to gain influence and potentially shape lucrative government contracts. It has not yet been determined which companies will build the US government's new e-commerce portal, but Amazon is widely expected to take on a dominant role, giving it a major foothold in the $53bn market for federal procurement of commercial products.
And how (Score:1)
Exactly am I supposed to take advantage of the government if they are allowed to walk around asking questions of experts? Disgusted I am. That is the absolute worst thing I have ever heard.
Re: And how (Score:1)
It's all about which "experts" they ask and what answers they get.
In this case, they're basically handing money to their "friends in high places" who are as qualified to comment on this subject as Trump is to give reviews on hotel dining.
Re: And how (Score:2)
Thanks for the chuckle.
its called rent-a-friend (Score:1)
it sounds sleazy, but its an absurdly common part of the business of government to call people you know in industry for advice. this happens for essentially two reasons.
1) government workers will tell you a realistic, if unsatisfying truth, whereas industry will tell you what you want to hear, the way you want to hear it.
2) appointees are always on the lookout for executive jobs when their appointment is over.
that said, sometimes the advice is pretty good, and not what the bureaucrats would have come up wi
Rungs (Score:5, Funny)
Amazon executive Anne Rung
I bet her coworkers are willing to step on her in order to climb the corporate ladder.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Federal procurement is a hot mess (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not true at all.
The whole point of the GSA program is to streamline services. When you have an approved GSA schedule, the government has pre-negotiated rates for your services (It's a complicated process, whereby the company has to promise to give the Federal Government their lowest prices. It's actually illegal to provide a lower price to anyone else.) That contract officer you mention *can* in fact pick up the phone and call and call any GSA technology supplier and order the equipment based on the pre-negotiated rates.
Granted, the specific ask you mention for laptops would probably have to be procured competitive bid since it's unlikely any supplier would have pre-negotiated rates for whatever specific laptops they are needing. But, in government, it's pretty rare that jobs just come up out of no where unexpectedly where they need to direct hire 20 people where they couldn't just move some folks around temporarily from other projects. And even that event would be rare. MOST likely what would happen in your situation is that the government would just contract that particular need that is causing the staffing out to a consultant company that has a GSA schedule, and the consultant can hire who ever they like and buy whatever equipment they like.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually illegal to provide a lower price to anyone else.
Not quite. It is a violation of the contract that is signed when agreeing to do business with the government, as you are required to give them accurate information on how your other customers are treated.
Which can stretch into fraud, but may simply be a tort.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this particular case the entity the contractor would be defrauding is the Federal Government.
The punishment for doing so would depend on the severity, but it's likely to get you a visit from the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy there, Soldier of Freedom.
The federal government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It's a program they offer to help streamline their procurement. You're business can apply to be a part of it if you like. No not, whatever. Most businesses don't because it's a heck of a lot of work to get in, but if you choose to agree to the terms there is a lot of work you can get.
Re: (Score:1)
Say I needed twenty buttons for a communications console that are only made by AT&T. Buying them from AT&T would have required 3 days of paperwork justifying why I had to buy them from the only manufacturer, despite the fact they were not a small business and were not female or minority owned. Instead I would would call three such companies, probably operating out of the family garage, who had no idea what
Re: (Score:2)
Under what statute? How is ATT a prohibited source? You can't give a gift to an employee, but you can give time and materials to a project.
Re: (Score:2)
Which in the end, is why it is better for Governments to do as much internally as possible. Contracting stuff out, is not about reducing price, it is all about introducing increasing levels of corruption, just the way it is. Part of the problem is being forced to take the lowest price, in private business only idiots always take the lowest price, smart people always work to price performance ratios, getting the most bang for the buck. Government works smoother when it is all internal, the more they contract
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PM: "I need 20 new laptops, desks & chairs, a coffee machine and a water cooler, and an armored personnel carrier"
Procurement: "That's fine, they should be ready by the time your contractors show up for work"
PM: "Oh and I need a couple of thumb drives"
Procurement: "Erm... how about we schedule a meeting so we can review your exact requirements? Then we can go over the list of suppliers, request bids, and we'll have them in 3 to 4 business months"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's closer to the reality of US Federal procurement.
And then ... (Score:5, Informative)
30-40 other industry people advised the US government [federalnewsnetwork.com], offering many suggestions on rewriting the amendment to make it more open to other businesses besides Amazon.
And congress listened to them and made changes [federalnewsnetwork.com], which basically made everyone happy except the government contractors who were making a killing selling $37 screws, a $7,622 coffee maker and $640 toilet seats [latimes.com] to a government that wasn't allowed to buy from other sources.
And all this happened over a year ago.
I don't see anything wrong here (Score:2)
Amazon: You know, you guys should make a new website. This one sucks. We would do it like this.
Government: That's a good idea, we'll make a recommendation to congress for them to order us to to procure one.
*GovernmentpProduces specifications based off of Amazon's recommendations, Opens procurement to competitive bid*
*Government receives qualified bids*
*Government awards contract to lowest qualified bidder (Amazon)*
I really don't see anything wrong with Amazon informally petitioning their government to fix s
Curious (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that the story repeatedly references "the Trump" administration in attack sentences, but later buried in the text we find out the Amazon exec doing the surreptitious advising...used to be in the Obama administration? (My suggestion is that she's likely simply leveraging personal contacts for personal/corporate enrichment.)
Do you really think Trump had a hand in making Bezos richer? Really? Because there's some cognitive dissonance here: Trump can't be a complete know-nothing boob nincompoop AND ALSO a criminal mastermind meticulously micro-managing the development of an Amazon-favoring web portal?
"But the behind-the-scenes lobbying by Amazon officials underscores how the company has quietly amassed an unrivalled position of power with the federal government. " TBH Amazon has generally amassed an unrivalled position of power WITH ALL OF AMERICAN COMMERCE.
Not surprising (Score:2)
Couple quick questions (Score:3)
1) Amazon offers quality products at reduced prices and delivers customer-focused service - these are the reasons they have been so successful - why shouldn't the federal government consider purchasing goods and services from Amazon, just as countless millions of Americans do?
2) If the woman from Amazon was highly-regarded for revolutionizing government procurement under Obama administration, why does she instantly turn evil when she steps into Amazon?
3) Since when is seeking/accepting advice from industry experts (in this case the woman that used to head this up this department under the previous administration) BEFORE passing legislation considered a bad thing? Better government officials should refuse to speak with industry experts before passing legislation?
It is amazing how a simple story can be twisted to try and attack this administration. At it's roots, this story is very simple:
"Before drafting legislation that will change/revolutionize the way the federal government spends an estimated $53BN/yr on various office supplies, the current administration consulted with the highly regarded woman that previously was credited with revolutionizing government spending."
Yeah, imagine, someone in the Trump administration working with experts from the previous administration to address issues in gov't spending. - those corrupt bastards!
summarized (Score:3)
Article summarized: Amazon does same lawfully-crooked things as other megacorps, reaps similarly lucrative rewards.
Re:summarized (Score:4, Insightful)
Article summarized: Amazon does same lawfully-crooked things as other megacorps, reaps similarly lucrative rewards.
Lawful-Evil is the term you are looking for.
You know, back when this used to be a geek site...
Awful! (Score:2)
1.Firm sells office supplies. ...I don't see it.
2. Client buys office supplies.
3. Firm advises on how to order office supplies to save money in the future..
4. Scandal, because
What is the Government Services Authority? (Score:2)
I've been doing Federal contracting for years and I've never heard of them. Are they part of the General Services Administration [gsa.gov]?