Amazon Asks Court To Halt Microsoft's Work on Pentagon 'War Cloud' (thehill.com) 65
Amazon has asked a U.S. federal court to stop Microsoft from working with the Pentagon to implement a $10 billion cloud-computing contract, arguing that the project should stall until the courts work out whether Microsoft deserved to receive the lucrative deal. From a report: Amazon is suing the Department of Defense (DOD) over allegations that it allowed President Trump to exert "improper influence" over the contract process, ultimately steering the cloud-computing project away from the online retail giant and towards Microsoft. Amazon was the clear front-runner in the competition before Trump began intervening in the process over the summer. Even as Amazon sues in federal court, Microsoft and the Pentagon have been forging ahead to lay the groundwork for the enormous cloud-computing project. But Amazon says it's improper for the deal to move forward until the U.S. Court of Federal Claims makes the final call. "It is common practice to stay contract performance while a protest is pending and it's important that the numerous evaluation errors and blatant political interference that impacted the JEDI award decision be reviewed," an Amazon Web Services spokesperson said late Wednesday night, adding the company "is absolutely committed to supporting the DoD's modernization efforts and to an expeditious legal process that resolves this matter as quickly as possible."
We didn['t get money (Score:2, Troll)
Amazon doesn't have ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's about the money not the ethics.
It's not just this $10 billion either, once locked in to one cloud provider that tap will keep running for decades.
Re: We didn['t get money (Score:2)
New phrase for managers -- war cloud (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Noxious Vapor?
Divine Wind?
Poison Gas?
Re: (Score:2)
When the F-35 passes over with it's War Cloud, it is going to leave behind a War Trail.
It's like a chemtrail, except instead of blathering like an idiot you just explode and leave a giant crater.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not divine, but nowhere near poison.
My dictionary says: 1. noxious -- injurious to physical or mental health, so the latter kind of counts.
It does, however, come from the same place as most ideas of those people.
Re: (Score:1)
Everything is the cloud.
War cloud, public cloud, private cloud, the cloud.
Cloud. Cloud. Cloud. Cloud. Cloud. Cloud.Cloud. Cloud.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want any cloud!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So freedom of the press is contingent on whether it hurts the president's feelings?
Apparently, it is with this President -- at least judging by what he constantly says about the Press.
Re: (Score:2)
Make lemonade (Score:1)
Re: Make lemonade (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you referring to the DoD? The part of the US government that has managed to attain and maintain *everything you have and everything you will ever have* in complete and utter safety and security? And done similarly for a large fraction of the world for 70-80 years? Including defending your right/ability to make a complete an utter fool of yourselves in public?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Make lemonade (Score:1)
Ask any of the Vietnamese or other SE Asian refugees who have resettled in the US about freedom. I'm sure they could educate you.
Re: (Score:2)
We can attribute the last 30-40 years of your list to Congress and the civilians in the Executive branch. After Vietnam, DoD decided they'd had enough, but they are under Executive branch civilian control so when those jerks wanted a war, DoD had to oblige. Any other hobgobblins from which you are running?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you referring to the DoD? The part of the US government that has managed to attain and maintain *everything you have and everything you will ever have* in complete and utter safety and security? And done similarly for a large fraction of the world for 70-80 years? Including defending your right/ability to make a complete an utter fool of yourselves in public?
Since WWII the US has fought more than a dozen wars directly and many, many more by proxy. The resulting death toll has been in the millions. Look it up if you're really interested and then tell us how many of them were for the "safety and security" of the US and how many were fought for our "right/ability to make a complete an utter fool of yourselves in public?" Are you that naive to believe that they're "fighting for your way of life"?
Re: (Score:2)
That is one hell of a split infinitive.
Think about who you do business with (Score:2, Insightful)
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both Microsoft and Amazon have no problem supporting the US war machine.
As do aircraft companies. As do auto makers. As do farmers and food companies. As do clothing companies. As do banks. As do firearms manufacturers. As do computer makers. As do energy companies. As do tire and rubber companies.
So what?
There's absolutely nothing immoral about contracting with the military. It's a part and parcel of any national existence, and a legitimate function of government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely nothing immoral about contracting with the military. It's a part and parcel of any national existence, and a legitimate function of government.
Businesses don't have morals - they have ethics. People have morals. Except people in upper management - upper management do not have morals. People in upper management understand that their workers have morals, and will often pretend to have the same morals - until the Almighty Dollar comes a-calling!
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a part and parcel of any national existence, and a legitimate function of government.
National defense is - Empire-building is not.
The last time the US was in a real defensive war was 1814. Get a clue - military outposts in 183 countries is an Empire.
I've turned down lucrative military gigs because it's immoral. I've also cut loose friends who've sold out and gone to work for the MIC. They say they can't think about brown children being exploded by Hellfire missiles because they have a mortgage
Re: (Score:1)
So many people fail to take into account opportunity cost [wikipedia.org]. You can't evaluate deleting something based solely on its cost. You have
Re: (Score:1)
Really? The Russians handled that problem pretty well.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? The Russians handled that problem pretty well.
If you mean the Soviets were losing and sending women and children to the frontlines, until the winter cold snap hit so hard that diesel fuel started to turn solid effectively stalling the Nazi war machine...then I guess they handled it.
Re: (Score:2)
As two American companies why should they not support their democratically elected government and its policies?
Arrogance at it's finest. (Score:1, Troll)
What an idiotic lawsuit. Fuck off Bezos. You're a CIO too, and at the end of the day, you are free to choose the vendors you want.
Can't believe this arrogant prick is essentially shuttering the entire US retail industry, doesn't pay taxes, and still has the balls to whine like this when he loses what amounts to pocket change.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, sounds more like Trump to me. Hell, he even claimed he was smart to get out of paying taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiotic lawsuit. Fuck off Bezos. You're a CIO too, and at the end of the day, you are free to choose the vendors you want.
Can't believe this arrogant prick is essentially shuttering the entire US retail industry, doesn't pay taxes, and still has the balls to whine like this when he loses what amounts to pocket change.
Unfortunately, it's become common practice for the loser to almost automatically challenge a big defense contract in court. Boeing did it and won the tanker replacement contract, and now they're making tankers that can't do the job (as if we haven't been making air refueling tankers since the freakin' 1950's. How hard can it be?). In the Pentagon, legal bills for challenges to lost contracts is now pretty much part of the cost of doing business.
Re:Arrogance at it's finest. (Score:4, Informative)
In that case, the Air Force modified the requirements after the first round of bids were submitted, which clearly taints the process.
If the government doesn't follow its own rules in the process, it seems fair to redo the process.
You're vastly overstating the problems, too. They've done lots of test flights, and it can clearly do the job. It is missing a required indicator that helps let the pilot know that they're making a mistake when they bump the stick during fuel delivery, and pilots have complaints that the boom is too stiff on approach. The missing indicator caused a delay that will cost Boeing money (fixed price contract), and the boom can be adjusted.
The cost of lawyers is very small compared to the contract value, and the Pentagon doesn't usually hire lawyers for specific cases; they have a large team of lawyers with security clearances on staff already.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to add, Boeing made the whole current fleet that is flying. It isn't "we've been making air refueling tankers since the freakin' 1950's" and "they're making tankers that can't do the job." Rather, they've been making most of the refueling tankers in the world, and they still are, and they didn't follow the new spec precisely enough in this case. And they are making less money because of it, so maybe their bean counters will learn this time.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, the Air Force modified the requirements after the first round of bids were submitted, which clearly taints the process.
Which is pretty similar to the complaint here with Trump inserting himself late in the process. Even though I am not a fan of Trump this does seem like something within the bounds of the commander in chief's authority though, but I am not a lawyer. And even most lawyers wouldn't know much about government procurement contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but there is still a huge difference; Boeing made the entire existing fleet of US refueling tankers, 100% of them. So they'd be expected to be the very strong favorite in a fair bidding process.
Here, Microsoft already does a lot of this type of work for the government, and Amazon does not. So Microsoft remains the (probably prohibitive) favorite even if they redo the process. And intentionally causing delays when they're not likely to win won't endear them to the military.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Bezos is not *completely* not free to choose anyone he likes. It matters *why* he likes a particular vendor. As the chairman of a publicly traded company, he can't order Amazon to do things for his *personal* benefit. He has a *legal* obligation (a "fiduciary duty") to look out for the interests of *all* stockholders.
The President, likewise, is not supposed to use his office for his personal ends. He is certainly not allowed to use his authority to punish his personal or political enemies.
In the
They have a case. (Score:3)
We've had our state sued for NOT picking the lowest bidder, for picking the lowest bidder, and having the lowest bidder sued by the highest bidder for defrauding the government. I don't think I've seen the highest bidder winning triggering a lawsuit...because I don't think the highest ever wins; but I'd be shocked if somebody didn't sue.
In my state, most every sizable government project ends up in court by one of the losers. Sure all the bidders may bribe people in various ways but only 1 can win and they
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft the right choice for JEDI (Score:1)
I use AWS day in / day out and love a lot of it. But JEDI is more than just the Cloud - enterprise software, hardened (real) computers, etc. This is stuff that AWS doesn't do by itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Neither does MS, though I suppose you could call office enterprise software, but not good enterprise software. And "hardened (real) computers....bwahahaha...
Re: (Score:2)
For me I would never choose anything from MS to replace AWS, because for software AWS is a lot better, but I'd much rather have MS supplying the military. They have way more experience, and a more serious culture.
Amazon is likely to ship stuff to a random address on a shipping blacklist by mistake, "oops, no big deal, just an off by one error when loading the list."
But, but but (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, Mikhail from Russia Today, but no, the US Government does not engage in that practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Department Of BSOD (Score:2)
How about a neutral nat'l security meta-analysis? (Score:2)
While I do not believe either Amazon nor Microsoft is qualified to handle this contract, since Amazon already has the contract with the CIA, it would be wrong to allow them to manage both contracts --- we don't want another 9/11!
Also, with
Secure platform. (Score:2)
They need to post a bond. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the judge is to grant an injunction halting work while the case is litigated, he should also require Amazon to post a bond high enough to be used to pay Microsoft for any losses resulting from the delay, should Amazon lose.