Pentagon Says It Will Stick With Microsoft For $10 Billion JEDI Cloud Contract (cnbc.com) 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The Pentagon said Friday it will stick with Microsoft for a major cloud contract that has been disputed in court for months. The JEDI, or Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, deal has become one of the most hotly contested contracts for the Department of Defense. The contract is intended to modernize the Pentagon's colossal IT infrastructure and could be valued up to $10 billion for services rendered over as many as 10 years.
"The Department has completed its comprehensive re-evaluation of the JEDI Cloud proposals and determined that Microsoft's proposal continues to represent the best value to the Government," the Pentagon said in a statement. "The JEDI Cloud contract is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that will make a full range of cloud computing services available to the DoD. While contract performance will not begin immediately due to the Preliminary Injunction Order issued by the Court of Federal Claims on February 13, 2020, DoD is eager to begin delivering this capability to our men and women in uniform." The outcome represents a loss for Amazon, which challenge the award of the contract after the Pentagon gave it to Microsoft in October. An Amazon representative did not immediately respond to request for comment. "We appreciate that after careful review, the DoD confirmed that we offered the right technology and the best value. We're ready to get to work and make sure that those who serve our country have access to this much needed technology," a Microsoft spokesperson told CNBC in an email.
"The Department has completed its comprehensive re-evaluation of the JEDI Cloud proposals and determined that Microsoft's proposal continues to represent the best value to the Government," the Pentagon said in a statement. "The JEDI Cloud contract is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that will make a full range of cloud computing services available to the DoD. While contract performance will not begin immediately due to the Preliminary Injunction Order issued by the Court of Federal Claims on February 13, 2020, DoD is eager to begin delivering this capability to our men and women in uniform." The outcome represents a loss for Amazon, which challenge the award of the contract after the Pentagon gave it to Microsoft in October. An Amazon representative did not immediately respond to request for comment. "We appreciate that after careful review, the DoD confirmed that we offered the right technology and the best value. We're ready to get to work and make sure that those who serve our country have access to this much needed technology," a Microsoft spokesperson told CNBC in an email.
Damn Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More like the DoD needed the technology upgrade. Microsoft will deliver unreliable and badly designed products and services for a premium price, just like they always do.
And states world over are overjoyed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: And states world over are overjoyed (Score:1)
Re: And states world over are overjoyed (Score:1)
Re: And states world over are overjoyed (Score:2)
No, they are not. Only the top secret stuff is air gapped. The bulk of the government and military stuff runs on security vetted cloud infrastructure with only security vetted services permitted - the rationale is that if you vet each later the whole thing will be extra secure.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't airgap a cloud. I'd be willing to bet DoD data gets leaked to the internet sometime within the next 10 years.
Re: (Score:1)
These clouds are all airgapped. Not impossible to penetrate but certainly not as trivial as you make it sound
Any homogeneous architecture is trivial. Once one is cracked they all are, it's just a matter of delivery at that point.
Re: And states world over are overjoyed (Score:4, Insightful)
M$ profit first, last and everything inbetween. Reality is, it should all be done internally, contracting it out is insanity. Profit will be the primary motive, how is the F35 Flying Pig performing, profits are way up and performance is way down, it is performing excellently.
Not matter the bullshit you feed yourself. M$ executives will be driven to generate more and more profits from those contracts by what ever means possible. Hey we cut cut costs by 5% but it means the system is 95% less secure but we can get away with it according to the contract our lobbyists wrote for us to sign, yeah, I'll buy a boat with my bonus, what will you spend yours on. THE FUCKING REALITY EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME
Yes, the Russian and Chinese government are thankful that you are contracting out your cyber security to the lowest tender SUB-contractor, all the employees on crap contracts, desperate to earn more money. Over and over and over again, it is stated a core US principle that corporations only responsibility is to generate profits for investors and that means taking every possible short cut you can get away with and not just that but also shortcuts you will get busted for but the profits will exceed the penalty.
When one of you nukes go off because of lowest tender coding don't be fucking surprised.
Re: (Score:1)
If you believe Azure is in any way sensible competition for AWS you never used both. AWS build services by taking feedback from customers. Azure build services by seeing what AWS did and implementing something minimal as a checkbox ticking exercise. Even the simple things like security groups and load balancers on Azure are badly misdesigned and although they do work they are awkward as hell to use in practice.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What drivel, why do you even make this stuff up? To those of us who have actually used both it's pretty easy to see you're full of shit.
AWS started out focussing heavily on IaaS because giving people the ability to shift their VM infrastructure shift from physical hardware into the cloud was the easiest way to convince people to use the cloud. The problem is, this focus on IaaS never really left AWS, and so that's what they excel at, that's great if you want IaaS, but that's not really the long term point o
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you are posting as an Anonymous Coward.
Try terraform on both. AWS just works. Google cloud just works. Even rackspace cloud mostly just works. Azure has bizarre issues that cause failures or 40 minute pauses. It's unworkable without a large measure of luck.
Azure is more modern than AWS you claim? Have you actually seen the APIs for both? Have you really used both like you claim? Have you talked to support on both platforms? Azure isn't modern, it's more like a bad re-skin of openstack ported to hyper-v,
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing really changes with these types of contracts, the government was already using Windows NT4, now they just get to run it in the cloud, if they can even convince each department to join and pay for the damn thing.
I have been involved in one of those moves to "the cloud", after about 200TB of transfer some data to Amazon Deep Glacier, they got an $8,000/month internal budget transfer to repay Amazon. They quickly went back to a 'classic' vendor and paid them for a 5 year contract.
Re: And states world over are overjoyed (Score:1)
Yes and 5c per object (file) for the PUT request and upload/transfer fees and then other request costs per object if you need to compare the file trees and lifecycle requests. 200TB of small objects is millions of requests which add up very very quickly.
Then later on you also have retrieval costs per object. The storage is dirt cheap, working with the data isnâ(TM)t.
What a waste of money (Score:3)
Are they going to send Larry Ellison a bill for all this extra work, caused solely by him throwing a tantrum and calling his lawyers because he lost the tender.