CIA spooks picked Amazon's 'superior' cloud over IBM

Procurement report reveals tech gap in cloud cold war


The CIA picked Amazon over IBM for a lucrative government contract not because of price, but because of the company's "superior technical solution" – a view that contrasts with IBM's vision of itself as the go-to tech organization for governments.

The revelation came to light on Friday when the US Government Accountability Office released a partially-redacted report that outlined the reasons for why the spooks plumped for Amazon over IBM for a $600m private cloud contract, and why IBM protested this decision.

The GAO report partially upheld two of IBM's complaints relating to percieved pricing and technological differences between it and Amazon, and the CIA's subsequent relaxing of a solicitation term for Amazon, and rejected the rest.

Now, the CIA has 60 days to decide to either take the GAO's recommendations and reevaluate the two companies, or stay with Amazon.

Although Amazon came in with an evaluated annual price of $148 million per year versus IBM's $94 million, the CIA chose Amazon for its technical sophistication, the report says.

"While IBM's proposal offered an evaluated [deleted] price advantage over 5 years, the [source selection authority] concluded that this advantage was offset by Amazon’s superior technical solution," the report says.

IBM's price did appear to have some provisions attached to it which freaked out the procurement body, which "found 'serious cost risk' associated with IBM's proposed contract clause which indicated that the contractor would [deleted]."

We don't know what the [deleted] bit could say, but speculate that it's typical for major enterprise contracts to contain provisions relating to cost-overruns that can trigger additional fees.

Amazon versus IBM

IBM's school report card shows it needs to go back to cloud class

IBM was given another black mark because the language in its tender indicated its cloud could not provide auto-scaling for custom apps written by the CIA – unlike Amazon.

"The technical/management evaluation team also assigned a significant weakness under the written element of the technical approach subfactor for IBM's failure to make clear in its proposal how IBM would modify its existing commercial cloud to provide the required auto-scaling capability for the intelligence community," the report says. IBM disputed this but the protest was denied by the GAO.

IBM also argued that Amazon's cloud outages throughout 2012 should have been considered by the agency when selecting Amazon. The GAO disputes this, noting that the agency did evaluate the service outages but "concluded that the reports and their knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the outages were not sufficiently detailed to take the outages into account in the past performance evaluation".

In defense of Amazon's reliability, the report quotes a glowing endorsement of the AWS cloud by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which said that it was not affected by outages in specific Amazon data centers because "we implement failover and elastic load balancing but it's simple and inexpensive and very much worth it".

What the report highlights is that though IBM came in with a lower price than Amazon, its technology was seen to be simply lacking by the procurement bods over at the CIA.

A specific area where IBM fell down was in its ability to provide auto-scaling within a platform-as-a-service environment consisting of thousands of nodes that need to process MapReduce jobs over raw datasets of 100TB in size at a time. In other words – Amazon's Hadoop tech beat IBM's.

Given IBM's recent annointment of OpenStack as the preferred platform for its SmartCloud technology, the fact that OpenStack is several years behind Amazon Web Services in capability, and the lackluster take-up of SmartCloud so far, and even the recently acquired SoftLayer bare metal cloud, we reckon that Amazon's technical dominance over IBM is likely to hold true for some time to come.

As we've said, the CIA's decision to choose Amazon over IBM is a significant moment in the evolution of the cloud services industry, and whether Amazon wins or not, the initial decision is indicative of a fundamental change in attitudes by government towards IT procurement.

At the time of writing neither IBM, Amazon, or the GAO had responded to requests for information. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading
  • Utility biz Delta-Montrose Electric Association loses billing capability and two decades of records after cyber attack

    All together now - R, A, N, S, O...

    A US utility company based in Colorado was hit by a ransomware attack in November that wiped out two decades' worth of records and knocked out billing systems that won't be restored until next week at the earliest.

    The attack was detailed by the Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) in a post on its website explaining that current customers won't be penalised for being unable to pay their bills because of the incident.

    "We are a victim of a malicious cyber security attack. In the middle of an investigation, that is as far as I’m willing to go," DMEA chief exec Alyssa Clemsen Roberts told a public board meeting, as reported by a local paper.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021