Makes sense, this does, says US appeals court as it swats away Oracle's protests in $10bn JEDI contract spat

Seems the only things being generated by Pentagon deal are legal arguments

Updated The ongoing JEDI pantomime took another turn today [PDF] as Oracle's challenges to the handling of the winner-takes-all $10bn cloud contract were rejected by a US appeals court.

Somewhat irrelevant to Microsoft, which was awarded the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract in October, Big Red's protest was related to an alleged breaking of the rules in how the contract was set up by the Pentagon, as well as allegations of conflicts of interest with Oracle's fellow JEDI loser, Amazon Web Services.

The lucky winner, pending all the appeals and stays, of the JEDI contract will be expected to provide America's Department of Defense with enterprise-grade cloud computing services over the course of 10 years.

That the deal was awarded to a single provider, rather than multiple vendors, upset Oracle among other things. Hence the lawyers and legal challenges.


Microsoft claims AWS has used new JEDI mind trick with secret contract objection filing


The US Court of Federal Claims took a long, hard look at the database goliath's gripes, and its decision on Wednesday was not good news for Larry Ellison's crew.

Although the court agreed that a legal error had been committed when Uncle Sam opted for the single-source approach, it also concluded that the error had been harmless. Even if the multi-source approach had been used, "Oracle would not have been able to satisfy the requirements of Gate 1.2."

Gate 1.2 required a JEDI bidder to have already in place at least three commercial cloud-hosting data centers within the US, separated by at least 150 miles, and met various requirements regarding FedRAMP, which is the US government's program for assessing and managing the security of computer systems used by federal workers.

"Oracle," according to the court, "did not satisfy the FedRAMP Moderate Authorized requirement as of the time the proposals were to be submitted."

Furthermore, the court also rejected Oracle's contention that Gate 1.2 was unreasonable because it "unnecessarily restricted competition." Not so, said the court, which looked at the needs of the Department of Defense and reckoned its requirements were reasonable.

Thus, in this instance, the complaint regarding single versus multiple awards was moot.

The decision, filed this morning, held that "the only logical conclusion is that, if multiple awards were made, the security concerns would ratchet up, not down."

If multiple awards were made, the security concerns would ratchet up, not down

The court also looked into Oracle's contention of conflicts of interest of three former Dept of Defense employees that had allegedly tainted the procurement. For instance, two were negotiating for employment with AWS at the time of the JEDI procurement, according to court filings. The DoD had already denied there had been any conflicts of interest after probing itself last year.

Again the court rejected the challenge, agreeing with the contracting officer that while there may have been some conflict, "those conflicted individuals did not impact the decision to use a single award approach or the substance of the evaluation factors."

Those worrying how all those lawyers will manage to pay for their Ferraris need not fret. The rejection by the appeals court of Oracle's challenge is one of several appeals being processed by the US legal system regarding JEDI.

In a separate vendor bias lawsuit filed by Amazon against the United States and Microsoft, the Pentagon last month [PDF] asked for extra time to look over the contract bids again, and was allowed to stall the case until September 16. Amazon’s objection to the whole affair is based on a contention that Microsoft’s bid relied on allegedly "non-compliant" storage technology and should therefore have been ruled out.

Oracle, Microsoft and Amazon all declined to comment. ®

Updated to add

On Friday the US Department of Defense officially confirmed the $10bn contract is going to Microsoft.

Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022