Offerors?? Who came up with that? What's wrong with suppliers, vendors, responders, partners or any of the other words that could have done the job far more effectively?
The US Department of Defense (DoD) still intends to choose just one vendor for its multibillion-dollar cloud contract – amid complaints from Oracle's co-CEO that such a plan "makes no sense". The Pentagon made waves last month when it published a draft proposal document calling for just one cloud services provider to run the …
Yet it's the term which is used in legal circles. I'm not a lawyer myself but my understanding is it specifically refers to someone offering a contract, without the ambiguity associated with all of your suggestions, at least from a legal standpoint.
The law (in various jurisdictions) is full of this sort of stuff. It makes sense to them. To the rest of us, your comment probably says it all.
Well, even the BBC now uses the hateful "Coup Plotters", coined by some anonymous drone working for King George the First.
It seems that if the choice is to go looking in a thesaurus or simply stick "ers" on whatever verb is appropriate, Verb Stickers beat out Look Uppers every time.
Large chunks of this outsourcing are already outsourced - I believe IBM were the big losers in 2012 when a number of US government departments moved to some shiny new, government only bit-barns provided by AWS called "GovCloud".
The GovCloud DC's operate independently of the public AWS service and connectivity is "controlled". While I don't know for sure, I would assume Azure and Google have similar siloed DC's if they have any existing government contracts.
The AWS service is continuing to expand so I suspect Oracle's real question is "does this mean we missed out on the government cloud game?" I suspect I know the answer unless Oracle have some super secret DC's hiding somewhere...
Oracle has been a major beneficiary of DoD purchasing and probably still is. When I left government employ at the end of 2011, Oracle had a fairly secure lock on DoD large and medium database business and we had a lot of little ones on it as well. There were a few DB2 large mainframe databases and a sprinkling of DB2 for Linux/Unix/Windows and SQL Server on Windows. I had tried without success to stir up a little interest in Postgresql, for which commercial support then was about $700 per year as against the extortionate Oracle rates.
"All in one convenient place for the Dark Side to read accidentally unsecured data."
All in one convenient place for the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans to concentrate their hacking efforts.
Talk about painting a target on your back, all your eggs in one basket, single point of failure etc.
The force can have a strong influence on the weak minded:
BOFH: "You don't need to see his login credentials..."
General 1: "...We don't need to see his login credentials"
BOFH: "These aren't the files you're looking for..."
General 1:"...These aren't the files we're looking for"
You have no issues reaching it. A chat at dinner is of no consequence.
Hurding Catz have failed to understand the primary principles of Golfocracy. What is not decided on the Golf Course is not decided at all. Dinner... Pfa... Now hitting a few balls along the green at an exclusive Presidential Resort...
What is not decided on the Golf Course is not decided at all.
All the more reason to support my proposal for the prohibition of golf.
Make all of it illegal (professional and amateur, including putting and driving ranges, "crazy" golf, even practice swings in private, including the sort of noncey pretend swing that Demot O'Leary does. Plough up the golf courses and plant sprouts. Have the RAF's two remaining Tornados tour the nation, using precision weapons to take out golf club houses (maybe let the RN take out Wentworth with a small nuke on a Trident). Make ownership of golfing equipment, paraphernalia and clothing a criminal offence. Reintroduce the death penalty and corporal punishment to ensure justice has the tools to deal with the scourge.
And most important of all create a Golfing Offenders Register, with members of the public able to search for any registered offenders living near them.
I cant see Amazon getting an an easy time of this given the grudge that Trump has with them.
I bet if the Pentagon tries to sign a contract he will use his executive powers to veto it.
Even so i cant agree with any of these multi billion outsourcing contracts, they seldom deliver value for the tax payer and cost mega bucks to sort out if and when they crash.
"Even so i cant agree with any of these multi billion outsourcing contracts, they seldom deliver value for the tax payer and cost mega bucks to sort out if and when they crash."
Are you sure the existing services are in-sourced? A quick Google search suggests DoD were outsourcing at least as early as 1996.
This is an attempt to rein in spending on outsourcing providers (stares at a number of traditional US outsourcers using largely "legacy" data centres) by using more modern alternatives as other US Government departments have already done.
And while your comments about Trump not wanting to use Amazon, Oracle making public statements suggests they've already lost the cost war versus other providers and are hoping that complaining will allow them to retain their existing arrangements. I'm not sure Trump will be so interested in supporting excessive government spending on Oracle over a cheaper alternative...
I suspect that's he starts his negotiations; so, I'd suggest that AWS has good shot at it. He's being hardest on the most obvious choice so that they come in low.
Under most circumstances I'd say that's a good idea, but I'm not sure its total legal, OPOTUS being the President hence the acronym :P Either way it's certainly not ethical, but neither legalities nor ethics play a role bigly in OPOTUSs super eereeor mined ;)
I think these providers miss the point of the Pentagon. Its Not to provide large monolithic companies with a constant revenue stream. (Well unless your BAE systems, Lockheed martin or Nothrop Grumman, in which case all bets are off).
I think Oracle are just feeling the pressure of not being the only game in the field for Large data storage and processing. I sense an detailed Licence Audit comming up.... I think thats how they usually deal with this sort of thing isnt it?
Logged in to say the same thing - look at the wording of the objections - it's like a spoiled brat complaining that mommy isn't getting them the new thing they have to have to impress their pals.
I'd prefer our government look out for out interests, which have near-zero overlap with Oracle. Not to say that this is the best way to do that, but see above - the entitlement complex presented is just disgusting.
You forgot Boeing, probably the most-subsidized of the MIC in the US. No, make that the most subsidized company of any sort - for the most decades too. They even get an Ex-Im bank to loan foreign customers money to buy their products. Which some subset sometimes pay back someday. We pay the rest.
Personally, I hope IBM gets the contract because of their solid history in conventional data-centers & the requisite security associated with many of them. This gives them credibility when they present their "private cloud" offering to the DoD imho. But who knows? Anyway, it would be a huge shot in the arm for Big-Blue in the cloud space as AWS, Google & Microsoft has that segment on lock-down so far.
Oracle... the worst vendor in the world from an InfoSec prospective, and yet they want to provide their 2 cents worth. BTW Oracle, this decision makes fantastic sense.
- This is a private cloud system. So you want to manage it differently.
- Looking for one vender only, DOES spur competition. The best deal wins. Taxpayers like this.
- Choosing multiple vendors allows them to increase prices incrementally together. The costs will mainly be fixed, and the format will be such that, at the end of the contract, the DoD isn't subject to vendor lock in.
- One vendor means simplicity. Don't have to send personnel to a variety of vendor training courses. Again, great for the tax payer.
- One solution makes it much easier for patching and maintenance.
- One solution makes it easier to secure. MUCH easier to secure.
There is more, but you get the point.
Oracle is obviously isn't looking out for the tax payer or the security of DoD cloud data. It's only out for its own bottom line.
Oracle, get your security together before you start telling others how silly their ideas and solutions are.
Looking for one vender only, DOES spur competition. The best deal wins
But only for the initial purchase. Once signed, the vendor is more than able to screw the customer with either price increases, huge lags in price decreases or just s**t service.
As for a ten year contract: That's crazy. I'm reluctant to sign five year contracts, let alone a ten year contract. That's a guarantee of getting shafted by the supplier (Unless, of course, brown paper bags, etc...)
Like the Fed can't build their own secure cloud. Outsourcing DoD cloud needs is flat out stupid, multi-sourcing it would be even worse.
For the price of one Carrier the DoD could build the world's largest and most secure Cloud and thereby guarantee our sensitive data is safe. Some things should never be privatized.
"The objective of achieving commercial parity seems contrary to the duration and single award aspects of this contract. The single-award removes competition, which was the very impetus that drove the current cloud market.
Also, the potential duration for this vehicle is 10 years, nearly equal to the age of the cloud market. This duration fails to recognize how fast this market is changing… The structure of this vehicle locks DoD into one vendor for the next decade."
OK the first objection sounds ludicrous to me. The award of this to a single party removes competition? Surely the award of a multi billion dollar contract should ENSURE a very high level of competition to try and win the contract. It should mean the Pentagon can drive an extremely tough bargain.
The second objection is much more reasonable, in regards to vendor lock in. However, with clever contract wording, advancements in cloud technology (got that sounds awful - bloody wishy washy sales terminology), advancements in off premises distributed computing technology (much better) could be part of the contract and mean that the vendor lockin does not cause problems in a few years time as things advance.
10 years is an age in computing, but at least a contract that long should drive a bloody good price. Provided the management oversight is strict and the contract wording tight, DoD should get a good deal...
Insert meme here: What if I told you that a cloud was just someone else's computer?
In this case, several computers. How many several-several computers does it take to make them happy? It makes perfect sense to have all of the computers under one cloud with one service provider. As long as that service provider has diverse and alternate paths and carp-loads of redundancy, what's the issue? If the other bidders take issue with how the contracting process is being run, they can file a formal protest. They know how to do this. Let's not confuse contracting with politics.
But OPOTUS has vowed eternal vengeance on Amazon for some slight or other.
Witness how he characterizes Amazon's use of the Post Office (as I understand it a model that could have been lifted from Mr Trump's own low-bid playbook except money actually changes hands) as "taking advantage" rather than "job creation" - and here I thought OPOTUS was all about the job creation, too.
..bod has come along and convinced them it will be cheaper to go full cloud (it won't). And going with one provider. Great idea and when that one provider goes tits up you'll be without data for however long they are down.
I'm not a fan of cloud. Yes, one of the reasons is that I fear it will make me redundant at some point in the near future.
Our company has this excellent integrated battle management, tactical, strategic and logistics planning, inter-services coordination and communication, autonomous AI platform command and control applications suite. Just the thing you've been looking for. And a a very reasonable price.
Oh, sorry. It isn't supported on Azure.
"Oh, sorry. It isn't supported on Azure."
Yet. Obviously, the winning cloud provider will have a scheme whereby third-party suppliers to the DoD can pay them lots of cash to make their product lines compatible with the DoD's preferred cloud.
Ten years on, the cloud provider has the additional advantage during the bidding for renewal that almost every third party's products are compatible with their cloud but (quite possibly) not the opposition (or, at least, not demonstrably so). So they get the renewal. Repeat ad infinitum.
Who pays? Well, the successful cloud provider makes a shed-load of dosh from the third party suppliers. Those suppliers pass on the costs (now anonymised) to the DoD, which forks out using tax-payers cash. So, er, I guess it is US tax-payers who pay.
Initially. Of course, the next stage is for it to become a requirement all across NATO.
Free market economics: it's great. Someone ought to tell the US government about it. At the moment, they appear to believe in the magic money tree.
"can pay them lots of cash to make their product lines compatible with the DoD's preferred cloud"
Sorry, not interested. We have a lot of paying customers (including some NATO members, who aren't locked into an unsupported platform) and a limited number of developers. None of which we want to divert to a (very likely futile) task of getting anything stable on Azure. We aren't an 'anonymized' third party vendor who sells through Microsoft. Our reputation for technical competence is more important than a slightly larger pile of cash.
And in an alternate universe ... the fauna infesting the Trapezoid would have long since built and be maintaining a highly scaleable, efficient and secure computing system, on-prem inosfar as many distributed bunkers can be such, with a dedicated workforce of military specialists who have exactly the right attitude to do IT and do it right (much more so than most civilian IT "professionals", in truth). They would hurl your bullet-riddled corpse out the window of a third-floor office on the Acute Angle after you so much as breathed the suggestion that the world's biggest military and custodian of ~3,000Mt of nuclear fire should put any of its data or process on systems it didn't control and which are renowned for unreliability, expense and insecurity. Even suggesting that seemingly anodyne stuff like data from Human Resources Command could be "cloudified" should be enough, in that world—where the phrase "social engineering attack" is actually understood, and taken seriously—to get you five years in Leavenworth.
If any organisation on the planet has an armour-plated case for building its own cloud; well-guarded and fortified places to distribute it amongst; the type of people and training to get it done; and the budget to make it happen: it is surely the US military.
I like to believe that in the parallel world, where people are not all completely, mouth-breathingly thick, the Trapezoid is doing it right. While here, in a universe where a cretinous orange man-child can be President, the Pentagon is following up its almost treasonous mismanagement of the F-35 fiasco with something even dumber and, amazingly, perhaps even more damaging to America's defences: moving to cloud, where the only worthwhile questions will be: First, how completely will the taxpayers be screwed for poor-value pork-riddled rubbish this time? - and Second, will the expensively dysfunctional insanity of this decison become obvious before the (one) chosen provider's systems and architecture become a crumblingly obsolete mess; or after?
But the plan came under fire from industry groups and vendors who argued it would limit competition and innovation, ..
The Pentagon made waves last month when it published a draft proposal document calling for just one cloud services provider to run the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) Cloud program for all branches of the military.
Those two statements are at odds with each other if the JEDICloud Program is Open Tendered to All and Sundry.
The comment .... The objective of achieving commercial parity seems contrary to the duration and single award aspects of this contract. The single-award removes competition, which was the very impetus that drove the current cloud market. ... is easily mitigated and negated with the Cast Iron Clad Guarantee that Any and ALL Better Future Offerings will be Contracted to Provide JEDI Cloud Services and Servers.... with Absolutely Fabulous NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT Tools Delivering Live AI Goods as Earthly Assets ...... with Practically Remote Virtual Accesses to a Heavenly Devil's Lair/Greater IntelAIgent Game Player Home Grown Grounded Environment/Grand AIMaster Fields being a Premium Prime Attraction for Self-Actualisation and Universal Realisation with Myriad Demonstrations of ITs Potent Phormations for General Presentation/Mass Multi-Media Managed BroadBandCasting with Advanced IntelAIgent BetaTesting of Future Live Operational Virtual Environments and Alien Space for Mass Recolonisations on/of Earth?
DARPA/IARPA SkunkWorks Stuff I presume, and can even assume, to leave behind all of the pedestrian legwork which is a zealously guarded secret for reasons of Sublime InterNetional Security, and need not be further discussed out in the Wild Wacky Open where IT is Free to Air.
Is the US DoD Pivoting Towards a Presenting Omniscience in Locked and Loaded CyberIntelAIgent Fields/Private and Pirate Live Operational Virtual Environments?
Both Pandora and Cassandra would like to tell Venus, Mars is Immaculately Captured and Perfectly Maintained for COSMIC Detention and Attention to Volcanic Eruption.
NEUKlearer State Secrets for Pondering On and Sharing with Truly SMARTR Great Friends and LOVERs ..... Highly Accommodating Acquaintances/Right Royal Barges that be as a Leading Light to Passing Ships in the Night .
Nurse, have you another bottle? This one is reading empty.:-)
I can think of no level on which this makes sense, especially in terms of defense. Depending upon which cloud vendor they go with there could be a single or a very short list of facilities where the Pentagon's data resides, which, to my mind, is a security disaster no matter how you look at it.
So, just as a thought experiment, suppose Amazon is awarded this contract. Great. AWS currently has the biggest slice of the market, so it seems like a sensible choice. Amazon has just 4 or 5 AWS data centers in the US (and I think it's a pretty safe assumption that any contract involving Pentagon is going to include a stipulation that all data physically stay in the US). That means a single enemy submarine loaded with cruise missiles could wipe out the entire Pentagon cloud in a single strike. In a wartime scenario it's not difficult to imagine that happening. This problem does not go away completely because the Pentagon has multiple cloud providers, but it does become less of a problem as you add more providers.
And why one contract to rule them all? It's not all about controlling the contract, it's about also a bit about the office of the secretary of defense exercising control over the fractious clans within DoD. Given four possible contract awards, each service would immediately end up with it's own incompatible cloud. Because they hate each other. Come budget time, the enemy is not ISIS or whatever is on offer, it's the USN, or USAF, or.... If OSD can find the one cloud to rule them all, then it eliminates a lot of potential stupidity. Even if it costs more, that's a plus.
Anyone remember the NMCI abortion? Navy and Marine Corps were supposed to pioneer the glorious world of outsourcing through this, with Army and Air Force watching. When it turned out to be a total cluster fsck, the Marines pretty much pulled out and USA, USAF ran away screaming - leaving Navy holding the bag.
Not sure what Oracle is complaining about - not obvious to me they have a cloud with enough scale to compete in this game. A wisp of smoke rising from a crack pipe is NOT a cloud.
Because they do not have elite executive access to specialist sub-contractor expertise nor Proprietary Intellectual Property rights to necessary future intensive mass reprogramming of Paramilitarised Assets Software and Greater IntelAIgent Game Firmware which is not AI Vapourware.
To tend to deny it ensures that they will never avail themselves of new weapons and strategies that deliver success rather than compound former campaign failures.
Bet it doesn't go to someone you'd think of as a cloud provider like Amazon. It either goes to a traditional defense company like Raytheon (any of whom can easily afford to build a cloud of whatever size is needed from what they'll end up charging) or to some company no one has ever heard of which will essentially resell someone else's cloud at a huge markup.
After it is too late for the DoD to change course 60 Minutes will expose that some seedy figure like Eric Prince is behind it, using connections to the White House or Pentagon to get a shady deal that ends up benefiting those involved in the selection process to the tune of billions. Anyone who has been paying attention to all the ethical lapses in Trump's cabinet knows that the swamp was not only not drained, but is deeper than ever and filled with larger scarier creatures than before.
In the past, the DoD has required second-sourcing agreements for semiconductors. However, the incompatibility of cloud services APIs means that no second-sourcing is possible. If the DoD writes to the AWS APIs, their code can't use Azure or GCP. Likewise if they wrote to he Azure APIs, they can't mix and match AWS or GCP services. The DoD could use its leverage to level the playing field and define a selection of APIs to be offered by all providers, regardless of any copyright claims that might be made.
When a request for bids is written this way, it almost always means that they've already decided which vendor they're going to select, and they're just "going through the motions" so that no one can accuse them of cronyism.
I certainly hope the selected vendor is not AWS. There's already enough animosity there.