> you must have full and exclusive control of the infrastructure which underpins the platform used to provide the services
AWS could not have written a friendlier requirement. This means that the tender is being pitched as one that is simply to buy "utility" services, and as such they want to buy directly from the supplier cutting out the middleman. This seems reasonable, but there's going to be absolutely nothing stopping those credits bought for the "utility" services (ec2, s3 etc.) being spent on non-utility services (e.g. Redshift et al). That's where they'll end up being spent, but the tender isn't open to any competitors (your Snowflakes and suchlike) on the non-"utility" front. Absolutely absurd.
Let's put this another way. When you purchase your electricity supply from your *actual* utility company, do you require they own and operate all the underpinning infrastructure? No, you absolutely do not. Because the entire point of a utility supply is that it is interchangeable with any other utility supply and thus the suppliers compete on price and overall service. This contract is a complete inversion of the utility principle to build the kind of lock in we've not seen since IBM were cool.