Here is what you need to know about the battle for the Pentagon’s $10bn cloud contract

I think the U.S. government is ready to leverage the cloud’s flexibility and agility in the same way commercial businesses have. By enlisting the help of public cloud providers, the government could offer better service, roll out apps at a faster rate and give the country a competitive edge within the intelligence community. After all, these data centers have the best equipment. Rather than investing their own capital into building up that kind of technology, they can leverage the cloud to create the same momentum enterprises in the private sector have discovered.

It’s tough to think about this contract without considering what it means for the state of the industry. It’s early days for cloud adoption within the federal market. Whoever wins this contract doesn’t just earn the privilege of saying the U.S. Department of Defense uses their solution; they gain an extra foothold in the fight for market dominance. Ultimately, the JEDI contract is so sought after because it’s not really about a single contract. It’s about how that contract will position the winner to grow its footprint in a niche that competitors haven’t yet touched. 

We know that Google pulled its bid because the project conflicted with its AI principles. If the contract had been open to multiple vendors, Google would have happily submitted a proposal for portions of the work. Their stance echoes what we’ve been hearing in the marketplace -- this is not a single-player market. It would have been in the government’s best interest to seek out a multi-cloud approach, so that they could choose a cloud that suits each workload. In fact, most enterprises are opting for a two- to three-cloud strategy, especially when it comes to mission critical apps. 

There’s a sense that AWS was given an unfair advantage of some sort. I can’t speak to whether or not that is true, but it does seem unprecedented for the federal government to provide that type of contract to a single vendor. So, bidders are asking some tough questions right now: Was AWS given access where others weren’t? Were they given more coaching and guidance to position them to win the contract? 

If the contract had been open to multiple vendors, AWS would certainly win a portion of it. But, other solutions shine when it comes to reliability, availability or resiliency. It’s not necessarily true that AWS was destined to win it all from the start. 

I think it’s possible that AWS was on the inside of this process, getting some information that other providers did not receive. Additionally, one must consider that this is our federal government. Putting all those critical apps into one cloud provider doesn’t seem to make sense for reasons of security and protection. Ultimately, a federal contract is required to offer a level playing field for bidders -- so, I think Oracle has a shot. Whether they will win is to be determined. 

Perhaps the government felt that going with one provider would allow them to build and streamline a cloud strategy more easily. From a security standpoint, it might have seemed easier to fortify a single cloud. However, most people feel as if the JEDI contract should have been awarded to two or even three vendors, as opposed to putting all of the DoD’s eggs into one basket. The risk is actually higher when you put everything into one cloud, and we have technology now to support a multi-cloud approach. 

The federal government is just now beginning to discover the full potential of the cloud, so there aren’t a lot of examples. However, there are companies like Terremark that are making inroads with the government sector. The JEDI contract is a huge deal for whoever wins, because they are going to be locked in for 10 years, and we know that businesses are in the best position to expand their footprint once they secure a large contract. I think that’s why there is so much contention for it.