DOD issues report on JEDI contract, sees award to Microsoft as proper
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has issued a report on the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud Procurement.
“On June 11, 2019, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General initiated a review of the DoD Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud procurement, and an investigation into allegations that former DoD officials engaged in ethical misconduct related to the JEDI Cloud procurement,” the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
According to the report, the DoD OIG concluded that “the DoD’s decision to award the JEDI Cloud contract to a single contractor was consistent with applicable law and acquisition standards. […] We concluded that the procuring contracting officer’s determination to use a single-award contract was in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and was reasonable.
We also concluded that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment’s authorization for a single-award contract was consistent with applicable law.
In addition, we concluded that the JEDI Cloud requirements in the Request for Proposal were reasonable and based on approved requirements, essential cloud capabilities, DoD cloud security policy, and the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program guidance.
In addition, we concluded that the DoD’s inclusion of gate requirements was reasonable and did not overly restrict competition. We also concluded that the DoD conducted the JEDI Cloud source selection in compliance with the FAR, the DoD Source Selection Procedures, the JEDI Cloud Source Selection Plan, and the Request for Proposals, Sections M1 – Basis for Award and M2 – Evaluation Process.
We concluded that the source selection team’s evaluation of the contractors’ proposals was consistent with established DoD and Federal source selection standards. We also note that on February 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion and order which granted Amazon’s request for a preliminary injunction and stopped the DoD from proceeding with JEDI Cloud contract activities until further order of the court.
The court concluded that Amazon is likely to demonstrate in the course of their bid protest that the DoD erred in its evaluation of a discrete portion of Microsoft’s proposal for the JEDI Cloud contract. The court’s decision was not inconsistent with our conclusion that the source selection process used by the DoD was in compliance with the FAR, the DoD Source Selection Procedures, the JEDI Cloud Source Selection Plan, and the Request for Proposals, Sections M1 – Basis for Award and M2 – Evaluation Process.
In this report, we do not draw a conclusion regarding whether the DoD appropriately awarded the JEDI Cloud contract to Microsoft rather than Amazon Web Services.
We did not assess the merits of the contractors’ proposals or DoD’s technical or price evaluations; rather we reviewed the source selection process and determined that it was in compliance with applicable statutes, policies, and the evaluation process described in the Request for Proposals. In addition, however, we concluded that after the JEDI Cloud Contract award, the DoD improperly disclosed source selection and proprietary Microsoft information to Amazon.
In addition, the DoD failed to properly redact names of DoD source selection team members in the source selection reports that were disclosed to Amazon and Microsoft. […] we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated the contract proposals and awarded Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured regarding their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House.”
To read timely stories similar to this, along with money making trade ideas, sign up for a membership to Stockwinners.
This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility.