Microsoft HQSource: Windows Central

What you need to know

  • The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) recently put its JEDI litigation headaches behind it by canceling the contract.
  • However, even though the fight between Team Amazon and Team U.S. government & Microsoft is over, Oracle is not satisfied.
  • Oracle argues the DoD is repeating the same mistakes all over again, simply under the guise of a new contract.

Though the matter's been formally wrapped for some time now, the U.S. Department of Defense's JEDI contract conundrum is still fresh in terms of the lineage of Pentagon-authorized cloud contracts. And now, Oracle is arguing the DoD's new Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC) contract is repeating the JEDI cycle all over again, just under a new name.

For context, to summarize the lengthy story of JEDI: Microsoft was awarded a cloud contract by the Pentagon. Amazon sued, claiming that it was unrightfully discriminated against in the awarding process due to interference by the Trump administration. The battle stretched on for years until late in 2021, the Pentagon announced it was killing the JEDI contract altogether. It was then announced that the JWCC contract would replace JEDI and have room for both Microsoft and Amazon, precluding either party from claiming they'd been unfairly excluded.

VPN Deals: Lifetime license for $16, monthly plans at $1 & more

However, Oracle says the JWCC's seemingly built-in inclusion of Microsoft and Amazon unfairly excludes it, stating that the DoD has not clarified what makes those two cloud providers eligible for the contract and justifies seemingly cutting out other companies from a shot at the deal.

Oracle's view of the matter is that the same misconduct that led to Amazon suing the U.S. is the same misconduct happening with the JWCC, just with a few of the players' positions on the chessboard rearranged (via The Register). Ergo, the case that started with JEDI should live on, and the DoD's award selection procedures should remain under scrutiny and require more clarity in requirements so that Oracle isn't left wondering why it seems to be teetering on the verge of being preemptively excluded.