judge gavel, cloud background

Oracle previews JEDI appeal

Although Oracle has not yet filed a formal brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the company described why it is appealing a recent court decision to deny its protest of the JEDI cloud computing infrastructure contract.

In a Sept. 25 docketing statement, Oracle said  the Court of Federal Claims was wrong to rule that the company “did not suffer prejudice” when the Defense Department decided to go with a single-award for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud contract, a strategy that Oracle claims is illegal.

While the potential $10 billion contract apparently is close to being awarded to either Amazon Web Services or Microsoft, it has been held up by Defense Secretary Mark Esper's review, which was prompted by President Trump's comments that he was concerned the procurement favored AWS.

In its filing, Oracle said the “Court (of Federal Claims) also erred in its treatment of numerous, manifest conflicts of interest and in its determination that the competition Gate Criterion … is lawful.”

The gate criterion is really what sunk Oracle in court because the company acknowledged it couldn’t meet that bar. The court ruled the criteria was reasonable so Oracle would be eliminated from the competition at that point, which means the other alleged flaws didn’t matter. Oracle was not hurt by them. So other problems with the solicitation didn’t really matter for Oracle because the company couldn’t get through the gate.

Oracle wants the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to look again at the single-award strategy, the gate criterion and the conflict of interest allegations.

The Defense Department, through its Justice Department lawyers, also filed a docketing statement. DOD restated the conclusions of the Court of Federal Claims -- Oracle couldn’t pass the gate criterion, which was “an enforceable solicitation requirement.” Because of that, "(Oracle) could not demonstrate prejudice as a result of other alleged errors in the procurement process,” DOD wrote.

AWS, which is a party in the case, has yet to file a docketing statement of its own.

In response to the docket statement question about whether the case could be settled through mediation, both Oracle and DOJ said "No."

DOJ wrote, “We intend to defend the trial court’s decision to deny Oracle injunctive relief. Accordingly, settlement is unlikely.”

Oracle wrote; “To date, DOD has not acknowledged and continues to defend the illegal single award approach, flawed gate criteria, and conflicts of interest that taint the involved procurement.”

But Oracle did say it was willing to participate in mediation.

DOJ answered that question with a simple "N/A".

Looks like there isn’t going to be any quick resolution to this one. No hearing dates have been set with the court.

This article was first posted to Washington Technology, a sibling site to GCN.

About the Author

Nick Wakeman is the editor-in-chief of Washington Technology. Follow him on Twitter: @nick_wakeman.


  • Russia prying into state, local networks

    A Russian state-sponsored advanced persistent threat actor targeting state, local, territorial and tribal government networks exfiltrated data from at least two victims.

  • Marines on patrol (US Marines)

    Using AVs to tell friend from foe

    The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for ways autonomous vehicles can make it easier for commanders to detect and track threats among civilians in complex urban environments without escalating tensions.

Stay Connected