This story is fascinating enough for its Battle of the Titans aspects. But for this blawg, it is instructive for use of the preliminary injunction to curtail the procurement process and the apparent analysis the judge used to determine if the agency conducted a proper analysis, or was biased.
Below are some quotes from some articles I've seen, and you can click on them to go to the source and more information:
Judge Braden wrote that Google had made a preliminary showing that the agency "violated the Competition in Contracting Act," which was passed in 1984 to promote "full and open competitive procedures" for federal contract bids.
Braden said "without injunctive relief, Google will suffer immediate and irreparable harm," and it would cost Google "the opportunity to compete."
Microsoft provided CNET this statement: "The Department of the Interior determined that the dedicated, U.S.-based cloud solution offered by Microsoft met its minimum security and other requirements after a careful and thorough evaluation, and that Google's solution did not. The judge's decision does not address this fundamental determination. We believe the full record will demonstrate that this award is in the best interest of the government and taxpayers. Microsoft can't publicly comment further due to its ongoing relationship with DOI."
Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims wrote, in an order made public late Tuesday, that a July determination by an assistant secretary naming Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite-Federal (BPOS) as the agency's standard for messaging and collaboration did not include "proper justification or appropriate approvals." The agency's determination that BPOS was its standard included "no estimate of internal agency cost" of other options, Braden wrote. The determination also failed to list any potential alternatives, including Google's attempts to sell the agency on its products, she wrote. The agency declined to change its bidding process after Google showed it alternatives to Microsoft, the judge wrote. "The failure to list Google's repeated express interest in this procurement cannot be explained as an oversight," she added.
It might be noted that this fight does not take place in a vacuum, as this story from about a month ago reveals:
GSA Victory a Win for Google Apps and the Cloud
The United States General Services Administration (GSA) announced yesterday that it is selecting Google Apps over bids from Microsoft or IBM to deliver e-mail and collaboration tools. Google has faced some challenges winning larger customers, but the GSA contract demonstrates that Google's cloud-based platform poses a credible threat to its rivals.
Obviously, Microsoft isn't excited by the decision. A post on the Why Microsoft blog says, "While we are disappointed we will not have the opportunity to meet the GSA's internal messaging needs, we will continue to serve its productivity needs through the familiar experience of Microsoft Office and we look forward to understanding more about GSA's selection criteria--especially around security and architecture."
The United States Department of the Interior determined that Google is incapable of delivering the services and functionality it is looking for, while also meeting the security requirements of the agency. Rather than address the security deficiencies, though, Google is suing the federal government claiming that the DOI is showing undo favoritism to Microsoft.
That said, Google Apps was the first cloud e-mail and collaboration solution to achieve FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certification--a goal attained by Microsoft as well a few months later. But, FISMA certification does not include handling of classified information, so it is not a silver bullet for winning government contracts.
No comments:
Post a Comment