You IBM haters should re-consider.
Yup. I've been thinking about how I'd approach this bid. Ok, it's got a lot of elements very much out of my comfort zone, but that's where I'm siding with IBM. It's a massive project in terms of compexity, risk and customer engagement. It also strikes me that it'd fit a consortium bid given the tin, glue and plumbing involved. DoD has existing networks to interface and many silos to integrate into the one cloud that binds them all.. So a myriad of service users who'll need to be convinced to get on board and adopt this proposal.
They have the best security people outside the NSA--and NSA isn't sharing.
That's one potentially political problem I'd want to embrace, ie getting NSA on board with security architecture and consulting. I'm assuming they'd be part of the bid review anyway, but theoretically could add a lot of value with stuff like certification, pen testing etc. Downside to 'Cloud' stuff is it's too often a good way to hide things behind an abstract fluffy cloud in a sales pitch.
Then again, it also makes me think fondly of the old X.500 days, and certificates to sign and control permissions. It's one of those things that struck me as a good idea, but seemed to have been nobbled by vendor decommoditisation of standards. I wonder if there's a copy of MS's Halloween paper hiding in an AD somewhere?