You sound like a smart guy, but most of your considerations are not as important as you think they are.
1) The San Antonio data center: yes, it's a big and shiny one, but you don't pick MSFT vs AWS because of a shiny data center. AWS has amazing DCs across the US, and if you talk to people in the industry, AWS and Google have the most advanced DC technology out there, with Microsoft lagging a bit (but not too far off).
2) San Antonio has 4 military bases: not much to do with picking MSFT, again. The only argument for "human proximity" is Langley Virginia, and it is still a weak one. You don't need physical proximity, actually you try to avoid it (in case of an attack, you don't want to wipe out both the DC and the smart security people using it for the government).
3) Texas has a separate electrical grid: true, but most modern data centers NEED to have built-in redundancy in relation to: power grid, flood plains, supply routes, etc. Which means this is not really a big advantage anymore.
In regards to proximity, I felt the prior commenter was saying that aws had not made a physical investment inside a military state.. meaning the pentagon prioritized bidders that aligned with existing pork/spending priorities. I don’t know if that’s true but it’s an intriguing assertion.
The pentagon is table stakes - everyone has something there. If you’re trying to demonstrate commitment, you invest in the hinterlands... and if you’re trying to justify a decision that otherwise is a deadlock that’s maybe where you find the tie-breakers.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted as the point you’re bringing up is a legitimate one.
If the assessment of 2 vendors finds them equal in most regards wrt the requirements, that’s when you look at somewhat unrelated factors to make the call. In this case, it’s entirely plausible that the DoD considered the fact that MSFT would be pliable to their concerns as a deciding factor.
1) The San Antonio data center: yes, it's a big and shiny one, but you don't pick MSFT vs AWS because of a shiny data center. AWS has amazing DCs across the US, and if you talk to people in the industry, AWS and Google have the most advanced DC technology out there, with Microsoft lagging a bit (but not too far off).
2) San Antonio has 4 military bases: not much to do with picking MSFT, again. The only argument for "human proximity" is Langley Virginia, and it is still a weak one. You don't need physical proximity, actually you try to avoid it (in case of an attack, you don't want to wipe out both the DC and the smart security people using it for the government).
3) Texas has a separate electrical grid: true, but most modern data centers NEED to have built-in redundancy in relation to: power grid, flood plains, supply routes, etc. Which means this is not really a big advantage anymore.