RFI_License Provisioning and Tracking_Platform One.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- A056017
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) from the Department of Defense's Platform One seeking market research on software license provisioning and tracking solutions. The RFI targets commercial capabilities for monitoring, tracking, and visualizing software utilization metrics across DevSecOps environments, with specific requirements including real-time license tracking, configurable dashboards, multi-tenant self-service provisioning, and compatibility with tools like GitLab, Mattermost, Jira, and Confluence across different impact levels (IL2/IL4/IL5). Key objectives include reducing administrative overhead, enabling data correlation across toolchains, supporting scalability, and ensuring compatibility with DoD IT infrastructure and security frameworks.
Vendors are requested to provide detailed responses addressing alternative software options, technical approaches, pricing information, transition costs, licensing models, and company capabilities. The RFI emphasizes that responses should be unclassified, not exceed 15 pages, and focus on alternative software solutions rather than current in-use platforms. The document includes a comprehensive requirements capability sheet outlining specific technical and operational needs, such as support for Keycloak authentication, multi-tenant license provisioning, and the ability to handle multiple user roles. This market research is conducted by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center's Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division at Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, Texas.
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
T&C and Contact Information
| Note: Please read and complete the middle portion. | |
| 1 | This Request for Information (RFI) is issued in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-3 (Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes - Oct 1997) and is published to obtain information for use by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division (CCSD), Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, Texas, for market research and planning purposes only. |
| 2 | THIS RFI IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, INVITATION FOR BID, OR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF A SOLICITATION; IT IS ONLY INTENDED FOR INFORMATION OR PLANNING PURPOSES. There is no bid package or solicitation document associated with this announcement. Response to this RFI is strictly voluntary and will not affect any potential offeror's ability to submit an offer if a solicitation is released. Any requests for a solicitation package will be disregarded. The government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or otherwise pay for the information solicited. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the government will arise as a result of preparing submissions in response to this RFI and the government's use of such information. Submittals will not be returned to the sender. Respondents to this RFI may be asked to provide additional information/details based on their initial submittals. |
| Company Name: | |
| CAGE/DUNS Code: | |
| Address: | |
| POC Name: | |
| POC E-mail: | |
| POC Phone Number: | |
| 3 | As indicated above, this is solely market research for software alternatives. Please be advised that any quote for software that is already in use, quote for alternative software, or any submissions intended for award evaluation should not be included in conjunction with this document. Any input on this document that contains responses for the software already in-use should not be included and should only contain alternative software data/answers. Your responses will only be used for planning purposes. Please address any comments and/or questions you may have regarding this RFI in writing to the listed POC. |
RFI Q&A
| The Department of Defense (DoD) Platform One is seeking information from industry regarding available commercial capabilities and technical approaches to support the monitoring, tracking, and visualization of software utilization metrics across a variety of on-premises and cloud-based tools within a DevSecOps operational environment. The purpose is to enhance software asset accountability, user activity visibility, and operational efficiency through an integrated dashboard solution. |
| Note: This document is only interested in alternative software. All three sheets in this document is to be completed. |
| Alternative License Types: | |
| 1 | What alternative software do you offer that is similar to License Provisioning & Tracking? |
(Please provide details on available options, such as enterprise, cloud-managed, or open-source/community editions. For each alternative software option/solution, please provide how it differs from the listed license.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
2 For each alternative software option/solution, please provide information, ideas, and solutions that support one or more of the following objectives:
1. Enable near real-time utilization tracking and reporting across enterprise DevSecOps tools.
2. Offer a configurable dashboard interface displaying tool usage, user activity, system status, and compliance metrics.
3. Reduce administrative overhead in software license monitoring and cost forecasting.
4. Enable data correlation across toolchains to support operational decision-making.
5. Ensure compatibility with existing DoD IT infrastructure and security frameworks.
6. Support scalability across programs, enclaves, and mission owners with minimal disruption.
7. Enable license provisioning from a centralized interface to a multitude of applications (ex: Mattermost, GitLab, Jira, etc.) across the unclassified impact levels (IL2/IL4/IL5)
8. Enable multi-tenant self-service license provisioning.
(Please specify any feature restrictions, scalability limitations, or support differences among the licenses (e.g., data retention, search query limits, or alerting capabilities) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
3 For each alternative software option/solution, please provide how it meets the above requirements.
(Please identify core features or capabilities that are shared across all options, such as log aggregation, visualization tools, and monitoring capabilities, regardless of the license tier type.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
4 For each alternative software option/solution, clarify how it meets our requirement needs per the Requirements Capability Sheet (Sheet 2).
(Please highlight specific ways in which each alternative software can address our operational, security, and compliance needs, particularly in areas like multi-environment visibility, role-based access control, and support for compliance auditing.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
| Pricing Information: | |
| 1 | For each alternative software, please provide estimated transition and training costs and schedule for both transitioning to and from your proposed solution. |
(Include details on onboarding costs, consulting, or configuration support required for a smooth transition. Specify any training options available, such as workshops, online courses, or documentation resources, and their associated costs.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
2 For each alternative software, please provide any price plans associated such as monthly, trial, annual.
(Indicate if discounts are offered for longer-term contracts or high-volume deployments. For cloud-managed options, provide cost breakdowns for storage, query processing, and other usage-based charges.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
| Other Considerations: | |
| 1 | Are there any additional features or benefits associated with the alternative software that we should consider? |
For example, are advanced analytics, machine learning-based anomaly detection, or pre-built integrations with other monitoring tools included at higher licensing tiers? - Please clarify any value-added services, such as dedicated account support, proactive health checks, or best-practice workshops, that come with certain licenses tiers. [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
2 Is your company willing to enter into contracts with a base year with up to four one-year options? If not, how many years is your company willing to agree to?
(For longer-term contracts, specify any guarantees on pricing, renewal terms, or opportunities to adjust the contract scope to accommodate potential changes in our data volume or monitoring requirements.) [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
3 Interested parties are requested to respond with information addressing the following:
• Company capability statement and relevant past performance.
• Description of technical approach and tool compatibility (COTS, GOTS, Open Source).
• Supported integrations with named software platforms.
• Overview of data security, access control, and compliance capabilities.
• Sample dashboards or data visualization methods.
• Licensing models and pricing structures (if applicable).
• Timeline for delivery, customization, and deployment.
• Any additional value-added features, such as automation, AI/ML, or anomaly detection. [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
4 Responses shall be submitted in completion of the check boxes in the third sheet in this documents, writing and shall not exceed 15 pages (excluding cover page and appendices). All responses must be unclassified. Proprietary information must be clearly marked. [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
5 Past experience with similar efforts or with government organizations [ENTER ANSWER HERE]
Requirements Capability Sheet
| License Provisioning & Tracking ALTERNATIVE: | [TYPE NAME HERE] | ||||
| Requirement: | Ready on Day 1 | Future Capability | Estimated date of Capability | Comments | |
| 1 | Real-time utilization software license monitoring, tracking and reporting across enterprise DevSecOps tools. | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 2 | Configurable dashboard interface displaying tool usage, user activity, system status, and compliance metrics. | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3 | Collect utilization data for such tools: | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3a | GitLab | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3b | Mattermost | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3c | Atlassian Jira | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3d | Atlassian Confluence | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3e | SonarQube | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3f | Red Hat | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3g | Figma | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3h | SD Elements | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 3i | Other cloud/on-prem hosted platforms | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 4 | Support scalability across programs, enclaves, and mission owners with minimal disruption | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 5 | Compatibility with existing DoD IT infrastructure and security frameworks | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 6 | Enable data correlation across toolchains | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 7 | Ability to track a variety of licenses as well as thousands of license users | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 8 | Self-hostable and containerized | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 9 | No Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 10 | Ability to interact with Keycloak for authn/authz, user info, group membership assignments, etc. | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 11 | Ability to provision Collab Tool licenses in DSOP applications across multiple impact levels (Mattermost, GitLab, Jira, Confluence, etc) where licenses are used | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 12 | Ability to support a multi-tenant concept "Onboarding Supervisors" to self-service provision licenses to only members of their specific team | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 13 | Ability to transfer licenses from any entity to an other | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |
| 14 | Ability to handle multiple roles of viewer/tenant admin/full admin | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .