Appgate RFI.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFI_AppGate
- Solicitation number
- FA830725QB049
About this file
This is a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division, seeking market research on alternative software solutions to Appgate. The RFI targets software vendors to provide detailed information about alternative software options with specific focus on zero-trust security capabilities, including enterprise, cloud-managed, and open-source editions. Key requirements include identity-centric authentication, compliance checking, support for on-premises/cloud/hybrid environments, FedRAMP authorization, 24/7 support, integration with IAM solutions, and compatibility with major SIEM platforms.
The document outlines comprehensive evaluation criteria across 21 specific requirements, requesting vendors to provide details on transition costs, pricing plans, licensing options, and additional features. Vendors are asked to explain how their alternative software meets operational, security, and compliance needs, with particular emphasis on multi-environment visibility, role-based access control, and audit support. The RFI explicitly states that this is for market research purposes only, is not a solicitation, and responses are voluntary. Interested vendors should submit completed information to the government points of contact at Jamail.walker.1@us.af.mil and Kyle.hamby.1@us.af.mil.
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
Note: This document is only interested in alternative software solutions. All three sheets in this document is to be completed.
| Alternative License Types: | |
| 1 | What alternative software do you offer that is similar to Appgate? |
(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 how it is similar from the listed license.
(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]
Requirements Capability Sheet
| SD Elements ALTERNATIVE: | [TYPE NAME HERE] | ||||||
| Requirement: | Ready on Day 1 | Future Capability | Estimated date of Capability | Comments | |||
| 1 | Please enter Yes or No requirements that a possible alternative software vendor MUST meet. | FALSE | FALSE | This Column is meant for the vendor to have space to answer the questions in more detail. | |||
| 2 | Identity Centric, continuously authenticating and monitoring users and devices | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 3 | Check devices for compliance before granting access | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 4 | Fully aligned with and capable of enforcing zero-trust principles | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 5 | Cloud-native, scalable, and capable of being deployed and self managed within P1's cloud environment | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 6 | Supports on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments with various types of users and devices connecting | ||||||
| from various locations globally | FALSE | FALSE | |||||
| 7 | Authenticates and authorizes every user and device attempting to access the network | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 8 | Enforces Comply-to-Connect policy (C2C) | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 9 | Logs all user/device authentication attempts, both granted and denied, along with what resources those devices/users connect to once authorized | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 10 | Compatibility with all major SIEM solutions (Splunk, Elastic, etc) for ingesting logs | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 11 | 24/7 support included with licenses | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 12 | In-depth training for users included with licenses | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 13 | Full integration with Identity and Access Management (IAM) solutions such as Keycloak and Okta | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 14 | Controls access to all types of cloud resources (e.g. AWS EC2, EKS, ECS, S3) and kubernetes clusters deployed in the cloud | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 15 | Full integration/interaction with other security tools and appliances through REST APIs | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 16 | Unauthorized resources are completely invisible to users/devices | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 17 | FedRAMP authorized to operate across all DoD Impact Levels (IL2 to IL6) | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 18 | Operates at layers 3 and 4 of the OSI model | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 19 | Authenticates and authorizes every user and device attempting to access the network | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 20 | Common Criteria certified | FALSE | FALSE | ||||
| 21 | Tool is actively deployed or has been deployed and tested in a DoD or other U.S. Federal Government cloud environment | FALSE | FALSE |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .