Inactive

***PLEASE ENSURE ALL RESPONSES ARE SENT TO GEOFFREY.BENDER.1@US.AF.MIL WITH SUBJECT LINE RFI_Kubecost_Alternatives_FA8307 – [CONTRACTOR NAME]*** Current Software: Kubecost Requirement: The solution mu... ***PLEASE ENSURE ALL RESPONSES ARE SENT TO GEOFFREY.BENDER.1@US.AF.MIL WITH SUBJECT LINE RFI_Kubecost_Alternatives_FA8307 – [CONTRACTOR NAME]*** Current Software: Kubecost Requirement: The solution must offer an HTTP-accessible API that delivers comprehensive data on Kubernetes resource costs and usage. This includes detailed information on namespace costing, CPU, cloud memory, and other resource metrics. Additionally, the API must provide cost and usage data for GPUs utilized in AI/ML workloads. It should also offer visibility into all cloud costs across the customer’s account(s) that are not associated with Kubernetes, ensuring compatibility with Amazon Web Services (AWS). The latency between actual usage and the reported data through this solution must not exceed 24 hours. Furthermore, the solution must include features for recommending optimal pod, container, and node sizes. It should identify unused resources and offer cost forecasting based on current usage trends. A critical aspect is the ability to provide a ‘tenant-ed view’ of resources, allowing for resource management and access control via groups, which can be applied through labels. The solution must support the aggregation of resources based on specific filters, facilitating a unified view of both Kubernetes and non-Kubernetes costs. It should also have the capability to manage shared resources at the Kubernetes level, enabling users to designate shared namespaces and allocate costs accordingly. Users need to be able to organize and filter costs using a dashboard, with labels that are searchable. Reporting capabilities are essential, with the solution providing options to create and export reports in CSV and PDF formats. Alerting features must be included, allowing notifications through various chat software channels such as Slack or Mattermost. Additionally, the solution should support Single Sign-On (SSO) using OIDC or SAML for user authentication. For highly secure environments, the solution must be deployable in fully air-gapped settings across Impact Levels 2, 4, 5, and 6. It should be available as either a SaaS (Software as a Service) or Stand-Alone deployment model, supporting on-premises cost management and optimization. Integration with cloud billing systems is crucial, enabling actions to optimize usage and apply any negotiated discounts manually. The solution must accurately handle various pricing models, including spot (preemptive) nodes, reserved instances, and savings plans. Could you please provide information on the following: What other software solutions do you offer that can provide the requirements listed above? For each solution listed, please provide the following information: Alternative License Types: A capability summary or list that at a minimum addresses the requirements listed above. How the capabilities differ from Kubecost. How the capabilities are similar to Kubecost. Please provide a list of systems/software that the license is currently compatible with and if there are plans to expand that list. Pricing Information: What are the estimated transition costs associated with these alternative licenses for both transition from Kubecost and transitioning from the proposed alternative solution? What are the estimated training costs for the software? Are there maintenance costs associated with the solution? Are the licenses priced in trial (weekly/short term), monthly, quarterly, and/or annual? If so, please provide the pricing plans and any links to existing contracts or your website. Is your company willing to enter into longer term contracts to include options for up to 4 subsequent years? Can those subsequent years be priced or is there a parent Government contract that will control that price? Please provide any existing Government contracts your company has on either DoD ESI or NASA SEWP. Feature Comparison: Are there any additional features or benefits associated with the different licenses that we should consider? (This may include capability PDFs, website links that describe the firewall, and customer/reference information.) We are eager to find a solution that will best support our needs and ensure continued productivity. Please Note: No award will be made under this RFI. Only a warranted Contracting Officer can obligate on behalf of the United States Government and that will be executed through an official request for quote (RFQ). The Government reserves the right to cancel this RFI. In the event the Government cancels this RFI, the Government has no obligation to pursue procurement or to reimburse an Offeror for any costs.