Data_Call_0006_Q&A_15Feb19.pdf

Solicitation: BAA-18-R-STCD Data Call 006 Topic #: S1823

ADDENDUM 001

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

15 February 2019

Q-1: What does the Government mean specifically by Congested / Contested environment?

a. Would the Government please provide all specific quantitative metrics that define such an environment?

b. How would a vendor be able to prove the level to which a system is able to function in that environment? In other words, what are the Government’s acceptance criteria for the proposed system?

c. What metrics are going to be used to either compare systems against each other to quantitatively rank the ability of a system to perform in the environment?

d. Will the Government defer the required response date and time for this opportunity until such metrics are made available to industry?

Government Response:

Q-1:

Contested is defined as, but not limited to, adversarial and non-adversarial attempts to degrade/deny access to spectrum.

Congested is defined as, but not limited to, spectrum restrictions due to host nation, civil authority, high military demand (CONUS and OCONUS) and terrain challenges

(mountainous, foliated and urban).

a. Answer to this question is classified, we will be able to provide additional information once a contract is established.

b. Threats and techniques are classified, we will be able to provide additional information once a contract is established.

c. Standard J/S metrics as well as metrics are classified such as how far away an adversary jammer needs to be on standoff based on operational scenarios.

d. No.

Q-2: Would the Government please provide quantified metrics that comprise its desired Anti-Jam (AJ) capability?

a. Is there a specific Desired-Signal-to-jammer-signal ration ratio that the Government is trying to achieve? What is the Government’s definition of Anti-Jam?

b. Would the Government please provide a defined threat model (e.g., maximum distance that US soldiers are separated by vs. the minimum distance of the jammer location, etc.)?

c. Does the target adversary jammer have specifications that the Government can share? Further, we respectfully request the Government to provide the following parameters for the target adversary jammer:

i. What is the operating frequency, range, bandwidth, and modulation? Does it operate from 0 to 3000 MHz?

ii. What is the transmit power?

iii. Is it a continuous emitter? Or is it reactive?

iv. Is the jammer operating on a static frequency target program? Or is it dynamically jamming anything across its whole operating band?

v. If the target jammer is reactive, what is the reaction time? And, what are the sensitivity characteristics of the jammer?

Government Response:

Q2: Responses to Q2 and sub questions are classified we will be able to provide additional information once a contract is established.

Q-3: What does the Government mean by Low Probability of Intercept?

a. Does LPI refer to the enemy being able to receive the transmissions, decode the transmissions, decrypt the transmissions, and determine their contents?

b. Is this an Information Assurance Requirement?

c. Is there a cryptographic requirement that as system could meet which would satisfy the Intercept requirement? E.g. FIPS 140-2 or something defined specification?

d. How is the Government quantitatively evaluating a system’s LPI capability?

e. What are maximum distances that US soldiers are separated vs minimum distance from detector?

Government Response:

Q-3:

a. Yes.

b. LPI stems from several requirements including IA.

c. There is not a specific requirement. The Government will consider various approaches

d. Response is classified

e. Response is classified

Q-4: What does the Government mean by Low Probability of detection?

a. Is there a threat model that the Government is using as a reference?

i. Distance between US assets communicating vs. distance of enemy who is attempting to detect?

ii. What are the critical performance parameters of the detector? E.g., sensitivity? Noise figure, bandwidth (continuous vs swept)?, multiple (simultaneous beam-forming) antenna direction finding capability? Is detector energy based or actively searching for known signal features? If so, which signal features?

iii. Would the Government please provide specific models for path loss in the required environments (dense urban, heavily foliated and open terrain)?

b. Typically, systems that are designed for covert communication with low probability of detection are designed to operate at / below the noise floor at the detector location.

Often these systems are communicating very small amounts of heavily coded data. The requirement describes the need to transmit multiple HD Video feeds. Is the

Government’s intention to transmit 10 to 20 Mbps at SNR levels below the noise floor?

Over what distances is the Army trying to achieve this?

c. How much contiguous spectrum is available to the system?

Government Response:

Q-4:

a. i, ii, and iii: Responses are classified

b. and c. : There are multiple approaches to LPD and vendors should consider trade-offs between many variables, including but not limited to spectrum, throughput, bandwidth, etc.…

Q-5: What is the communication model for the soldier / unmanned systems communication?

a. Typically, video feeds from Unmanned Systems are transmitted via IP Multicast so they can be received by a plurality of receivers.

b. Does the Government intend for these video feeds to be multicast?

i. This impacts the ability to use beamforming and other techniques which leverage directionality since the transmissions are likely destined towards multiple receivers.

Government Response:

Q. 5: Response is classified.

Follow-on discussions will be held with industry in a classified venue post contract award.

a. b, i No opinion on proposed solutions.

Q-6: What frequency bands and what bandwidth are available for the solution to operate on?

a. Some potential solutions involve cognitive radio designs, spectrum agility, dynamically avoiding jammers, or seeking cleaner spectrum. Please clarify if spectrum is limited and very precisely assigned.

b. Which is the spectrum allocation model that is being used for this BAA?

c. Are the vendors constrained to a single 20 MHz channel in a single band? (or less?)

d. Has the Government’s stance on spectrum (limited) availability changed?

e. Wide Band solutions are often used to achieve higher bandwidth communication with lower probability of detection, but we are not clear whether they would be considered viable under this BAA.

Government Response:

Q-6: a., b., c., d. and e.: System design and spectrum usage is up to the vendors as part of trade-space.

Q-7: Can the Government clarify the “ability to scale and support large operations”?

a. We assume (from other Army Network Initiatives) that this means demonstrated scalability to a 250-node network with multiple video feeds flowing.

b. What is the Government’s definition of scalability under this BAA?

c. Will solutions that are unable to demonstrate 250 node scalability be considered? Or is demonstrated scalability a qualifying or disqualifying criterion?

Government Response:

7. a. The Government desires scalability and that is part of trade-space in vendors proposed solutions.

b. Scalability is defined as the ability to support increasing numbers of networked nodes while minimizing impact to systems performance of individual node.

c. The Government will consider all solutions.

Q-8: Based on the complexity of the development effort, would the Government allow a

12-month base period of performance and up to three individually exercisable 6-month option(s) to allow more flexibility and ensure technology readiness in meeting operational requirements?

Government Response:

No.

Q-9: What are the requirements for video bandwidth as a function of range?

Government Response:

Q-9: The Government will consider proposed solutions and understands that range and throughput are part of the trade space in vendors solutions.

Q-10: What additional requirements related to operation in the presence of RF interference are available?

a. What is the Signal strength of RF interferers as a function of distance?

b. Are there in-channel interference mitigation requirements?

c. What are the adjacent channel or in-band interference performance requirements?

d. How will the Government evaluate performance of a system for this requirement?

Government Response:

Q-10. a, b, c, and d: Responses are classified.

Follow-on discussions will be held with industry in a classified venue post contract

Q-11: Should the AJ, LPI/LPD modes be user configurable? Often these modes have significantly reduced bandwidth and range. Is it permissible to have users control when these features are active or not?

Government Response:

Q- 11:

It is up to the vendors on whether their solution has multiple modes or not and if those modes are configurable or not. The Government does not dictate how vendor implement their solution.

Q-12: Given the number of complex questions that require potentially extensive research to fully answer, would the Government extend the response deadline from 1

March 2019 to 12 April 2019?

Government Response:

No.

Q-13: Could the Government provide a desired or minimum threshold for LPI/LPD?

Government Response:

No.

Follow-on discussions will be held with industry in a classified venue post contract award.

Q-14: Is the Government looking to counter a specific type of jammer (i.e. pulse, chop, wideband) when referring to AJ?

Government Response:

Q-14 The Government is looking to counter all types of jamming, not any specific jamming.

Follow-on discussions will be held with industry in a classified venue post contract