DARPA-BAA-13-24_Q As_03.13.2013.docx

Question & Answer 1 for DARPA-BAA-13-24 Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC)

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Page 33 in the BAA limits the indirect rate to 35%. Please provide more details on any limits on the overhead rates.

DARPA will amend the BAA to delete the last paragraph on page 33 re: Defense Appropriation Act indirect cost cap.

Page 26 of the BAA requires submittal of 3 hard copies or 3 CD-ROMs for proposals that are not grants or cooperative agreements. Is there a way to send PDF documents online instead of overnighting hard copies or CD-ROMs to you? Is there flexibility to send PDFs online and put the hard copies in the mail the same day?

No.

Page 26 of the BAA states“DARPA may evaluate proposals received after this date [4/9/13] for a period up to one year from date of posting on FedBiz Opps and Grants.gov.” However, page 35 of the BAA states “… proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to six months [180] days from date of posting on FedBizOpps.” Which is correct?

The BAA will remain open until August 20, 2013. The statement on page 26 will be amended to correspond.

Are ultrawideband solutions in scope? Are tunable antenna and tunable RF front end technologies in scope? Are spectrum management databases in scope? Are ELINT/COMINT techniques in scope? Is a scheduler in the radar that considers communications system mission goals in scope?

Any research that helps accomplish the goals of the program is in scope.

BAA page 29 states Deliverables should be described in Section II of the proposal. BAA page 30 states Deliverables should be listed in Section III of the proposal. Is this a mistake?

Section II should provide a summary of the deliverables. The Section III Statement Of Work should provide a detailed list in table format.The BAA states the research focus of SSPARC is ground radars, 2-4 GHz. Is there interest in research addressing airborne radars and/or other frequency bands? The BAA does not mention electronic warfare tasks. Is there interest in exploiting cooperation between the radar and the communication system to carry out EW tasks?

Research efforts that go beyond the minimum requirements stated in the BAA are of interest.

Is it acceptable for a proposed approach to depend on controlling the placement of mobile radars to minimize interference?

The utility of such an approach depends on the operational scenario, which is part of the sharing situation to be specified by the performer.

How can a proposer judge whether work on a particular radar system is of interest to the program? How can a proposer judge whether work on a particular sharing situation is of interest to the program?

Section 1.1 of the BAA and slide 8 of the proposer’s day briefing list the benefits sought from the military/military and military/commercial sharing components of the program. Radar systems and sharing situations that enable significant progress towards these desired benefits are of interest.

How can a proposer judge whether work on a particular radar system makes more sense under Task 1 or Task 2?

The proposer should evaluate the maturity of the radar. The coexistence thrust (Task 1) focuses on technologies that can be added to a radar system late in its design process. The codesign thrust (Task 2) focuses on approaches that exploit the opportunities provided by designing the sharing technologies in from the beginning.

Can the same technology be proposed under Task 1 / Task 2 and as a standalone Task 3 effort?

Yes. DARPA will amend BAA Section 2 to state what information must be provided in a Task 3 proposal if this is done.

BAA Section 1.1.2 mentions “adaptive radar.” What does this mean?

“Adaptive” in that sentence refers to the word “behaviors.” Phase 2 is anticipated to require a more sophisticated simulation approach than Phase 1. One of the anticipated requirements is to include models in which the radar and communication system behaviors change in response to environmental changes including those created by the other system.

What is the relationship between this BAA and the recent spectrum report by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)?

There is no relationship.

If most communications nodes have location information (INS/GPS), what is the need for ground radars in urban environment?

To detect objects other than communications nodes.

Can a Government laboratory be a subcontractor to an industry prime on DARPA SSPARC?

See BAA section 3.1.

Is there a requirement to demonstrate all proposed spectrum sharing modes in Phase 2 and beyond, or can the work be done purely in simulation? What real-time constraints/objectives are expected in Phase 2 & 3 demos? Will Phase 2 & 3 be fresh competition open to all or just to the Phase 1 performers?

Detailed requirements for subsequent phases have not been specified. It is anticipated that organizations not performing in Phase 1 will have the opportunity to propose work in subsequent phases.

How and when will the baseline be defined?

The baseline for the standoff metric is defined in the BAA.

For Task 1/Task 2/Task 3, will the prime contractor be required to flow down the publication review clause to universities that are sub-contractors?

Yes.

Should proposers consider Electronic Counter Counter-Measures (ECCMs) for manipulative cognitive jammers or limit the scope to traditional jammers for radar and communications?

The spectrum sharing solution should apply to expected future tactical environments.

For Task 1/Task 2/Task 3, as long as the PI is a US citizen, can other participants in the program be noncitizens?

See BAA, Section 3.1 (third paragraph), Section 4.2, and Section 6.2.4.

What fraction of the program funds will be used for the various tasks?

No information will be released regarding funding allocations.

Will the government provide information about military radar or communications systems?

Page 33 of the BAA requests that the proposal declare any requirements for Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information (GFI).

Page 26 of the BAA states:“Proposers must submit an original and three (3) copies of the proposal and two (2) electronic copies of the proposal in PDF (preferred) on a CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM must be clearly labeled with DARPA-BAA13-24, proposer organization, proposal title (short title recommended), and Copy _ of 3.” Please clarify how many electronic copies are required.

DARPA will amend the BAA to clarify that CD-ROMs should be labeled Copy _ of 2.

Page 28 of the BAA states “The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page counts given below.” But on page 32 it says this is limited to 20 pages. Please clarify if there is an unlimited page count on the bibliography and attached papers, or if there is a 20 page limit.

As stated on BAA page 32, there is a 20 page limit on the bibliography and attached papers.

TASK 1 AND TASK 2 COMMON TOPICS

May proposers assume access to a real-time spectrum usage map such as the one that is the goal of the RadioMap program? Is it acceptable to assume complete knowledge of system locations?

Proposers may make any desired assumptions. Risk associated with those assumptions will be evaluated as stated in BAA, Section 5.1.1.

Do Task 1 or Task 2 proposals need to have a complete system vision? Could a proposal handle just part of the problem?

Task 1 and Task 2 solicit complete system concepts. Task 3 is available for proposals that address just one subsystem or component.

The military/military sharing scenarios state that the communications system of interest is a Mobile Ad-Hoc Network (MANET). Does this imply the system investigated must use a MANET routing protocol?

No. The term MANET in the sharing scenarios refers to providing communications to mobile users without fixed infrastructure.

Is colocation of task 1 or task 2 team members required?

No.

The sharing scenarios specify radars that travel at up to 60 km/hr. What radars travel at that speed?

60 km/hr approximates the disclosed speed of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which carries multiple radars.

Is it a requirement to propose a solution for both Naval surface MANET radio and ground based MANET?

There should be a path to support both use cases.

For system concept proposals, does the simulation carried out during Phase 1 have to scale to 1000 (military/military sharing) or 100,000 nodes (military/commercial sharing)?

No. Analysis of the system concept should show scalability to those sizes, but simulations performed (if any) can be smaller.

Why is receive beam nulling in the direction of transmitting cooperating radio(s) considered equivalent to an interference event?

Note 3 of BAA section 1.2.4 envisions an approach in which some number of nulls are allocated for cooperating radios while some number are reserved for noncooperative emitters. Use of a reserved null on a cooperating radio implies that more cooperating radios are sending harmful levels of energy into the radar receiver than was provisioned for in the system design.

If the same team proposes to Task 1 and Task 2, with different companies in the team priming the two proposals, does the request for cost savings apply?

Yes. To accommodate this case, DARPA will amend the mandatory cost/effort slide (BAA Appendix 1) to report the reduced price offered if the other task is also awarded, rather than the joint cost of the two together.

If different divisions of the same company prime Task 1 and Task 2 proposals, does the request for cost savings apply?

It depends on whether a substantial fraction of the effort is performed by organizations participating in both proposals. To accommodate this case, DARPA will amend the text in BAA Appendix 1 to reflect this criterion.

How much experimental collection and experimental validation of simulations is appropriate for a Task 1 or Task 2 effort?

It is up to the proposer to decide. One purpose of the Phase 1 field data collection anticipated by the government team is to reduce the cost associated with duplication of the same experimental fieldwork by multiple performers. If a proposer feels that an experiment is valuable, but potentially duplicative, it is desirable but not required to segregate that work into an independently priced option.

Is it better to focus on a single sharing situation in Task 1/Task 2 or be broad across multiple sharing situations?

It is up to the proposer to decide how to focus Task 1 or Task 2 efforts so they have highest value for the overall goals of the program.

What level of technology maturity is expected at the end of phase 1?

Evidence is needed for the cost/benefits of the system concept. Furthermore, sufficient analysis should have been done to identify and scope the highest risk and highest benefit subsystems in order to justify anticipated Phase 2 investment in prototyping those subsystems.

Do proposals need to describe defenses against cyber attacks seeking to exploit the communications link of the information sharing subsystem? Should Phase 1 efforts incorporate work on cyber defenses?

It is up to the proposer. Successful transition of spectrum sharing mechanisms will require addressing all areas of security concern before conclusion of the last phase of the program.

TASK 1

How should a proposer judge whether a feature the system design requires to be added to commercial systems is acceptable, or an impediment to transition?

As stated in the BAA evaluation criteria, an organization or team proposing research under task 1 is expected to include expertise in commercial communication system design and operation.

What is the meaning of “rapid transition” for Task 1 proposals?

As stated in the proposer’s day briefing, the SSPARC program aims to provide benefits for DOD and national spectrum challenges in the 5-8 year time frame.

May a Task 1 solution incorporate hardware devices added externally to a radar?

Yes. BAA section 5.1.3 states that the benefit of mechanisms proposed under Task 1 will be evaluated in part by their support for rapid transition. To support this evaluation, a proposal incorporating an approach that relies on external hardware devices should describe a transition path in which the external hardware device(s) can be deployed without excessive modifications to the target radar(s) and platform(s).

How should a Task 1 proposer judge what IP rights must be offered to meet the evaluation criteria for transition?

See BAA Section 1.1.1.1, page 9.

The BAA states “MANETs of interest are those with omnidirectional antennas.” Does this exclude MIMO devices?

No.

Why does Task 1 military/commercial sharing focus on small cells?

There is little commercial interest in deploying macro cells at S-Band.

Is participation in standards activities within scope for Phase 1?

It is premature to initiate standardization before the Government has selected the system concept and sharing scenario. However, activities that can be justified as necessary at this early stage may be proposed.

TASK 2

Should a Task 2 effort include consideration of standardization topics?

Standardization topics are not required in Task 2.

How new should a new co-designed waveform be?

It is up to the performer.

The systems developed in Task 2 are supposed to improve on the state of the art. For the military communications system, what is the baseline that will be used to determine whether the new MANET is an improvement?

The evaluation will consider the expected features and performance of tactical communications networks in the timeframe when the proposed system is expected to transition to operational use.

TASK 3

For a Task 3 proposal not focused on the information sharing subsystem, what is a reasonable data rate to assume for the connection between the radar and communication system?

It is up to the proposer. One method that may be helpful for military/military sharing scenarios is to look forward to the transition time frame and estimate data rates of the tactical networks that will be operational.

Could a fundamental research effort be proposed under Task 3?

See BAA, Section 2 (seventh paragraph).

What milestones/evidence should a Task 3 effort seek to achieve/provide in order to earn a high score on the evaluation criterion that the technology should be mature enough to transition to a systems effort in a later SSPARC program phase.

It is up to the proposer. One perspective that may be helpful is to consider what milestones or evidence points would be useful to a system designer deciding whether to incorporate the technology into a new system effort that they are starting.

TASK 4

Is Task 4 for universities only?

No. Proposals from all interested organizations are solicited under all tasks.

Are the fundamental limits of interest solely information capacity, or are you also interested in radar performance limits such as detection or estimation bounds.

Radar performance limits are also of interest.

Can research such as signal processing, algorithms, DSP/circuit theory, components, and related work for topics such as beamforming or spectrum sensing be proposed under Task 4?

Yes, as long as the proposed research falls within the area of theory, fundamental limits or theoretically grounded design techniques.

Phase I is defined as 12 months. However Task 4 is 30 months. Please explain.

Task 4 is permitted to extend beyond the end of Phase I. It should be proposed as a base period plus an option. It may be up to 30 months total duration, with the base period no longer than 14 months.

At the proposer’s day the government offered to provide information about radar systems to Task 4 proposers. How and when will this information be provided?

During the first four months of Phase 1, DARPA expects to assist Task 4 performers to the extent feasible in the development of the challenge problem described in BAA section 1.1.1.5. This assistance will focus on ensuring that the challenge problem has the features and parameters necessary to make it relevant to program needs. The assistance is unlikely to take the form of providing information about specific radar systems.