DARPA_BAA-13-24-SSPARC.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications

(SSPARC)

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

DARPA-BAA-13-24

2/21/2013

DARPA-BAA-13-24, SSPARC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part One: Overview Information

Part Two: Full Text of Announcement

1. Funding Opportunity Description

1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1.1.1. Phase 1

1.1.2. Phase 2

1.1.3. Phase 3

1.2 PROGRAM METRICS

1.2.1 Performance of radar and communications systems

1.2.2 Baseline standoff

1.2.3 Standoff reduction

1.2.4 Metrics table

2. Award Information

3. Eligibility Information

3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

3.2 Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest

3.3 COST SHARING/MATCHING

3.4 OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

3.4.1 Collaborative Efforts

4. Application and Submission Information

4.1 ADDRESS TO REQUEST APPLICATION PACKAGE

4.2 SECURITY AND PROPRIETARY ISSUES

4.3 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION

4.3.1 Proposal Information

4.3.2 Restrictive Markings on Proposals

4.4 FORMATTING CHARACTERISTICS

4.4.2 Proposal Format

4.5 SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES

4.5.1 Proposal Submission Deadline

4.6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW

4.7 FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

4.8 OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5. Application Review Information

5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.1.1 Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

5.1.2 Realism of Proposed Schedule

5.1.3 Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition

5.1.4 Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience

5.1.5 Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

5.1.6 Cost Realism

5.2 REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

6. Award Administration Information

6.1 SELECTION NOTICES

6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS

6.2.1 MEETING AND TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS

6.2.2 HUMAN USE

6.2.3 ANIMAL USE

6.2.4 EXPORT CONTROL

6.2.5 SUBCONTRACTING

6.2.6 ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

6.2.7 EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

6.2.8 Additional Requirements and Responsibilities relating to Alleged Crimes by or against Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan

6.2.9 System for Award Management (SAM) Registration and Universal Identifier Requirements

6.2.10 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

6.2.11 Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters

6.2.12 Representation by Corporations Regarding Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law

6.2.13 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Notice and Certification

6.2.14 Controlled Unclassified Information on Non-DoD Information Systems

6.2.15 Providing Accelerated Payment to Small Business Subcontractors (DEVIATION)

6.3 REPORTING

6.4 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

6.4.1 Representations and Certifications

6.4.2 Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

6.4.3 T-FIMS

6.4.4 i-EDISON

6.5 AGENCY CONTACTS

7. Other Information

7.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

7.1.1 Procurement Contract Proposers

7.1.2 NonProcurement Contract Proposers

8. APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY

9. APPENDIX 2: SECURITY CLASSIFICATION GUIDE REQUEST FORM

10. APPENDIX 3: Volume 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE

11. APPENDIX 4: Volume 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE

TEMPLATES

Part One: Overview Information

• Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Strategic Technology Office

• Funding Opportunity Title – Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC)

• Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) 13-24

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – 12.910 Research and

Technology Development

• Dates o Posting Date – February 21, 2013 o Proposer’s Day – February 26, 2013 o Questions Due – March 4, 2013 o Proposal Due Date – April 9, 2013 o BAA Closing Date – August 20, 2013

• Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

• Types of instruments that may be awarded - Procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction.

• Agency contact o Point of Contact:

DARPA/STO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA13-24

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 EMAIL: DARPA-BAA-13-24@darpa.mil

Part Two: Full Text of Announcement

1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The BAA will appear first on the FedBizOpps website, http://www.fbo.gov/, and/or Grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of spectrum sharing between radar and communications systems. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC) program seeks to improve radar and communications capabilities through spectrum sharing.

Spectrum congestion is a growing problem. It increasingly limits operational capabilities due to the increasing deployment and bandwidth of wireless communications, the use of net-centric and unmanned systems, and the need for increased flexibility in radar and communications spectrum to improve performance and to overcome sophisticated countermeasures. Radar and communications jointly consume most of the highly desirable spectrum below 6 GHz. SSPARC seeks to develop sharing technology that enables sufficient spectrum access within this desirable range for radar and communications systems to accomplish their evolving missions.

The SSPARC program seeks to support two types of spectrum sharing.

• Spectrum sharing between military radars and military communications systems (“military/military sharing”) increases both capabilities simultaneously when operating in congested and contested spectral environments.

• Spectrum sharing between military radars and commercial communications systems

(“military/commercial sharing”) preserves radar capability while meeting national and international needs for increased commercial communications spectrum, without incurring the high cost of relocating radars to new frequency bands.

Although SSPARC technology is expected to be widely applicable, the research focus of the program is on the following spectrum sharing challenge.

• S-band, 2 GHz – 4 GHz

• Radar o Ground or naval-surface o Electronically steered phased array o Multifunction – combines air surveillance, air tracking, non-cooperative target identification, and optionally, weather monitoring

• Communications system o Ground or naval-surface o Military system type: MANET o Commercial system type: Small-cell broadband

SSPARC treats spectrum sharing as a cooperative problem. Prior work on radar/communications spectrum sharing assumes that one of the two systems ignores the other. In cooperative spectrum sharing, information is shared between the systems in near real time. The shared information enables the systems to be kept separated (i.e., noninterfering) based on how they actually use the spectrum, not based on how they might potentially use or are predicted to use the spectrum.

The program includes research on the following separation mechanisms to improve performance or reduce interference when sharing spectrum.

• Radar beam avoidance by communications systems.

• Communication nodes adjust transmit power based on measured path loss to the radar receivers.

• Identify the specific devices causing interference followed by modifying their transmission parameters to mitigate it.

• Hardware components, subsystems, waveforms and signal processing methods that improve separation.

Additional separation mechanisms are sought for investigation. Mechanisms that leverage the information sharing subsystem and mechanisms that operate in isolation are both of interest.

The top-level challenge is to integrate and balance the suite of separation mechanisms so the overall system simultaneously achieves (1) maximum performance for the systems sharing the spectrum, (2) acceptably low interference, and (3) acceptable cost. Several challenges complicate the solution to this problem.

• Adversaries will seek to exploit the shared information. Methods are sought that protect radar and communications systems operation through an appropriate combination of techniques such as minimization, encryption, obfuscation, and short time validity of shared information. Just as GPS has multiple data streams, multiple versions of the information can be shared simultaneously, with the information that enables a higher level of spectrum access limited by encryption to trusted recipients.

• The spectrum cooperatively shared between the radar and communications systems may also contain non-cooperative emitters, e.g., jammers. Separation mechanisms are sought that continue to operate when such emitters are present and that do not impair the ability to mitigate interference from those emitters. For example, spatial beam pattern degrees of freedom used to null out cooperative communications emissions are not available to null out jammers, and vice versa. Therefore a design that employs spatial nulls for separation should include mechanisms that prevent the number of available nulls from becoming a system performance limitation in contested environments. Similar considerations apply to other separation mechanisms.

• Communications devices may malfunction, for example due to software errors, misconfiguration, or miscalibrated transmitters or clocks. Such issues arise in both commercial and military communications systems. Malfunctioning communication devices easily cause harmful interference to sensitive radar receivers when sharing spectrum.

Methods are sought for identifying and shutting down malfunctioning devices, rapidly and with high probability.

SSPARC technologies operate in conjunction with spectrum management processes. For example, for military/military sharing, prior to deployment of radar in a communications band or vice versa, it is expected that the DoD Joint Frequency Allocation-to-Equipment process and NTIA IRAC process for frequency allocation approval followed by the appropriate frequency assignment process will be carried out. These processes identify and mitigate issues that are outside the scope of the SSPARC technologies, such as adjacent channel interference. Research is sought on how spectrum management processes or regulations can be modified or extended to facilitate radar/communications spectrum sharing.

1.1.1. Phase 1

1.1.1.1. Phase 1 - Task 1 – Coexistence system concepts

Task 1 is creation, analysis, and modeling/simulation of system concepts for radar/communications spectrum sharing technologies that can be cost-effectively added to existing systems or to emerging systems whose design is mature. Work towards this goal is called the coexistence thrust of the SSPARC program. The coexistence thrust seeks to achieve rapid transition to operational use. The expected benefit of mechanisms proposed for investigation under Task 1 will be evaluated in part by considering whether they support this goal.

The proposed system design should support both military/military sharing and military/commercial sharing, potentially with different design variants. The following spectrum sharing scenarios are of interest.

Military / military sharing Military / commercial sharing

Communications network type MANET Small-cell broadband

Velocity of devices Radar platform: 0-60 km/hr MANET node: 0-60 km/hr

Radar platform: 0-60 km/hr Access point: 0 km/hr User equipment: 0-3 km/hr

Number of communications nodes in radar range

2 – 1000 nodes 2 – 100,000 nodes

Primary/secondary sharing is a spectrum allocation scenario in which one system (primary) is permitted to operate anywhere in the allocation without restriction. Other systems (secondary) may only operate on the condition that they do not cause harmful interference to the primary, and must tolerate interference from the primary.

For military/military sharing:

• The proposed system design should support bands where radar is primary and bands where communication is primary.

• The proposed system design should support primary/secondary sharing in which harmful interference to the primary is defined as application- level or mission- level performance impairment exceeding an adjustable threshold.

• Radars of interest are those defined in section 1.1 above.

• MANETs of interest include both ground and naval surface networks.

• For ground networks, MANET nodes may be indoors or outdoors.

• MANETs of interest are those with omnidirectional antennas.

For military/commercial sharing:

• The sharing scenario of interest is the introduction of commercial communications on a secondary basis into a radar allocation where radar remains the primary system.

• Radars of interest are those defined in section 1.1 above.

• Small-cell broadband refers to systems with a cell radius up to hundreds of meters.

• Small-cell types of interest include both mobile broadband (e.g., LTE femtocells) and unlicensed broadband (e.g., 802.11 hotspots).

• Small-cell access points and users may be indoors or outdoors.

• The broadly distributed information stream supporting military/commercial sharing should be constrained and shaped to avoid facilitating an adversary surprise first strike or improvement of radar countermeasures.

• One operational scenario of interest is OCONUS where commercial communications systems should be able to continue operating in a shared band when near a radar operating at an elevated threat level, e.g., a naval surface platform on patrol near an unfriendly shore with neutral or friendly nations in radar range.

• Research on how to achieve successful transition to commercial systems is sought as part of Task 1, including issues related to eventual standardization and/or regulatory action. It is desired that both CONUS and OCONUS commercial systems adopt the mechanisms.

• Incremental cost added to commercial communications systems is a major concern for developers and users that could impede adoption. Therefore, approaches are sought that minimize these costs.

• Privacy protection for commercial users is a key concern to be addressed.

The following additional issues should be considered in preparing a Task 1 proposal.

• The Government intends that future systems from any vendor – military and commercial, radar and communications – be able to easily participate in the spectrum sharing arrangement(s) developed in the coexistence thrust. Therefore, proposed technical deliverables and intellectual property (IP) rights are sought that support this goal.

• As an illustrative example regarding technical approach, proposers are encouraged to avoid solutions that are overly optimized for a particular radar or communications system.

• As an illustrative example regarding IP rights, IP restrictions on the data connection protocol specification of the information sharing subsystem would impact participation of future systems.

• As a further illustrative example regarding IP rights, IP restrictions on the algorithms used in a radar to decide what information to publish via the information sharing subsystem are not anticipated to impact participation, since each radar vendor can develop their own algorithms and still interoperate with all compliant communications systems.

See section 1.1.1.3 below for further considerations in preparing Task 1 proposals.

1.1.1.2. Phase 1 - Task 2 – Codesign system concepts

Task 2 is creation, analysis, and modeling/simulation of system concepts for radar/communications spectrum sharing that exploit the opportunity to codesign the systems from early in the design process. Work towards this goal is called the codesign thrust of the SSPARC program. Task 2 focuses on military/military sharing only.

The opportunity to codesign the radar and communications system is expected to enable improved spectrum sharing compared to adding sharing late in the design process. Furthermore, it is expected to enable new synergies in which the radar and communications systems assist each other’s missions. Examples include using communications devices as multistatic radar receivers, using communications transmissions as radar illumination, and using radar receivers to assist in communications network rendezvous with disadvantaged communications nodes. A key challenge is to optimize performance of these synergistic behaviors as the mix of devices, the device laydown and the capacity of the information sharing subsystem vary.

The following spectrum sharing scenario is of interest.

Military / military sharing

Communications network type MANET

Velocity of devices Radar platform: 0-60 km/hr MANET node: 0-60 km/hr

Number of communications nodes in radar range

2 – 1,000 nodes

In single allocation spectrum sharing, spectrum management processes grant a single allocation for the radar and communications systems treated as a joint system. Any interference that occurs between the two is considered an internal problem that is to be resolved by the system’s engineers or operators, not by spectrum managers. In Task 2, single allocation spectrum sharing between the radar and communications system should be assumed.

• The use of single allocation spectrum sharing in the shared frequency band does not preclude the allocation of exclusive frequency bands for each system. Thus a radar system may use some spectrum exclusively and share additional spectrum on a single-allocation basis with a codesigned communication system.

• Radars of interest are those defined in section 1.1 above.

• MANETs of interest include both ground and naval surface networks.

• For ground networks, MANET nodes may be indoors or outdoors.

See also section 1.1.1.3 below.

1.1.1.3. Proposal information common to Phase 1 – Task 1 and Phase 1 – Task 2

Task 1 and Task 2 proposals should be 12 months in duration.

All issues described in the program overview above should be considered in the proposed system design, planned work effort and evaluation strategy.

The work should logically lead to potential Phase 2 and Phase 3 work described below.

The proposal should clearly describe the radar system(s) or class(es), communications system(s) or class(es), and operational scenario(s) that the performer will use during Phase 1 when analyzing and modeling or simulating the proposed spectrum sharing system concept. The proposer may select any desired radar/communications system(s) or class(es) and operational scenario(s) consistent with the research focus defined in the program overview above. Systems or system classes should be described by characterizing their mission, deployment, spectral utilization and performance characteristics. The systems and scenarios to be used for analysis and evaluation during Phase 1 are subject to review and approval by the Government.

As part of the system design, research is sought to determine the appropriate architecture and protocol for information sharing between radar and communication systems. Tradeoffs to be investigated include the latency, coverage and cost of proposed approaches, and the impact of these factors on the effectiveness of the separation mechanisms that employ them.

The following are provided as illustrative examples of the information sharing subsystem architectures that may be considered in a Task 1 or Task 2 effort.

• Information may be shared between the systems using a data connection, or using a third system that has data connections to the radar and communications systems and that implements control, support or policy functions.

• The data connections may be direct RF links, relay via a multihop wireless network, relay via the commercial Internet, or some combination of methods.

• RF links if used may employ the radar aperture or a separate communications device colocated with the radar.

• The information sharing subsystem may be shared between multiple radars and multiple communications systems, all within propagation distance of each other, thus enabling joint cooperative spectrum sharing.

An iterative design process is encouraged. Performers are expected to use analysis and modeling/simulation throughout Phase 1 to evaluate the effectiveness of their system design.

Task 1 and Task 2 efforts should include delivering a detailed description of the planned modeling/simulation environment within 2 months after award, to be updated as necessary. The choice of environment is subject to Government review and approval, to assure fair evaluation of the system design. The review process may include specifying validation experiments to be carried out by the performer.

The communities that must collaborate to create innovative balanced solutions for radar/communications spectrum sharing have traditionally been separate. Critical disconnects exist between radar and communications communities, and between military and commercial communities, that could slow progress or lead to suboptimal research outcomes. Efforts are sought structured in a way that overcomes barriers of technical language, engineering culture, and design knowledge to form a tightly integrated team. Examples of approaches to address this challenge include colocation of key program participants in a single building and intensive cross-training.

1.1.1.4. Phase 1 - Task 3 – Supporting technologies

Task 3 is investigation of technologies supporting SSPARC’s research goals in focused efforts that do not consider full system concepts. If a supporting technology is tightly coupled to a system concept, investigation of the technology should be proposed as part of a Task 1 or Task 2 effort. A particular emphasis of Task 3 is on innovative separation mechanisms that must be incorporated early in the design process of a radar or communications system; however, technologies not fitting into this category will also be considered.

Technologies proposed for investigation under Task 3 may apply to the radar, the communications system, the information sharing subsystem, or some combination of the three;

and may support the coexistence thrust, the codesign thrust, or both.

The proposal should clearly state which system(s) and which thrust(s) are the target for each proposed technology. The proposal should describe a sharing situation (radar system, communications system, information sharing subsystem characteristics, operational scenario) or situations, consistent with the scenario(s) defined above for the target thrust(s), that will be used for evaluation of each proposed technology. Using the described situation(s), the proposal should define appropriate metrics and estimate the quantitative benefits offered by each proposed technology. Using the described situation(s), the proposal should estimate the manufacturing and operating cost increase associated with adding the proposed technology to the target systems.

Task 3 proposals should be 12 months in duration. The work effort should include an interim technical report due 8 months after contract award. The Phase 1 work effort should include detailed analysis of the quantitative benefits and costs of each proposed technology in the specified sharing situation(s), with preliminary results to be incorporated in the interim technical report. Proposed sharing situations for evaluation are subject to review and revision by the Government prior to contract award.

1.1.1.5. Phase 1 - Task 4 – Theory and fundamental limits

Task 4 is research on fundamental performance limits and theoretically grounded design techniques under conditions of spectrum sharing between radar and communications systems.

Disciplines of interest include information, control and coding theory. Goals include providing new ways of evaluating system designs and providing insight into potential breakthrough approaches for sharing or synergistic behaviors. Questions of interest include but are not limited to the following.

• How are the information theoretic limits on radar performance, and the information theoretic radar waveform design approach, affected if other energy in the channel consists partially of structured information transmission whose waveform can be codesigned, rather than just colored noise?

• How do radar performance limits decrease as the transmitted signal of the radar increasingly includes information unknown to the radar receiver?

• What are the limits of successive interference cancellation techniques applied either at the radar receiver to subtract out communications signals, or at the communications receiver to subtract out radar signals?

• How should a communications link or network be designed to maximize information rate in the presence of interfering signals with the time-, space-, frequency-, and other-characteristics of an operating radar system?

Task 4 proposals should be structured as a base period of up to 14 months followed by an option period which together with the base period will not exceed 30 months. The Task 4 base period should include an interim technical report to be delivered 2 months before the end of the period.

To assist in relating the results of Task 4 research to the goals of the program, the Task 4 effort should include defining one or more challenge problems no later than 4 months after contract award. A challenge problem consists of a sharing situation (radar system, communications system, information sharing subsystem characteristics, operational scenario) described at an appropriate level of detail for the research project, and application- or mission-level metrics to be improved or assessed through applying the results of the research. Proposed challenge problems are subject to review and revision by the Government. The base period work effort should include application of the research results to the challenge problem(s) with preliminary results to be incorporated in the interim technical report. Updated challenge problem(s) are to be specified by no later than 4 months after award of the option. The option period work effort should include application of the research results to the updated challenge problem(s). Task 4 proposals should include a description of the intended challenge problem(s).

1.1.2. Phase 2

This BAA does not solicit proposals for Phase 2 work. Information about Phase 2 is provided for planning purposes only. Information presented here is subject to change.

Phase 2 is envisioned to be an 18 month phase that:

• designs and develops selected system concepts, incorporating the results of Phase 1 supporting technology investigations if appropriate

• continues separate investment in supporting technologies if further maturation is required before they can be used in a system

• builds laboratory prototypes of key subsystems

• uses performance results from the prototypes for validated simulations of system performance that include adaptive radar and communications system behaviors

• delivers regulatory recommendations and evidence of the proposed mechanism’s effectiveness and feasibility for commercial use, in support of subsequent standardization and regulatory action.

Phase 2 is anticipated to incorporate a specific sharing situation (radar system, communications system, operational scenario, etc.) for design and development that may be different from the sharing situations studied in Phase 1. Proposers should anticipate using Phase 1 results as the basis for estimating benefits of their system concepts in the specified sharing situation.

1.1.3. Phase 3

This BAA does not solicit proposals for Phase 3 work. Information about Phase 3 is provided for planning purposes only. Information presented here is subject to change.

Phase 3 is expected to be an 18 month phase that:

• integrates and demonstrates selected system concepts

• carries out two experimental campaigns, one for military/military sharing and one for military/commercial sharing o The experimental campaigns will include extensive systematic testing, since they seek to establish a negative: that harmful interference will not occur.

1.2 PROGRAM METRICS

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed solution in achieving the stated program objectives, proposers should note that the Government hereby promulgates the following program metrics that may serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Although the following program metrics are specified, proposers should note that the Government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem.

Proposals should cite the quantitative and qualitative success criteria that the proposed effort will achieve by the time of each Phase’s program metric measurement.

While the goal of SSPARC is spectrum access, that quantity is difficult to measure directly in complex sharing scenarios, due to time- and space-varying access as well as the use of separation mechanisms that constrain system operation in subtle ways. As a proxy, the minimum separation distance between cochannel radar and communications systems is used as a primary program metric. The closer the systems can operate, while sustaining on average specified fractions of their baseline performance, the greater the spectrum sharing that has been achieved. This metric is defined more precisely in the following sections.

These metrics are established to enable baseline evaluation of proposed technologies and system solutions. Proposers are encouraged to provide additional performance parameters to measure during Phase 1 that effectively characterize the spectrum access benefits of their technologies or system solutions in comparison to the existing state of the art.

1.2.1 Performance of radar and communications systems

Figure 1 illustrates the radar and communications performance criteria that are the basis for evaluating spectrum access.

Radar performance is measured as detection range R against a 1 square meter steady target in line of sight based on a fixed probability of detection and fixed false alarm probability.

Communications link performance is measured as the throughput between two nodes at a distance D. Throughput means data rate delivered after forward error correction and retransmission (i.e., automatic repeat request ARQ).

The term “standalone” means operation of the system in the absence of interference from other RF systems.

Radar standalone range RSTANDALONE is R in the absence of interference.

Communications link standalone throughput TSTANDALONE is determined by selecting any distance D then measuring T in the absence of interference. Once TSTANDALONE is determined, standalone distance DSTANDALONE is defined as the largest line-of-sight separation at which the communications link sustains throughput TSTANDALONE, when in an exclusive allocation.

Figure 1. Definition of performance measures

1.2.2 Baseline standoff

Figure 2 illustrates the procedure for establishing the baseline against which SSPARC technology performance is evaluated.

Standoff distance S is the minimum distance permitted by spectrum management processes between the nearest communications node and the nearest radar receiver or transmitter when a communications network and a radar operate in the same frequency band, to prevent interference.

For the purposes of this program:

• Interference is declared to occur when a system’s performance metrics are reduced by 5% or more.

• Operation in the same frequency band is defined as a situation where the radar and communications systems are configured to have the same total operating bandwidth. The total operating bandwidth is the frequency range across which the systems automatically hop, chirp or re-tune.

The radar is assumed to be carrying out a mission that requires full angular coverage, e.g. air search or weather monitoring, and use of the total operating bandwidth. Communications link performance T is measured as the average over an interval longer than the time it takes the radar to complete a full cycle of its operation (e.g. scan of its surveillance volume).

Radar

Radar Parameters Communications Link Parameters

Radar target 1 m steady

P D and P

FA

fixed in advance distance R

Node1

Node2 distance D throughput T (data rate after FEC and ARQ)

Establish a geometry where a pair of communications nodes are equidistant from the radar. The separation is the distance from the radar to either of the communications nodes. As separation reduces from infinity, the baseline standoff SBASELINE is the separation at which either the radar performance R or communications system performance T first reduces to 95% of its standalone value, under the following conditions:

• D is held constant at its standalone value

• SBASELINE is the minimum separation distance between a radar and a communications network, not just a single node pair. This requires that a determination of SBASELINE is subject to the following conditions:

o There are many simultaneously communicating node pairs, all farther from the radar than SBASELINE.

o The number of nodes meant by “many” is defined in the spectrum sharing scenarios, section 1.1.1 above.

o Interference from the radar does not prevent any node pair in the network separated by less than DSTANDALONE from achieving throughput at least 95% of TSTANDALONE.

o Aggregate interference from the network does not prevent the radar from achieving range at least 95% of RSTANDALONE.

Figure 2. Definition of the baseline standoff distance SBASELINE

Radar

Radar target 1 m steady

P D and P

FA

same as previously fixed values

R ≥ 0.95 R

STANDALONE

Node1

Node2

D = D

STA NDALONE

T ≥ 0.95 T

STANDALONE

Distance S

Distance S

S

BA SELINE

is the smallest S such that the conditions on R and T both hold

Many additional communicating node pairs, surrounding radar, all further from radar than S

1.2.3 Standoff reduction

With the use of SSPARC technology, it becomes possible to operate the communications network and radar system at some separation less than SBASELINE with acceptable performance.

The minimum separation at which performance is acceptable determines the standoff SSSPARC.

The unitless figure of merit is then

Standoff reduction = SBASELINE / SSSPARC

Larger is better for this figure of merit.

Acceptable performance is defined as follows.

• Radar performance R ≥ 0.95 * RSTANDALONE

• Communications performance T ≥ k * TSTANDALONE

• Coexistence thrust k = 0.5

• Codesign thrust k = 0.8

With the additional conditions:

• D is held constant at its standalone value

• SSSPARC is the minimum separation distance between a radar and a communications network, not just a single node pair. This requires that a determination of SSSPARC is subject to the following conditions:

o There are many simultaneously communicating node pairs, all farther from the radar than SSSPARC.

o The number of nodes meant by “many” is defined in the spectrum sharing scenarios, section 1.1.1 above.

o Interference from the radar does not prevent any node pair in the network separated by less than DSTANDALONE from achieving throughput at least k * TSTANDALONE.

o Aggregate interference from the network does not prevent the radar from achieving range at least 95% of RSTANDALONE.

When determining the standoff reduction, environmental conditions such as propagation, clutter and usage of adjacent bands must be held constant. This is done by (1) establishing a CONOPS and scenario incorporating the radar and communications link, then (2) holding these conditions constant throughout the analysis or experiments that determine SBASELINE and SSSPARC.

1.2.4 Metrics table

The following table provides metrics for Task 1 and Task 2. Task 3 and Task 4 proposals should suggest the metrics that will be used to evaluate the research.

Metric Coexistence thrust goals (Task 1)

Codesign thrust goals (Task 2) Notes

Line-of-sight standoff

5x standoff reduction1 10x standoff reduction1

Performance thresholds differ for the thrusts – see section 1.2.3

Propagation exploitation Additional 4x standoff reduction2

Exploit propagation effects without causing interference even when path loss changes as fast as 20 dB per 0.5 sec interval

Interference events

Radar experiences interference events3 no more often than one every 120 sec.

System mitigates 95% of interference events in 2 sec, 99.9% of events in 60 sec.

In 95% of events, only the communications node causing the interference experiences throughput reduction as a result of the mitigation mechanism.

Achieve the 60 sec target even for communications nodes that have a configuration error or software bug4

Synergistic behaviors N/A

Using synergies, radar PD ≥ 0.75 at a range, target size, and PFA where radar standalone has PD ≤ 0.5

Performer to specify operational scenario

Note 1. The line-of-sight and propagation exploitation reductions are cumulative, thus the overall goal for the coexistence thrust is 5 * 4 = 20x standoff reduction. That is, the systems achieve their performance thresholds at a separation that is 5% of the baseline standoff, when the communications nodes are in favorable propagation conditions. For the codesign thrust the overall goal is to achieve performance thresholds at 2.5% of baseline standoff given favorable propagation conditions.

Note 2. Propagation exploitation means exploiting local high propagation loss conditions, e.g. terrain or structure shadowing between radar and communications nodes. Thus a node in deep shadow should be able to operate 4x closer to the radar than one in line-of-sight. Nodes in less favorable conditions (i.e. lower propagation loss) are expected to require proportionally further standoff from the radar. A mobile node in an urban environment close to the radar may be able to transmit only when it is passing through shadows. For mobile nodes, the performance thresholds apply only during intervals that they are shadowed.

Note 3. An interference event is a situation in which the radar is unable to achieve the performance threshold, or in which it is forced to use a reserved spatial beam pattern null on a communications transmission in order to achieve the threshold. Mitigation occurs when threshold performance is restored, or when the reserved null no longer needs to be pointed at the transmission. Reserved nulls are the antenna degrees of freedom reserved for overcoming jammers or emitters that are not participating in the SSPARC separation mechanisms.

Note 4. If a node’s configuration or software problems create a situation in which it is transmitting but does not receive or properly process messages telling it to modify its behavior to mitigate the interference, the interference must still be mitigated within 60 seconds with high probability.

2. AWARD INFORMATION

Multiple awards are possible. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation, and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer.

An organization or team may propose work under multiple tasks as defined in sections 1.1.1.1 to

1.1.1.5 of this document. Each task offered must be in a separate proposal. Multiple supporting technologies may be investigated in a single Task 3 proposal if the work forms a coherent program. If Tasks 1 and 2 are both proposed, cost savings are expected if both are awarded and should be described in both proposals.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information”, Sec. 5), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications. The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information.

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. The definition of Contracted Fundamental Research is:

“Fundamental research is defined as basic or applied research performed on campus in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. Contracted Fundamental Research includes [research performed under] grants and contracts that are

(a) funded by budget category 6.1 (Basic Research), whether performed by universities or industry or (b) funded by budget category 6.2 (Applied Research) and performed on-campus at a university. The research shall not be considered fundamental in those rare and exceptional circumstances where the applied research effort presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense, and where agreement on restrictions have been recorded in the contract or grant.” Such research is referred to by DARPA as “Restricted Research.”

For Task 1, 2 and 3 proposals: As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals of this BAA either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or else the research resulting from the proposed program is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the contractor to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government recognizes that proposed research solutions could be of either a fundamental or restricted nature. Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the nature of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or restricted, with the understanding that in all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.

For Task 4 proposals: As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals of this BAA may be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research.

DARPA does not anticipate applying publication restrictions of any kind to Fundamental Research to each individual award that may result from this BAA. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as fundamental research under the foregoing definition, still meet the BAA criteria for submissions. If proposals are selected for award that offer other than a fundamental research solution, then the Government will either work with the proposer to modify the proposed statement of work to bring the research back into line with fundamental research or else the proposer will agree to restrictions in order to receive an award. In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.

The following statement or similar provision will be incorporated into any resultant Restricted Research or Non-Fundamental Research procurement contract or other transaction:

There shall be no dissemination or publication, except within and between the Contractor and any subcontractors, of information developed under this contract or contained in the reports to be furnished pursuant to this contract without prior written approval of DARPA’s Public Release Center (DARPA/PRC). All technical reports will be given proper review by appropriate authority to determine which Distribution Statement is to be applied prior to the initial distribution of these reports by the Contractor. With regard to subcontractor proposals for Contracted Fundamental Research, papers resulting from unclassified contracted fundamental research are exempt from prepublication controls and this review requirement, pursuant to DoD Instruction 5230.27 dated October 6, 1987.

When submitting material for written approval for open publication, the Contractor/Awardee must submit a request for public release to the PRC and include the following information: 1) Document Information: document title, document author, short plain-language description of technology discussed in the material (approx. 30 words), number of pages (or minutes of video) and document type (e.g., briefing, report, abstract, article, or paper); 2) Event Information: event type (conference, principal investigator meeting, article or paper), event date, desired date for DARPA's approval; 3) DARPA Sponsor: DARPA Program Manager, DARPA office, and contract number; and 4) Contractor/Awardee's Information: POC name, e-mail and phone. Allow four weeks for processing; due dates under four weeks require a justification. Unusual electronic file formats may require additional processing time. Requests may be sent either bye-mail to prc@darpa.mil or via 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington VA 22203-2114, telephone

(571) 218-4235. Refer to the following for link for information about DARPA’s public release process:

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Public_Release_Center/Public_Release_Center.aspx.

Proposers are advised that if they propose grants or cooperative agreements for resultant awards, DARPA may elect to award other award instruments due to the need to apply publication or other restrictions. DARPA will make this election if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed program will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program and will be considered Restricted Research.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the Prime Contractor is Restricted Research, a subcontractor may be conducting Contracted Fundamental Research. In those cases, it is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subcontractor’s effort is Contracted Fundamental Research.

3. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

mailto:prc@darpa.mil

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (e.g.,Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions: FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector AND must also provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to government solicitations and compete with industry, and compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime or subcontractors. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant) establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations. At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C.§ 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C. § 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the Proposer.

Foreign participants and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary Non-Disclosure Agreements, Security…