DARPA-BAA-15-24.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications

(SSPARC) Coexistence Phase 2

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

DARPA-BAA-15-24

March 13, 2015

DARPA-BAA-15-24, SSPARC Coexistence Phase 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1.1.1 Technical Approach and Challenges

1.1.2 Work In Other Phases

1.1.3 Phase 2 Overview

1.1.4 Topic 1: Research on Sharing Systems

1.1.5 Topic 2: Analysis and Simulation

1.1.6 Topic 3: Prototype Implementation

1.1.7 Topic 4: Laboratory Testing of the Prototype

1.1.8 Topic 5: Transition Plan

1.1.9 Topic 6: Base effort final report

1.1.10 Topic 7: Field Demonstration

1.1.11 Topic 8: Option effort final report

1.1.12 Design reviews

1.1.13 WiFi tasks

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

1.3 Government Furnished Information and Equipment

2 AWARD INFORMATION

2.1 Fundamental Research

3 ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

3.1.1 Federally Funded Research And Development Centers (FFRDCs) And Government Entities

3.1.2 Non-U.S. Organizations

3.1.3 Applicants Considering Classified Submissions

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 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION

4.2.1 Security And Proprietary Issues

4.2.2 Proposal Information

4.2.3 Restrictive Markings on Proposals

4.3 FORMATTING CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.1 Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

4.3.2 Volume II, Cost Proposal – {No Page Limit}

4.4 SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES

4.4.1 Full Proposal Submission Deadline

4.5 FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

4.6 OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5 APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.1.1 Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

5.1.2 Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition

5.1.3 Cost Realism and Schedule Realism

5.1.4 Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

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 Subjects Research

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 System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

6.2.9 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

6.2.10 Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters

6.2.11 Representations by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law

6.2.12 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Notices and Certification

6.2.13 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

6.2.14 Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information

6.3 REPORTING

6.4 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

6.4.1 Representations and Certifications

6.4.2 Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

6.4.3 i-EDISON

7 AGENCY CONTACTS

8 OTHER INFORMATION

8.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

8.1.1 PROCUREMENT CONTRACT PROPOSERS

8.2 NONPROCUREMENT CONTRACT PROPOSERS – NONCOMMERCIAL AND

COMMERCIAL ITEMS (TECHNICAL DATA AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE)

8.3 ALL PROPOSERS – PATENTS

8.4 ALL PROPOSERS-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPRESENTATIONS

9 APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY

10 APPENDIX 2: SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUEST FORM

11 APPENDIX 3: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE

12 APPENDIX 4: VOLUME 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE

TEMPLATES

PART I: 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), Coexistence Phase 2.

Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – DARPA-BAA-15-24 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) Not applicable.

Dates o Posting Date: March 13, 2015 o Proposers Day: April 2, 2015 o Questions Due: March 25, 2015 o Proposal Due Date: April 27, 2015 o BAA Closing Date: September 11, 2015

Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded - Procurement contract.

Agency contact o The BAA Coordinator for this effort may be reached at:

DARPA-BAA-15-24@darpa.mil o US Mail Address for the BAA Coordinator:

DARPA/STO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-15-24

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: 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. This BAA is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.016.

Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA. Proposals received as a result of this BAA will be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA BAAs are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website, https://www.fbo.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, following on prior work carried out in the coexistence thrust of Phase 1 of the Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC) program.

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.

This BAA solicits work enabling coexistence of communications systems with existing or near-future radar systems. Multiple awards are anticipated. The anticipated duration of projects awarded under this BAA is 11 months, with a subsequent 11 month option period that starts up to 2 months before the end of the base effort.

Final reports from coexistence projects performed under SSPARC Phase 1 are available to proposers. A subsequent BAA is anticipated under SSPARC Phase 2 for research on codesign of communications and radar systems and other related topics.

1.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The Shared Spectrum Access for Radar and Communications (SSPARC) program seeks to improve radar and communications joint operational 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.

https://www.fbo.gov/

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: Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) o Commercial system type: Small-cell broadband

The SSPARC program includes work with existing or near-future radar systems (“coexistence”) and work on new radar system concepts designed from the ground up for sharing (“codesign”).

This BAA focuses on coexistence projects. References to SSPARC in this BAA refer to the coexistence portion of the program except where otherwise noted.

1.1.1 Technical Approach and Challenges

Text in this section is unchanged from the prior SSPARC BAA (DARPA-BAA-13-24).

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.

Communications 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 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.

1.1.2 Work In Other Phases

Projects under Phase 1 of SSPARC studied two radars, the AN/SPY-1 (used in the Aegis Combat System) and the AN/TPS-80 (G/ATOR – Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar). The SPY-1 study considered two deployments, a ground deployment (“Aegis Ashore”) and a naval surface deployment (“Aegis Afloat”). The projects used simulation and analysis to show feasibility of spectrum sharing while preserving radar and communications system performance. Separation mechanisms of two types were studied in detail: frequency avoidance, where radar and communications systems hop in a coordinated fashion to avoid co-channel operation within the band; and spatial avoidance, where communications systems are informed of the radar direction schedule and avoid transmitting when in the main beam.

Reports from Phase 1 coexistence projects are available via request to aid in preparing high-quality proposals. Review of this information prior to preparing a proposal is optional but encouraged. To receive the information package, fill out the request form in Appendix 2 and email it to DARPA-BAA-15-24@darpa.mil. The data package is ITAR restricted.

After completion of Phase 2, an 18-month Phase 3 SSPARC effort is anticipated that will include an extensive field test where the system supports radar and communications users, during which mitigation of nuisance jamming and of problems caused by malfunctioning communications devices will be assessed. No proposals for Phase 3 work are solicited at this time. It is anticipated that only Phase 2 performers will be invited to propose Phase 3 work on coexistence projects.

1.1.3 Phase 2 Overview

Each proposal for Phase 2 work should cover all of the following topics.

Base Effort:

1. Research on sharing system design and separation mechanisms

2. Analysis and simulation to assess feasibility and performance of the approach

3. Implementation of a prototype test system

4. Laboratory testing of the prototype system

5. Preparation of a transition plan for the sharing system

6. Base effort final report

Option effort: Continue work on topics 1-5, plus:

7. Conduct field data collection and a limited-scale demonstration

8. Option effort final report

Each performer’s Phase 2 research, analysis and simulation (topics 1-2) will consider a range of radars and communications systems that are the same across performers (see section 1.1.4). Each performer’s Phase 2 prototyping, laboratory testing, transition plan and demonstrations (topics 3-5 and 7) will consider a single radar type and selected communications systems, which may differ across performers.

mailto:DARPA-BAA-14-61@darpa.mil

The proposer’s selection of radar and communications systems for topics 3-5 and 7 is critical, and will be evaluated accordingly.

The proposer team should have the expertise and permissions required to modify the selected systems to implement the sharing system and separation mechanisms.

The selected systems and data links should represent appropriate transition targets for SSPARC technology. Alternatively, the proposal should explain how testing and demonstration on the selected systems and links supports transition to appropriate transition targets.

The choice of systems should optimize the cost and schedule of the proposed research.

Phase 2 consists of four time periods:

Base effort work period: Topics 1-5 (9 months) Base effort final report period: Topic 6 (2 months) Option effort work period: Topics 1-5 and 7 (9 months) Option effort final report period: Topic 8 (2 months)

The option effort work period is expected to begin prior to the end of the base effort final report period.

The following sections present more details on each of the 8 work topics.

1.1.4 Topic 1: Research on Sharing Systems

Projects should perform detailed design of a spectrum sharing system. The design should incorporate at a minimum frequency avoidance and spatial avoidance mechanisms of the type studied in Phase 1, and at least one additional separation mechanism that is selected after identification, analysis and ranking of multiple candidates.

Proposals should clearly (1) list the objectives of the proposed spectrum sharing system and separation mechanisms, (2) identify and rank the technical risks of accomplishing those objectives, and (3) present a program plan that describes how these risks will be mitigated. The proposal should explain the rationale for the proposer’s choices regarding which aspects of the approach need to be designed and studied in detail in Phase 2 as opposed to those for which detailed work can safely be deferred to Phase 3.

The proposed approach should support spectrum sharing in three categories of operations.

Category 1: Friendly Environment: In this category, there is no overt jamming. All in-band communications systems within propagation range of the radar participate in the sharing system. Misconfigured or defective communications devices may transmit in the radar band without following the requirements of the sharing system and should be mitigated. The goal of sharing is to sustain both military and commercial communications in the radar band.

Category 2: Threatening Environment: In this category, there may be intermittent overt jamming at a “nuisance” level. This is defined as signals deliberately designed to interfere with the radar or the information sharing communications link, that a non-state actor of limited technical sophistication and financial resources could reasonably be expected to transmit. Moreover, commercial communications systems within propagation range may operate in the radar band without participating in the sharing system. The goal of sharing is to sustain communications by participating military and commercial communications systems in the radar band despite the presence of nuisance jamming and non-participating communications systems.

Category 3: Open Conflict: In this category, there are sophisticated jamming attacks against all systems and links. The goal of sharing is to sustain military communications in the radar band. There is no requirement to sustain commercial communications.

The proposed approach should be applicable to a range of radar types. The system should support at least the following types of S-band radars.

SPY-1 Type: High effective radiated power, medium transmitter duty cycle, wide bandwidth, multi-function, electronically scanned array.

SPN-43 Type: Medium effective radiated power, low transmitter duty cycle, narrow bandwidth, track-while-scan rotating dish antenna.

G/ATOR Type: Medium effective radiated power, high transmitter duty cycle, narrow to wide bandwidth, multi-function, electronically scanned array.

The proposed approach should be applicable to military/military sharing and to military/commercial sharing. Military/commercial sharing should support at least the following types of systems. LTE stands for Long Term Evolution, which is the emerging cellular voice and data standard.

LTE Type: Small cells deployed by a large-scale commercial operator or institution, tightly controlled by a centralized network that provides Self Organizing Network (SON) functions.

WiFi Type: Small cells deployed by small-scale institutions or individuals, loosely controlled by a regulatory network such as a Spectrum Access System (SAS).

Important issues to consider are those identified in Section 1.1.1 and additional issues, in particular:

mitigation of interference caused by malfunctioning communications devices;

exploitation of propagation shadows, at least for stationary communications devices;

resilience of the data link between the radar and communications systems; and, graceful performance degradation in situations where the data link is intermittent or unavailable.

1.1.5 Topic 2: Analysis and Simulation

Using analysis and simulation, projects should assess the performance of the spectrum sharing system and all (three or more) separation mechanisms against the metrics specified in Section 1.2. Performance should be assessed for all operational categories, radars, and communications system types listed in the previous section. Low-fidelity simulations may be used for device types that the performer does not plan to implement or demonstrate. In the option effort, the planned Phase 2 field demonstration should be modeled and its expected performance assessed in advance of going to the field.

Simulation validation should be included in the project plan. DARPA may specify tests that require simulation of common radar and communications systems, scenarios, and generation of results in a specified output file format to enable comparison of results across performers.

A government Red Team will inject attacks into the performer’s high-fidelity simulation seeking to defeat the radar’s mission by leveraging vulnerabilities introduced by the sharing mechanism.

To support this, the proposer should include in the project plan:

During the base effort work period, deliver simulation interfaces, reference code for a jamming attack against the radar, and documentation to the Red Team.

During the option effort work period, support two spirals of Red Team work. Each spiral consists of at least 40 working days for attack development and debugging during which the Red Team needs simulation system access and technical support, followed by 1 week for assessment during which the Red Team needs extensive simulation time and interaction with project leads. During the development and debugging phase, remote access that minimizes Red Team staff time on-site at the performer location is preferred.

The performer should plan to improve the system in response to findings from the first spiral and assess an upgraded software release in the second spiral.

1.1.6 Topic 3: Prototype Implementation

Projects should implement a prototype system that includes at a minimum:

A sharing system with its associated data link(s) A radar A military MANET with at least three nodes, operating in the radar band An LTE system with at least two eNodeB’s and 2 User Equipment (UE) units, operating in the radar band A WiFi system with at least one Access Point and two client devices operating in the radar band (see section 1.1.13) At least two separation mechanisms supported by the radar and communications systems.

For the base effort final test (section 1.1.7), an initial end-to-end prototype should be completed that includes at least a radar, one communications system, one separation mechanism, and the sharing system with its associated data links. All devices in the initial prototype should be functional components, with the exception of the data links associated with the sharing system, which may be emulated as long as representative latency is introduced. For the field demonstration in the option effort (section 1.1.10), the full prototype described above should be completed.

DARPA will evaluate each selected communications system to assess susceptibility to interference, throughput at different receive power levels, and similar information relevant for interpretation of experimental results. The evaluation can be done unclassified or at the SECRET level. Proposers should plan to send a functional instance of each system to a facility to be specified by DARPA. A functional instance contains, for example, two nodes of appropriate types to exchange data via a wired RF connection, along with a machine to run a local copy of (or provide remote access to) any required supporting functions such as an LTE core network.

Communications systems used in the base effort final test should be evaluated in advance of the test. Other communications systems may be evaluated at any time. Each system should be installed at the specified facility for at least 20 working days. Evaluation should occur after completion of any hardware alterations (e.g. frequency shifting, change of filters) but may occur before software modifications that add the sharing system and separation mechanisms. Performer staff should plan travel to the specified facility at the beginning of the evaluation period for equipment installation and joint work with facility staff. For budgeting, assume the facility is MITRE in Bedford, Massachusetts and the required visit duration is five working days.

1.1.7 Topic 4: Laboratory Testing of the Prototype

Laboratory tests should be used throughout the base effort work period and option effort work period to reduce risk and assist simulation validation.

Laboratory testing may be carried out with wired RF links between the devices in lieu of antennas and RF propagation. There should be a method to emulate rapid changes in antenna gain and waveform characteristics that occur as the radar beam changes its position with respect to the communications device. There should be a means to emulate multiple targets for the radar, so the impact of interference from communications transmissions during surveillance and target tracking can be evaluated.

Base effort final test: An end-to-end system test in the laboratory should be carried out, and the results of this test should be analyzed and explained in a test report delivered to DARPA, prior to the end of the base effort work period. In this test, performance against applicable metrics from Section 1.2 should be assessed, to include radar performance impairments if any.

1.1.8 Topic 5: Transition Plan

Projects should deliver a transition plan for the spectrum sharing system with a goal of initial deployment by 2020. If 2020 is too early, the proposal should identify an achievable deployment date and explain why this is the earliest reasonable date.

At a minimum the transition plan should:

1. Identify and rank potential transition partners (military) and standardization/ commercialization paths (commercial).

2. Identify the inputs and associated deadlines needed for transition partners or standard bodies to achieve deployment by the proposed date.

3. Address regulatory and policy issues associated with adoption by the transition partner(s) or with commercial deployment.

Proposals should include a brief analysis on each item. If any items in (2) occur during Phase 2, the proposal should plan phase 2 work and structure the project to generate the necessary deliverables in time.

The project should deliver a draft transition plan in the base effort work period and an updated transition plan in the option effort work period.

1.1.9 Topic 6: Base effort final report

Draft reports from all of the base effort work period topics, and a final report on the base effort final test, are necessary inputs into the decision to continue the project into the option period. It may take up to 45 days after delivery of the report package for DARPA to complete its decision and carry out the contractual actions needed to exercise the option.

Therefore, after completion of the 9 month base effort work period, the performer should plan a 2 month period at a low level of effort to prepare the base effort final report. DARPA will provide feedback on the draft reports early in this period. Revisions based on this feedback should be incorporated into the final report. If the option is exercised, it is expected that the option effort work period will begin during the base effort final report period.

1.1.10 Topic 7: Field Demonstration

The option effort work period will continue work on topics from the base effort work period (sections 1.1.4 through 1.1.8), and conclude with a limited field demonstration to:

1. Collect test data in a controlled free space environment.

2. Perform off-line analysis of the data to assess sharing system performance

3. Demonstrate the capabilities of the sharing system to stakeholders.

The conditions for the demonstration include:

Category 1 Friendly Environment (see Section 1.1.4) The communication systems (military MANET, LTE, WiFi if implemented) must operate at the same time in the radar band but need not share spectrum with each other. Either geographic or frequency separation between them is acceptable.

The MANET should demonstrate mobility at vehicle speeds.

The LTE system should consist of at least two eNodeB’s.

User Equipment handover should be demonstrated between the eNodeB’s while there is active radar operation without loss of voice or data connection.

Performance against applicable metrics from Section 1.2 should be assessed, to include radar performance impairments if any.

The performer may select whatever demonstration location offers highest value to the program, subject to approval by DARPA. It is expected but not required that this will be a location where the selected radar is already deployed and range infrastructure is available.

Rogue devices, non-participating commercial systems, and jamming are not required for the Phase 2 field demonstration.

1.1.11 Topic 8: Option effort final report

Projects should plan a 2 month period at a low level of effort after the completion of the option effort work period to prepare the project final report. A draft of the final report should be delivered partway through the 2 month period, followed by revisions based on DARPA feedback before the final version is completed.

1.1.12 Design reviews

The following items are subject to review and approval by DARPA prior to the corresponding activities.

Simulation system specifications Simulation system interface for use by Red Team attack code Red Team spiral start dates and assessment dates Prototype design and selection of the subset to be completed within the base effort work period Test plan for the base effort final test Field demonstration plan

A design review or coordination interaction for each item should be included in the project plan.

Design reviews may occur remotely or in person, and may occur as part of quarterly meetings.

1.1.13 WiFi tasks

Depending on budget, the WiFi portion of Phase 2 may be limited to research, analysis and simulation. Therefore, proposers are requested to structure the cost proposal so DARPA can identify how much would be saved in the base and option by removing WiFi from topics 3-5 and 7 (however, WiFi work should not be segregated to an additional option). This change also implies reducing WiFi simulations under topic 2 to low-fidelity simulation; those savings should be included in the total reported in the cost proposal.

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 technical and cost 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 attempt to achieve. Proposals that seek to do better than the stated metrics are encouraged.

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. The primary program metric will be the minimum separation distance between co-channel radar and communications systems. The closer the systems can operate, while sustaining on average specified fractions of their baseline performance, the more effective spectrum sharing 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 2 that effectively characterize the spectrum access benefits of their technologies or system solutions in comparison to the existing state of the art.

There are two additions to the program metrics previously defined in Phase 1 and described in the following sections.

For the radar, Phase 1 considered only Measures of Effectiveness related to surveillance, for example PD and PFA. In Phase 2, Measures of Effectiveness for radar tracking should also be considered. Specifically, SBASELINE can be no smaller than the distance at which radar track quality (rms position error) for each target range P is as good as a standalone system tracking a target at range P*(1/0.95). SSSPARC can be no smaller than a distance at which this same level of track quality is maintained.

Spectrum access for communications should be considered in Phase 2. Spectrum access should be measured, by proxy, as the total communications rate at a given point in space if there is a high density of communications transmitters there but nowhere else. Total communications rate is the instantaneous transmission rate integrated over the time it takes the radar to complete a full cycle of its operation. Instantaneous rate is maximized by maximizing the amount of spectrum made available for communications, which increases the number of users that can simultaneously transmit, and maximizing permitted transmit power for each communications user. When comparing two sharing systems managing the same radar and the same communications system, constraining both sharing systems to maintain radar and communications performance as described in the following sections, the one achieving higher total communications rate at each distance D from the radar is preferred.

The following sections incorporate clarifying text but are otherwise unchanged from the metrics provided in DARPA-BAA-13-24 (SSPARC Phase 1).

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 established by selecting an operating distance D for the link and then determining T in the absence of interference under those conditions.

Once TSTANDALONE is established, the communications link standalone distance DSTANDALONE is defined as the largest line-of-sight link separation distance at which the communications link sustains throughput TSTANDALONE, when spectrum is not shared.

Radar

Radar Parameters Communications Link Parameters

Radar target 1 m2 steady

P D and P

FA

fixed in advance distance R

Node1

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

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).

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 maximum number of nodes potentially in propagation range of the radar for a military MANET is 1,000.

o The maximum number of nodes potentially in propagation range of the radar for a commercial broadband system is 100,000.

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 in all geometries (spatial arrangements of communications nodes and the target).

Radar

Radar target 1 m2 steady

P D and P

FA

same as previously fixed values

R ≥ 0.95 R STANDALONE Node1

Node2

D = D

STANDALONE

T ≥ 0.95 T

STANDALONE

Distance S

Distance S

S

BASELINE

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

Figure 2. Definition of the baseline standoff distance SBASELINE

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

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 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

Metric Coexistence goals Notes Line-of-sight standoff 5x standoff reduction1

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

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.

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.

1.3 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION AND EQUIPMENT

The prior SSPARC BAA and selected results of Phase 1 research efforts are available to interested proposers, as previously described in Section 1.1.

DARPA does not anticipate providing any equipment as GFE for Phase 2.

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. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more of the phases.

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. 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. 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, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

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. Proposers are advised that regardless of the instrument type proposed, DARPA may select other award instruments, as it deems appropriate. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort 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. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

2.1 FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 established the national policy for controlling the flow of scientific, technical, and engineering information produced in federally funded fundamental research at colleges, universities, and laboratories. The Directive defines fundamental research as follows:

'Fundamental research' means basic and applied research 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.

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research 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.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Appropriate clauses will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the prime contractor is restricted research, a subawardee may be conducting contracted fundamental research. In those cases, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility to explain in its proposal why its subawardee’s effort is contracted fundamental research.

The following statement or similar provision will be incorporated into any resultant non-fundamental research procurement contract or other transaction:

“There shall be no dissemination or publication, except within and between the contractor and any subawardees, 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 subawardee 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 DARPA/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, email and phone.