Questions_and_Answers_for_SXCT.pdf

DARPA-BAA-15-26

Squad X Core Technologies Program

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

Q1: Does DARPA expect an even distribution of funds over the 4 Technical Areas?

• A1: No. DARPA is open to any distribution based on the quantity and quality of proposals received and the availability of funds.

Q2: How many Phase 1 awards does DARPA anticipate per Technical Area?

• A2: DARPA does not have firm expectations. Per DARPA-BAA-15-26, page 12, “The program expects to select two to four efforts from each technical area, with an estimated total of eight to twelve efforts for maturation and initial proof of principle demonstration.”

Q3: Does the requirement for a single PDF document for the proposal mean combining the Technical and Cost volumes in the same file?

• A3: Yes. See DARPA-BAA-15-26 page 27, Section 2, Proposal Submission Information.

Q4: Are live demonstrations the only deliverables expected out of Phase 1?

• A4: Consult Table 2 (page 14) of DARPA-BAA-15-26 for minimal government expectations for Phase 1 reviews and deliverables.

Q5: Do Phase 1 demonstrations have to be both day and night, all weather operations, 24-hours, or is just daytime acceptable?

• A5: Each proposer should describe the demonstration that best showcases their technology.

Q6: Squad-level technologies in this solicitation match many of the requirements for TALOS (USSOCOM’s Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit). Can you please explain the differences? Is Squad X a ‘stripped down’ TALOS? Is it a different customer? Is it a lower cost TALOS? What is included in this program that is not part of TALOS?

• A6: The DARPA Squad X team is aware of the TALOS effort at the government level and has communicated with the TALOS team. Squad X Core Technologies is an independent program, described by DARPA-BAA-15-26.

Q7: Should technology development under TA1, TA2 and TA3 assume a GPS-denied environment? If so, is developing a mitigation plan appropriate under those tasks?

• A7: TAs 1, 2, and 3 can assume that squad members are accurately localized, through GPS or other means. GPS can be used for initial demonstrations but the long-term goal is technology that is functional when GPS is not available.

Q8: In Technical Area 3, is sensor development allowed for novel sensing or is it software development only?

• A8: No fundamental sensor physics or sensor component development is expected under TA3. This is not a sensor development program effort. However, packaging modifications for sensors or integration of multiple sensor systems to allow for placement on squad members is acceptable.

Q9: Can DARPA provide the names of the companies who develop/distribute communications technologies (e.g. tactical radios) mentioned during the Proposers’ Day briefing?

• A9: DARPA does not endorse specific hardware providers.

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

Q10: Will DARPA provide the hardware systems (robots, UAVs, radios) for Technical Area 4 or do performers need to bring their own?

• A10: DARPA will not provide hardware under this effort. Proposers’ should identify their planned use of surrogates for Technical Area 4 in their proposals.

Q11: Does Technical Area 3 include sensor exploitation for sensors hosted on autonomous vehicles? If so, what are the SWaP constraints?

• A11: Yes. Technical Area 3 does not have SWaP constraints for unmanned systems. For SWaP, pay close attention to keeping systems smaller and at a squad-relevant scale.

Q12: For Technical Area 3, does demonstration of the 1000m metric apply to Phase 1 or just Phase 2?

• A12: Phase 2, with Phase 1 aggressively supporting Phase 2 risk reduction. Work performed during Phase 1, if not already meeting the metric, should identify a pathway to achieving the metric during Phase 2.

Q13: For Technical Area 4, are individual soldier localization approaches of interest as part of a squad level localization effort?

• A13: Yes, but DARPA expects the majority of the effort to focus on collaborative localizations, per the scope of Technical Area 4.

Q14: For Technical Area 3 or 4, are leave-behind sensors or squad-deployed sensors acceptable for the CONOPs?

• A14: Yes. However, pay attention to squad and soldier scale and SWaP.

Q15: Can you clarify the expected number of autonomous vehicles for TA3 or TA4 scenarios?

• A15: DARPA is not prescribing the number, type or mix of unmanned systems. An example mix of unmanned systems can be found in DARPA-BAA-15-26, page 10, but DARPA is open to any optimal solution as identified by proposers.

Q16: For Technical Area 4, is collaborative error reduction only to be accomplished by improved squad-level localization techniques, or can other approaches involving improved communications be used?

• A16: Either approach is acceptable. Proposers may propose ideas based on the needs for TA4 outlined in DARPA-BAA-15-26.

Q17: Does Non-Line-of Sight (NLOS) Precision Engagement imply that semi-active laser guidance is unacceptable?

• A17: No, but reduced signature is preferred.

Q18: Are there payload limits for the robots and UAVs?

• A18: DARPA does not specify payload limits. However, bear in mind that solutions should be organic to the squad and have the potential for squad-relevant SWaP.

Q19: Are there bandwidth assumptions across squad members?

• A19: There are no bandwidth assumptions. However, solutions should have the potential to be hosted on tactical communications systems.

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

Q20: Are performers expected to coordinate (and write into the proposal) logistics for the demos at Fort Benning?

• A20: For Phase 2, proposers should provide the appropriate costs for a testing effort at Fort Benning or an equivalent facility. Logistics for the Phase 2 demonstrations will be addressed and defined during Phase 2.

Q21: Is Squad X to be transitioned as a set of functionalities to be integrated within: Nett Warrior?

ATAK? Transapps? Something else? Is there a preference between the above architectures?

• A21: Transition of SXCT technologies is not yet defined. It could include integration with existing or future systems as mentioned above.

Q22: What is DARPA’s plan / schedule for continuing the work under the currently-funded Squad X Infrastructure studies?

• A22: DARPA has no further information to provide about the Squad X Infrastructure studies at this time.

Q23: Are software techniques to improve tailored situational awareness part of Technical Area 1?

• A23: Yes, provided that they are organic to the squad and utilize realistic organic-to-the-squad inputs. All must be able to be demonstrated.

Q24: Will there be a down-select for Phase 2?

• A24: Per DARPA-BAA-15-26, all, some, one, none, or portions of Phase 2 Options may be awarded. Phase 2 award will be dependent on Phase 1 performance, the candidate technologies’ potential to meet the program goals and metrics, and funding availability.

Q25: With regard to the Precision guided weapons, is the demo of the system assumed to be from a fixed platform launcher or is DARPA going to work with ARDEC/AMRDEC to get provisional approval for man-rated safety qualification? Will the demo be a TM/OBR payload or live warhead?

• A25: Proposers may request support for man-rated safety qualification. This request must be addressed in the proposal. If a proposer requests the qualification and DARPA selects the proposal, DARPA will work with the appropriate agency for the man-rated safety qualification. Proposers may scope the demonstration to best fit their technology, either a TM/OBR payload or live warhead is acceptable for demonstration purposes. However, DARPA-BAA-15-26 does not desire developments in new explosive payloads, as noted on page 7 of the BAA.

Q26: How does DARPA feel about the use of active illumination? Is it totally undesired or can it be used for purposes other than sensing?

• A26: It is acceptable, but reduced signature approaches are preferred.

Q27: Are there documents/reports that we can/should access from the ‘Marine Corps Workshops’ referenced during the Proposers’ day briefing? Or any other documents mentioned during today’s briefing?

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

• A27: A short summary of the key take-aways from the Marine Corps Workshops is shown on slide 9 of the SXCT Program Overview briefing.

Q28: The BAA states that DARPA does not expect the currently-funded Squad X Infrastructure Studies to overlap with the work under the SXCT BAA. Is it ok to use the technologies from the currently-funded efforts as part of our efforts for the SXCT BAA?

• A28: The government does not perceive that any prior or concurrent experience would limit a proposer’s technical approach.

Q29: Is physiological monitoring to determine cognitive state with respect to situational awareness within the scope of SXCT?

• A29: No.

Q30: There has been talk of evaluating existing technologies and integrating them. Will funding be made available to mature technology that is in the functional prototype phase? Will funding be made available to repackage current technology for use in Squad X military operations or studies?

• A30: DARPA does not currently have any plans to integrate, mature or repackage existing technologies for the sole purpose of evaluation. DARPA is interested in developing technologies to provide new capabilities that meet the Program Success Metrics for each Technical Area and the overall vision of the SXCT program, regardless of their initial Technology Readiness Level.

Q31: Does Squad X assume lesser involvement with higher echelons? In other words, is lesser involvement of higher echelon a value proposition for a proposal?

• A31: Squad X Core Technologies looks to develop organic capabilities for the rifle squad, which could implicitly reduce the reliance on higher echelon capabilities. Reduced reliance on higher-echelon capabilities could be a value proposition.

Q32: Is sniper detection a desired capability for the squad?

• A32: Yes, provided a proposed solution fits within the scope of DARPA-BAA-15-26.

Q33: Will DARPA help to coordinate operational feedback / mission context with performer and end-user (human factors) directorates?

• A33: Yes. DARPA will facilitate interaction and feedback with the user communities.

Q34: Will Squad X Infrastructure studies or a separate program look at the training piece/consideration tied to modernization?

• A34: The Squad X Infrastructures studies will not address training tied to modernization.

Please review DARPA SN 14-40 for the scope of the Squad X Infrastructure Study.

Q35: Technical Areas 3 and 4 each have two sub-areas, and the BAA states that proposers are allowed to address one sub-area or both in their proposal for that TA. Can proposers who are addressing both sub-areas in one integrated proposal use twice the page count for each of the Technical Details sections of the Technical and Management Volume? Alternatively, should proposers consider submitting a separate (but coordinated) proposal for each sub-area of the TA?

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

• A35: If addressing both sub-areas in a single proposal, proposers should adhere to page count limits described in DARPA-BAA-15-26. If a proposer wishes to address each sub-area in separate proposals, each proposal should be a stand-alone effort independent of the other.

Q36: For Technical Area 4, while the BAA states nominal values for the expected payload for the cooperative UGVs, are approaches that minimize the sensing system SWaP on the UGV (while enabling the overall 6m localization accuracy for the squad) to be viewed more favorably than approaches that provide further increases in localization accuracy at the expense of additional ground vehicle sensing SWaP?

• A36: DARPA cannot assess this tradeoff. Proposals will be evaluated individually against the evaluation criteria specified in the BAA, not compared to each other.

Q37: For Technical Area 4, in order to improve the chances of successful system transition, is there an estimated total cost value that performers should try to stay below for the UGV sensing and computing hardware, or is achieving the success metrics in Table 1 the only goal for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the program?

• A37: Total cost value is not currently one of the program success metrics. However, cost is always of interest to the military when considering future system transition potential. As stated in the BAA on page 38, proposals will be evaluated on cost realism.

Q38: For Technical Area 4, are proposers to assume that the squad members have any existing sensing or communications devices that should be leveraged as compared to specifying completely new hardware to be used?

• A38: Proposers can assume that each squad member carries a communication device (e.g., radio) and processing device (e.g., handheld end user device). DARPA does not intend to identify specific hardware or systems.

Q39: For Technical Area 4, the BAA states that the bandwidth between nodes is not a constraint. We do not believe that there is an existing off-the-shelf radio product that provides extremely high bandwidth with other potentially required feature (encryption, ranging, etc), but the BAA also states that developmental sensors are specifically not desired for TA4. Should performers consider alternative techniques for demonstrating the desired functionality (possibly using multiple COTS components, which would be non-SWaP compliant but would provide the desired high bandwidth), or should performers consider proposing tasks that would develop a prototype communications device that is SWaP-compliant with the desired extremely high bandwidth and other capabilities beneficial to Squad X?

• A39: The SXCT program will not fund communications system development efforts.

Proposed concepts must be demonstrable and eventually be hosted on tactical communications systems. The communications device (e.g. radio) and end user device (e.g.

tablet) does not count against program success metrics for SWaP.

Q40: For Technical Area 4, the BAA says proposers have flexibility to propose the desired robotic team configuration. Can guidance be provided on the maximum and minimum number of robotic team members that the government considers feasible for Squad X support?

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015

• A40: DARPA is not prescribing the number, type or mix of unmanned systems. An example mix of unmanned systems can be found in DARPA-BAA-15-26, page 10, but DARPA is open to any optimal solution as identified by proposers.

Q41: On page 8 of the BAA, the final paragraph reads “Technical Area 3 is primarily a software development effort.” Should this statement read, “Area 3B”? The Sensing 3A description doesn’t seem consistent with a software-mostly activity.

• A41: The statement in the BAA is correct. While some sensor re-packaging is anticipated under TA3, DARPA does not expect that any significant sensor hardware development will be required in order to meet the objectives of the TA.

Q42: Regarding the TA3 moving speed of 2m/s: Does the squad UGV need to be at constant moving?

Can it stop in between for precise sensing?

• A42: DARPA desires technologies that will be able to perform at a constant 2 m/s speed.

This specification is based on keeping up with typical squad maneuvers.

Q43: Is there a limit on the price of the sensor to use for TA3? Is DARPA looking for cheap ones only for large scale deployment?

• A43: No, there are no defined price limits. Performers are encouraged to consider the post- R&D implications of costly sensors and components on platforms at the squad scale, which must be affordable, fieldable items to the DoD.

Q44: Regarding Technical Area 1, the BAA calls for M203/M320 compatibility. From previous work, we identified that there is a limitation to length of a round that will load into a M203. Clearly, the M320 grenade launcher, as well as the old M79 launchers can accommodate longer rounds. How important is the M203 compatibility?

• A44: DARPA is looking for proposed solutions that are compatible with at least one of the following: M203, M320, or the Picatinny Rail System. The M203 and M320 are both fielded systems, therefore proposed solutions that are compatible with both systems may provide increased opportunity for transition.

Q45: Many distributed array solutions require relative sensor positions that are more accurate than the requirements of Technical Area 4A. If a portion of the proposed sensor system provides these accurate relative positions, but does not address absolute localization, should the proposer submit two proposals under TA 3 and TA 4 or a single proposal under TA3?

• A45: Each submitted proposal should be a stand-alone effort independent of any other proposal submission and should independently meet the goals and vision of the Squad X Core Technologies program as stated in DARPA-BAA-15-26.

Q46: The BAA states on page 11 the following about the desired UGV. “The platform should not exceed 700 kg (without payload) and have at least a 0.2 m ground clearance.” Will UGV’s that have less than 0.2m ground clearance be acceptable as long as the platform is off-road capable? For example, http://rmp.segway.com/about-segway-robotics/segway-rmp440-le-and-se/. This robot has 0.12m of ground clearance, but has large ATV like tires and is 4 wheel drive.

• A46: The values for platform weight and ground clearance stated in DARPA-BAA-15-26 are recommended as point-of-departure platform characteristics, not requirements. Per BAA http://rmp.segway.com/about-segway-robotics/segway-rmp440-le-and-se/

Questions and Answers 6 March 2015 page 11: “emphasis should be placed on suitability for experimentation” and “Ground and air platforms should be able to support operational squad speeds up to 4 m/s and have sufficient mobility to traverse slightly cluttered urban and rolling open terrain.” The goal is to minimize performer effort adapting technology to a robotic platform while demonstrating a capability with realistic transition potential.

Q47: The BAA states on page 11 the following about the about sensors for the robots. “Specifically not desired are: … or fully active sensor systems using traditional/fixed wavelengths (e.g., LIDAR at typical 850-905 nm ranges).” Is the use of a traditional LIDAR acceptable in Phase 1 as long as there is a transition plan for phase 2 the replaces it with an appropriate sensing device?

• A47: If a proposer intends to integrate existing technologies for proof of concept during Phase 1 and pursue advancement of a goal technology in Phase 2, a detailed development plan that identifies key risks of the proposed approach and describes key risk reduction activities should be included in the proposal. Phase 1 demonstrations, if not already meeting the performance metrics, are expected to show progress towards final proposed system performance, as well as an identified pathway to achieving desired performance at the completion of Phase 2.

Q48: Do surrogate systems that are not related to the technology under development count against SWaP metrics?

• A48: For the effort under DARPA-BAA-15-26, no, surrogate system SWaP does not count against metrics. Specifically, a communications device (radio), end-user device (e.g., tablet or smart phone) and wired connections would not count against the Soldier SWaP metrics for TA2, TA3, or TA4. However, as consideration for future transition, DARPA will pay close attention to technology solutions that rely on characteristics of surrogate platforms that lack the potential for future integration.

Q49: Can a predetermination be made on Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) before an effort is expended in developing a proposal?

• A49: Yes. Please refer to guidance provided on page 22 of DARPA-BAA-15-26.