HR001120S0027-Amendment-03.pdf

HR001120S0027

Summary of Amendment 03: The purpose of this Amendment is to remind proposers that the proposal due date and time stipulated within the BAA takes precedence should there be a conflict within Beta.SAM.gov pertaining to the response time listed therein.

Thus, this Amendment does not modify the BAA, but merely reinforces the proposal due date and time stipulated herein given the fact that a potential conflict within Beta.SAM.gov, regarding the response time for submission of the full proposal, may exist.

Broad Agency Announcement Wideband Adaptive RF Protection (WARP)

Microsystems Technology Office

HR001120S0027

January 30, 2020

Amendment 03 As amended June 3, 2020

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background B. Program Description C. Program Structure D. Technical Areas E. Schedule/Milestones F. Deliverables G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information H. Intellectual Property

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Other Eligibility Criteria

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

1. Abstract Format

2. Full Proposal Format

3. Proprietary Information

4. Security Information

a. Program Security Information

b. Unclassified Submissions

c. Both Classified and Unclassified Submissions

5. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls

6. Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use

7. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

8. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 749d)/FAR 39.2

9. Grant Abstract

10. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

11. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

b. For All Non-Procurement Contracts

12. Patents

13. System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

14. Funding Restrictions C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Abstract Due Date

b. Full Proposal Date

c. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

2. Abstract Submission Information

3. Proposal Submission Information

a. For Proposers Requesting Grants or Cooperative Agreements:

b. For Proposers Requesting Technology Investment Agreements

c. For Proposers Requesting Contracts or Other Transaction Agreements

d. Classified Submission Information

4. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

3. Cost Realism

B. Review and Selection Process

1. Review Process

2. Handling of Source Selection Information

3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices

1. Abstracts

2. Proposals

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. FAR and DFARS Clauses

3. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

4. Representations and Certifications

5. Terms and Conditions

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

2. i-Edison

3. TFIMS

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. Protesting

ATTACHMENT 1: Cost Volume Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template ATTACHMENT 3: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Guide

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)

Funding Opportunity Title: Wideband Adaptive RF Protection (WARP) Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001120S0027 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates: (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Date: January 30, 2020 o Proposers Day: February 11, 2020 o Abstract Due Date: March 9, 2020 o FAQ Submission Deadline: May 21, 2020 o Proposal Due Date: June 4, 2020 o Estimated period of performance start: November 2020

Concise description of the funding opportunity: DARPA seeks innovative proposals to develop wideband, adaptive RF filters and cancellers that selectively attenuate interference and protect wideband digital radios from saturation. When exposed to interference/self-interference, the filters and cancellers will automatically sense and adapt to the electromagnetic environment through the intelligent control of its adaptive hardware.

WARP will ultimately enable the use of wideband software defined radios in congested and contested environments.

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: It is anticipated that $40M of total funding will be awarded across both technical areas, approximately partitioned as follows:

$20M for Technical Area 1 (TA1), 3 phases, 48 months, 6.2 funding;

$20M for Technical Area 2 (TA2), 3 phases, 48 months, 6.2 funding.

Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

Anticipated funding type: 6.2 Types of instruments that may be awarded: Procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement or other transaction.

Agency contact:

o Dr. Timothy Hancock, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001120S0027@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001120S0027

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:name@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 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 the procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 C.F.R. § 200.203. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing. Proposals received as a result of this BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA BAAs are posted on the beta SAM website, under the Contract Opportunities (FBO) link, at https://beta.sam.gov/, and, as applicable, the grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

The Microsystems Technology Office at DARPA seeks innovative proposals to develop wideband adaptive filtering and self-interference cancellation circuits to enable the use of wideband software defined radios in spectrum-congested environments. When exposed to external interference or self-interference, WARP signal filters and cancellers will sense and adapt to the electromagnetic environment through the intelligent control of adaptive hardware.

A. Background

Historically, digital receivers have been narrowband because they have been limited by analog-to-digital converter (ADC) bandwidth. For these narrowband systems, pre-planned filtering has been used to prevent unwanted signals from reaching the ADC. In the last decade, however, ADC technology has achieved greater than 10 GHz of instantaneous bandwidth with 8-10 effective number of bits (ENOB). This performance is now sufficient for use in wideband digital receivers but poses two challenges with respect to dynamic range. Wideband ADCs typically have a smaller available input voltage swing and therefore reduced dynamic range when compared to their narrowband counterparts. Additionally, as the bandwidth increases, more signals are potentially observed which mean larger voltage swings into the ADC, further stressing the dynamic range.

The Wideband Adaptive RF Protection (WARP) program seeks to protect these wideband receivers against both external and self-interference through adaptive equalization of the input spectrum to stay within the dynamic range of a wideband digital receiver.

Today, receivers are protected from external interference through static filtering, automatic gain control, or signal limiters. With static filtering, only a fraction of the digital receiver bandwidth is used, which gives good sensitivity but does not leverage the full available bandwidth of the receiver. The use of automatic gain control takes full advantage of the bandwidth of the system, but decreases the sensitivity to small signals. Finally, the use of signal limiters can cause cross-modulation distortion and may decrease the overall sensitivity of the system. The use of tunable filters is often the desired solution, but they rarely are able to tune over the bandwidth that is https://beta.sam.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ achievable today in wideband receivers. To achieve wideband coverage, designers will often implement a mix of tuned and switched filter banks, but the inclusion of explicitly switched signal paths can incur additional loss and often precludes the creation of a multi-band filter response.

For the case of self-interference, receivers are protected through half-duplex operation, antenna isolation, or signal cancellation. Half-duplex operation disconnects the receiver when the transmitter is turned on, eliminating the possibility of full-duplex operation. Antenna isolation is implemented with circulators, electrically balanced duplexers (EBDs), or frequency duplexers which all have narrowband limitations and, in the case of frequency duplexing, does not support same-frequency full-duplex operation. Antenna isolation is also implemented with cross-polarized antenna feeds or physical antenna separation for good wideband operation but does not provide sufficient total system isolation and is frequently limited by antenna installation constraints.

Finally, signal cancellation must be used in conjunction with one of the antenna isolation techniques, but because of the bandwidth limitations, there are virtually no signal cancellation solutions to pair with wideband antenna isolation techniques. While narrowband techniques have been implemented in the literature, they often use only a few frequency or time taps and can therefore only cancel signals over a narrow bandwidth with a short delay spread in the leakage path.

B. Program Description

The goal of the WARP program is to develop wideband, adaptive filters and analog signal cancellers that selectively attenuate or cancel external and self-interference to protect wideband digital radios from saturation, ultimately enabling the use of software-defined radios in congested and dynamic spectral environments.

For external interference, the ideal wideband receiver would continuously sense the electromagnetic environment and adaptively react in the presence of jammers or blockers to maintain dynamic range without decreasing sensitivity and bandwidth. WARP adaptive filters will automatically reconfigure their frequency response to include pass/stop bands with bandwidth and center frequency tuning and selectively attenuate large signals while passing small or desired signals. The challenge is to do this over a wide bandwidth with low insertion loss so that it may be used at the input of a receiver. Today, most chip-scale tunable filters are limited to a 2:1 tuning ratio or less without explicit band switching. The WARP program will demonstrate adaptive RF filtering of external interference with a 9:1 tuning ratio to provide full-band coverage across 2- 18 GHz. It is expected that this will be achieved through innovative filter architectures supported by state-of-the-art components and packaging.

In same-frequency simultaneous transmit and receive (STAR), antenna isolation alone is not sufficient to attenuate the transmitter leakage from interfering with the receiver. Even with good antenna isolation (e.g., 30-40 dB), this problem is made more severe as the transmit power is increased above 1 Watt. For example, with 40-50 dBm of transmit power and 30 dB of antenna isolation, this is still 10-20 dBm at the input of the receiver, exceeding the dynamic range of the receiver by 30-40 dB. For wideband analog signal cancellation, the canceller must be able to match the transfer function of the leakage path between the two antenna ports. Depending on the band of operation and the geometry of the antennas, the variation in the time delay due to dispersion and multi-path can be in the range of 5-50 ns. For wideband operation, this will require the canceller to have a time-bandwidth product of approximately 10, well beyond the state-of-the-art. This differs from early research in this field where narrowband solutions were implemented with simple vector modulation over a fixed delay window. Achieving long and controllable time delays with chip-scale (or even board-scale) solutions have been the limiting factor. The WARP program will demonstrate adaptive STAR signal cancellation across the full bandwidth of either 100-1000 MHz or 1-6 GHz. It is expected that this will require innovation in circuits and components that do not rely solely on electromagnetic delay lines to achieve the desired time-bandwidth product.

In these new approaches to wideband reconfigurable filtering and signal cancellation, it is expected that the number of tuning inputs could be in the range of 10-100. Controlling the hardware through pre-planned lookup tables alone would likely be ineffective because the system will need to adapt to the environment in real-time. Adaptation will likely require a combination of embedded sensing at multiple nodes within the hardware and control that mixes a priori look-up tables and adaptive light-weight algorithms. When exposed to external or self-interference, WARP signal filters and cancellers will sense and adapt through the intelligent control of the hardware, despite the many degrees of freedom.

Figure 1: WARP Program Block Diagram

Figure 2: WARP Program Structure

C. Program Structure

As shown in Figure 1, WARP will be executed across two technical areas (TAs): TA1 - Wideband Adaptive Filtering and TA2 - Wideband Signal Cancellation. The total program is expected to run 48 months, where Phase 1 and Phase 2 will each be 18 months long, while Phase 3 will last 12 months. An overall schedule for the program is shown in Figure 2. DARPA anticipates funding multiple performers with a variety of technical approaches in each technical area. It is expected that fewer performers will be funded in Phases 2 and 3 of the program. Options may be exercised, at the Government’s sole discretion, based on technical progress demonstrated against the metrics defined in this BAA and based on funding availability.

D. Technical Areas

Technical Area 1 (TA1): Wideband Adaptive Filtering, 48 Months The goal of TA1 is to demonstrate adaptive RF filtering that ultimately provides a 9:1 tuning ratio for full-band coverage across 2-18 GHz. This will be achieved in steps throughout the program by exceeding 2:1 tuning ratio for Phase 1 and exceeding 3:1 tuning in Phase 2, before building a full-band solution in Phase 3. The focus of this TA is on the development of novel circuit architectures with state-of-the-art components that break the limitations of traditional tunable RF filters and simultaneously meet or exceed the program metrics for TA1 listed in Table 1. There are many metrics to guide the development with the top priority being broadband adaptive tunability. Filters may be configured as either bandpass or bandstop with a preference for supporting both modes such that the filter transfer function is fully tailorable to the situation. The filters can be either continuously or digitally tunable, in both center frequency and bandwidth, as long as they fully cover the entire frequency range specified in the metrics. Additional proposer-defined metrics may be included in the abstract and full proposal as long as they are consistent with the goals and metrics of the program and TA1.

Another key aspect of TA1 will be an embedded sensing approach that will be used for determining how the tunable filter should adapt to the environment in Phase 1. It is expected that this information will be used in Phase 2 to implement a control algorithm where the embedded sensing will provide the inputs to a closed-loop system control that will tune the adaptive filter in response to the environment and/or external stimulus. While the metrics in Table 1 do not explicitly contain a device size, the size of the tunable filter hardware and embedded sensing should be minimized and made consistent with current integrated microwave assembly packaging. The size and power consumption of the control electronics are not included in the metrics and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processing may be used for demonstration. The resulting hardware should be on an evaluation board with appropriate connectors to interface with test equipment, along with sufficient documentation in the event that the government chooses to perform independent testing.

Phase 1 (Base) – The goal of Phase 1 is to demonstrate open-loop tunable filtering meeting the Phase 1 metrics based on a technology that will readily scale in tuning ratio and be able to meet the metrics of subsequent phases. Only open-loop, off-line control is necessary for this phase (Matlab, Labview, etc.). There should also be a focus on embedded sensing to facilitate future closed-loop tuning. The embedded sensing may include techniques such as measurement of the input or output port of the tunable filter or the measurement of internal nodes of the filter. The use of test equipment, such as network analyzers, spectrum analyzers or oscilloscopes at the ports of the filter is not considered embedded sensing and is prohibited. The choice of center frequency within the 2-18 GHz band for Phase 1 is left to the performers, but the rationale for why the range was chosen as a starting point in Phase 1 should be justified in the proposal.

Phase 2 (Option) – The goal of Phase 2 is to scale the tuning beyond an octave and implement closed-loop adaptive tuning while simultaneously meeting the metrics of Phase 2 where linearity and power handling metrics increase. As in Phase 1, the choice of center frequency, within the 2- 18 GHz band, is left to the performers, but that choice should be justified in the proposal. Closed-loop control based on the embedded sensing and COTS processing hardware will sense changes in the environment and intelligently reconfigure filter parameters to optimally suppress interference. As the number of inputs could be large and the response function potentially not a monotonic surface, solutions may require the development of a mix of a priori look-up tables and adaptive algorithms or other innovative methods.

Phase 3 (Option) – The goal of Phase 3 is demonstrate tuning over the entire band of 2-18 GHz, as well as simultaneously meeting or exceeding all Phase 3 metrics. As in Phase 2, adaptive real-time control of the filter response will be an integral part of the demonstration.

TA1 Metric Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Notes

Operating band of interest 2-18 GHz 2-18 GHz 2-18 GHz 1 Average insertion loss (passive circuits) <5 dB <3 dB <3 dB 2 Average noise figure (active circuits) <8 dB <6 dB <6 dB 2 Center frequency tuning ratio >2:1 >3:1 Full-band solution 3 Bandwidth tuning ratio >3:1 >5:1 >5:1 4 In-band IIP3 >15 dBm >20 dBm >20 dBm 5 Out-of-band IIP3 >50 dBm >60 dBm >60 dBm 6 Out-of-band rejection >30 dB >40 dB >40 dB 7 Maximum out-of-band input signal >10 dBm >20 dBm >20 dBm 8 Maximum allowable output power <-20 dBm <-20 dBm <-20 dBm 9 Expected in-band input signal <-20 dBm <-20 dBm <-20 dBm 10

Built-in intelligence Embedded sensing only

Closed-loop adaptivity

Closed-loop adaptivity 11

Reconfiguration speed NA <100 µs <100 µs 12 Power consumption <250 mW <250 mW <250 mW 13

Table 1: TA1 - Wideband Adaptive Filtering Metrics

Table 1 Notes:

1) The frequency band in which the filter will operate. Only in Phase 3 will full band coverage be a goal. See center frequency tuning in note 3.

2) For passive circuits the average insertion loss shall be measured over the -3 dB bandwidth and shall include any loss due to embedded sensing. If the design has active embedded RF gain, then noise figure shall be used as the relevant metric to track the impact on receiver sensitivity.

3) Ratio of the highest to lowest center frequency of the pass/stop band over which the filter is tuned and there shall be no gaps over the tuning range.

4) Ratio of the highest to lowest bandwidth of the pass/stop band over which the filter is tuned.

For bandpass, the bandwidth is defined as the -3 dB bandwidth and for bandstop, the bandwidth is defined by the out-of-band rejection metric.

5) The input third-order intercept point (IIP3) measured using two tones in the passband.

6) The input third-order intercept point (IIP3) measured using two tones in the stopband.

7) For both bandpass and bandstop performance, this is the rejection in the stopband and may be a tunable parameter between the metric and 0 dB. For bandpass, the transition bandwidth from passband to stopband may be performer defined based on the chosen resonator quality factor and filter order. For bandstop, the stopband will be self-consistent with the reported bandwidth tuning; see note 4.

8) The maximum input power level of a single tone in the stopband.

9) The total output power, in-band and out-of-band, at the output of the filter. This is the expected maximum signal allowed into a typical wideband receiver that would follow the WARP filter and the corresponding peak-to-peak voltage may be considered as the threshold for protecting the receiver against distortion.

10) The maximum input power level of a single tone in the passband.

11) In Phase 1, only embedded sensing will be implemented and filter control may be implemented off-line (Matlab, Labview, etc.) for characterization of the other metrics. In Phase 2 and 3, a real-time COTS controller may be used for closed-loop control, based on the embedded sensing and consistent with the reconfiguration speed metric.

12) Reconfiguration speed is the total delay from an environmental change or other external control stimulus until the observed change in the output of the RF signal. This time is expected to include any delay in the sensing, computation and hardware control.

13) Power consumption is the total power needed for the filter and any embedded sensing. The power of any COTs processing in Phase 2 and Phase 3 is not included because power reduction of an FPGA or microcontroller implementation is not a goal of this program and could be optimized in the future on a per application basis.

Technical Area 2 (TA2): Wideband Signal Cancellation, 48 Months The goal of TA2 is to demonstrate adaptive RF self-interference cancellation that covers a wide instantaneous bandwidth in the presence of a multi-path, delay spread leakage channel between the transmitter and receiver. The delay spread between two wideband antennas will be dependent on the size of the antennas, and therefore the 0.1-6 GHz band of interest is broken into a low-band (100-1000 MHz) and a high-band (1-6 GHz). Performers may choose to implement a solution in the low-band, the high-band, or both. The instantaneous bandwidth and delay spread can be multiplied together for a time-bandwidth product (BT) that is one of the characteristic challenges of this TA. Exceeding a unity BT has proven difficult based on published results, so in Phase 1, the metrics will require a BT of approximately 2 and in Phase 2, this will need to improve to approximately 10 through scaling of both the instantaneous bandwidth and supported delay spread.

An example of a leakage path between two wideband low-band antennas is shown in Figure 3.

This TA seeks to develop new cancellation circuit architectures that break this BT limitation and meet or exceed the program metrics for TA2 listed in Table 2. There are many metrics to guide the development with the top priority being the instantaneous bandwidth and supported delay spread. Additional proposer-defined metrics may be included in the abstract and full proposal as long as they are consistent with the goals and metrics of the program and TA2.

Figure 3: Example antenna isolation in the low band (a) frequency and (b) time domain

Another key aspect of TA2 will be an embedded sensing approach that will be used for open-loop signal/channel sensing in Phase 1. It is expected that this information will be used in Phase 2 to implement a closed-loop control algorithm. While the metrics in Table 2 do not explicitly contain a device size as this is potentially dependent on the frequency band and implementation strategy, the size of the tunable canceller hardware and embedded sensing should be consistent with current integrated microwave assembly packaging with a preference toward chip-scale sizes where possible. The size and power consumption of the control electronics are not included in the metrics and COTS processing may be used for demonstration. The resulting hardware should be on an evaluation board with appropriate connectors to interface with test equipment, along with sufficient documentation in the event that the government chooses to perform independent testing.

It is well understood that over >130 dB of cancellation is potentially needed to completely suppress the self-interference of a transmitter to the noise floor of a receiver. Achieving such a large number will likely involve a tiered approach that uses a combination of antenna isolation, analog cancellation, and digital cancellation. TA2 is specifically only about the analog cancelation needed to protect a wideband digital receiver from the large signal on the antenna receive port. Research that seeks to improve antenna isolation or digital cancellation is beyond the scope of this program.

Responses that propose (1) to improve antenna isolation through antenna design, circulators, electrically balanced duplexers, or frequency duplexers, or (2) to develop digital cancellation approaches implemented after the ADC to remove residual leakage, will be considered non-responsive to the BAA.

Phase 1 (Base) – The goal of Phase 1 is to demonstrate open-loop control of a self-interference RF canceller based on a technology that will readily scale in tuning and BT and be able to meet or exceed the metrics of subsequent phases. Only open-loop off-line control is necessary for this phase (Matlab, Labview, etc.). There should also be a focus on embedded sensing to facilitate future closed-loop control. The use of a baseline leakage channel estimate from an off-line factory calibration as a starting point is acceptable. The choice of frequency tuning range within the chosen band is left to the performers, but the rationale for why the range was chosen as a starting point in Phase 1 should be justified in the proposal.

Phase 2 (Option) – The goal of Phase 2 is to scale the BT by 5x and the tuning range to 3:1 while simultaneously meeting the metrics of Phase 2 where linearity and power handling metrics increase. Additionally, closed-loop adaptive tuning will be demonstrated to adapt to changes in the leakage channel after a baseline factory calibration. As in Phase 1, the choice of center frequency within the chosen band is left to the performers, but should be justified in the proposal. Closed-loop control based on the embedded sensing and COTS processing hardware will sense changes in the leakage channel and intelligently reconfigure canceller parameters to optimally cancel the transmitter leakage. As the number of inputs could be large and the response function potentially not a monotonic surface, solutions may require the development of a mix of a priori look-up tables and adaptive algorithms or other innovative methods.

Phase 3 (Option) – The goal of Phase 3 is to demonstrate full-band coverage (low-band, high-band, or both) as well as simultaneously meeting or exceeding all Phase 3 metrics. As in Phase 2, self-adaptive, real-time control of the canceller response will be an integral part of the demonstration.

TA2 Metric Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Notes

Operating band of interest 0.1-1 GHz (low-band) and/or 1-6 GHz (high-band) 1 Center frequency tuning >2:1 >3:1 Full-band solution 2

Low / high-band cancellation bandwidth >100 MHz / >400 MHz

>250 MHz / >1000 MHz

>250 MHz / >1000 MHz 3

Low / high-band delay spread >25 ns / >5 ns >50 ns / >10 ns >50 ns / 10 ns 4 Tx signal cancellation >35 dB >45 dB >45 dB 5 Coupled power from Tx output >10 dBm >20 dBm >20 dBm 6 Maximum power to cancel at Rx input >10 dBm >20 dBm >20 dBm 7 Residual power after signal cancellation <-25 dBm <-25 dBm <-25 dBm 8 Canceller OIP3 >50 dBm >60 dBm >60 dBm 9 Residual noise figure impact <4 dB <2 dB <2 dB 10

Built-in intelligence Embedded sensing only

Closed-loop adaptivity

Closed-loop adaptivity 11

Reconfiguration speed NA <100 µs <100 µs 12 Power consumption <250 mW <250 mW <250 mW 13

Table 2: TA2 - Wideband Signal Cancellation Metrics

Table 2 Notes:

1) Performers must choose to operate either across the low-band (100-1000 MHz) or the high-band (1-6 GHz) or choose both, and this selection must be clearly stated in the proposal.

2) Ratio of the highest to lowest center frequency over which the canceller is tuned. If digital tuning is implemented, there shall be no gaps over the tuning range.

3) The minimum instantaneous bandwidth of the canceller.

4) The difference in time between the longest leakage path and the shortage leakage path.

5) Attenuation of the transmitter self-interference achieved by the RF canceller.

6) The hypothetical RF power coupled from a high-power amplifier. This is the input power to the RF canceller and indicates the desired power handling of the RF canceller.

7) The maximum RF power that appears at the receiver input due to transmitter self-interference. This is also the effective RF power internal to the RF canceller that will be subtracted from the canceller receive input.

8) The residual RF power after signal cancellation at the output of the WARP canceller and the input of a wideband digital receiver. This power and the corresponding peak-to-peak voltage may be considered as the threshold for protecting the receiver against distortion.

9) Output referenced third-order intercept point (OIP3) of the canceller measured before any signal subtraction (or with no leakage path present). This will indicate the residual third-order intermodulation (IM3) products introduced by the canceller and should be measured at the maximum power that is to be cancelled at the Rx input (note 7). For example, in Phase 3, a 20 dBm maximum power, would indicate 2 tones at 14 dBm. With an OIP3 of 60 dBm, this will result in IM3 products at -92 dBc or -78 dBm.

10) The degradation in receive signal-to-noise ratio due to the addition of the canceller. This may include physical loss from the summing junction, but is typically residual uncancelled noise introduced by the canceller electronics.

11) In Phase 1, only embedded sensing will be implemented and canceller control may be implemented off-line (Matlab, Labview, etc.) for characterization of the other metrics. In Phase 2 and 3, a real-time COTS controller may be used for closed-loop control, based on the embedded sensing and consistent with the reconfiguration speed metric.

12) Reconfiguration speed is the total delay from an environmental change or other external control stimulus until the observed change in the output of the RF signal. This time is expected to include any delay in the sensing, computation and hardware control.

13) Power consumption is the total power needed for the canceller and any embedded sensing.

The power of any COTs processing in Phase 2 and Phase 3 is not included because power reduction of an FPGA or microcontroller implementation is not a goal of this program and could be optimized in the future on a per application basis.

E. Schedule/Milestones

WARP is a 48-month, three-phase program with an expected kick-off in November 2020. A mandatory program kickoff meeting will be held to present the technical approach, discuss technical and programmatic items of concern, and to interact with the government team and other program performers. The end of each phase represents a major technical milestone in the program and end-of-phase review meetings will be scheduled approximately one month before the end of each phase. These meetings will be used to communicate the technical progress made, particularly with respect to the metrics, during the entire phase. Technical progress towards the goals of the program represent the major deciding factor in funding decisions for the subsequent phase and will be monitored through quarterly teleconference calls and occasional site visits by the DARPA program manager along with other members of the government team. A summary of the program schedule is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4: WARP Program Schedule

F. Deliverables

Program deliverables include quarterly technical slide presentations and monthly financial reports.

Prior to each end-of-phase meeting, performers in both technical areas will provide to the Government a written report covering, a) description of the implemented WARP system, b) component lab test results, and c) charts and explanations of how well the system meets, exceeds, or falls short of specified program metrics (as described in this BAA). Additionally, and in both technical areas, two copies of the hardware will be submitted for independent verification and validation (IV&V) by the government. Sufficient documentation and support for testing at a government lab (AFRL, etc.) is required. Additionally, all design files will be delivered to the government team at the end of each phase to include, but not limited to mechanical drawings, schematic and layout databases of chips, packages and circuit boards, as well as any firmware, software and source code. Templates will be provided for quarterly telecons and will include technical updates with simulated measured results to demonstrate progress toward the program metrics, as well as an up to date financial spend plan.

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

No Government Furnished Equipment, Property, or Information will be provided.

H. Intellectual Property

Any use of proposer-defined intellectual property (patents, proprietary information, etc.) should be clearly marked as such within the proposal. Include all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting the effort and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.11.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. 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, as applicable.

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. V.), 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 (see Section VI.B.4., “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.

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this BAA if: (1) that participant in the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions 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.

B. 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 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 may be met by proposed efforts for fundamental research and non-fundamental research.

Some proposed research may present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Based on the anticipated type of proposer (e.g., university or industry) and the nature of the solicited work, the Government expects that some awards will include restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee 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 determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research.

In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA.

1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

a) FFRDCs

FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

b) Government Entities

Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. 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 and compete with industry. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

c) Authority and Eligibility

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 FFRDC and Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

(1) Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

(2) For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the BAA. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

http://www.dss.mil/

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

Collaborative efforts/teaming are strongly encouraged. After proposal selections, the Government reserves the right to seek contractual arrangements, such as Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs), between separate performers if doing so benefits the overall program/project goals and objectives and mutual interests of the parties.

IV. Application and Submission Information

PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED

AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF PROPOSAL PREPARATION (PROPOSAL FORMAT,

CONTENT, ETC.) AND/OR SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12 point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. Abstracts should follow the format described below in this section. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT” and the total length of Section II should not exceed 5 pages.

http://www.darpa.mil/

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001120S0027);

(2) Technical area(s);

(3) Lead Organization submitting abstract;

(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories:

Large Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small Organization, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

(5) Proposer’s internal reference number (if any);

(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each;

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(10) Total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any); AND

(11) Date proposal abstract was submitted.

(Note: An official transmittal letter is not required when submitting a Proposal Abstract.)

Section II. Abstract Details

A. Innovative Claims Summary of innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the abstract and should succinctly describe…