HR001120S0049.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement

Resilient Networked Distributed

Mosaic Communications

(RN DMC)

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001120S0049

June 5, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Overview B. Program Metrics

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

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Collaborative Efforts

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

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

IX. APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY

X. APPENDIX 2: SECURITY CLASSIFICATION GUIDE (SCG) AND FOR OFFICIAL

USE ONLY (FOUO) ADDENDUM REQUEST FORM

XI. APPENDIX 3: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE

XII. 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 (STO) Funding Opportunity Title – Resilient Networked Distributed Mosaic Communications

(RN DMC)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0049 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: June 5, 2020 o Proposers’ Day: June 22, 2020 o Questions Due Date and Time: June 29, 2020, 12:00PM (Eastern) o Proposal Due Date and Time: August 4, 2020, 12:00PM (Eastern)

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded -- Procurement contract or other transaction.

Agency contact o Point of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

electronic mail: HR001120S0049@darpa.mil mailto:%20HR001120S0049@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area: distributed coherent communications with an emphasis on developing a bi-directional mosaic element system that works with current tactical radios operational waveforms. The program, Resilient Networked Distributed Mosaic Communications (RN DMC), is a vital part of the Mosaic Warfare end-state vision. 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.

A. Program Overview

The RN DMC program’s objective is to provide long range communications through ‘mosaic’ antennas composed of spatially distributed low size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) transceiver elements or ‘tiles’. The RN DMC approach replaces high powered amplifiers and large directional antennas with mosaics of spatially dispersed tile transceivers. Transmit power is spatially distributed amongst the tiles, and gain is achieved through signal processing rather than the use of a physical antenna aperture to concentrate energy. Individual tiles can use radio frequency (RF) sounding to estimate channel responses and adjust transmit carrier phases. This enables the distributed mosaic antenna to form directional beams and/or spatial nulls in desired directions.

Current approaches to long range RF communications require large antennas and high power amplifiers. RN DMC will change this paradigm by replacing these large antennas and high power amplifiers with much smaller antennas and amplifiers that work together to deliver the power and gain required to close the communications link. This mosaic of antennas distributes transmit power amongst small spatially-dispersed electronic tiles. Signal processing functions within the tiles enables these antennas to form directional beams that enhance desired signals and reject intentional and unintentional interference. The mosaic directionality can achieve order N2M gain, where N is the number of distributed transmit elements, and M is the number of receive elements. For example, a distributed antenna composed of five 1 Watt transceiver tiles, each with a simple omnidirectional antenna, can effectively radiate up to 25 Watts in a given direction. If there are also 5 receive elements, we can achieve a Signal-to-Noise (SNR) improvement of a factor of 125 or 21dB over a single 1Watt transmitter and a single receiver.

The tiles can be hosted on ground platforms, including hand-carried by soldiers and Marines, autonomous air vehicles, high altitude platforms, and low-cost/low-earth orbit satellites. The mosaic approach will work with unmodified tactical radios and waveforms. While the tiles can be expendable from both a cost and a security perspective, the RN DMC network will be secure and available only to authorized users.

Because spatial distribution allows for lower power from each tile, it is inherently low probability of detection and/or exploitation compared to traditional transmitters. Furthermore, the approach will enable computing the relative position of each tile within a mosaic. Finally, because there are multiple tiles involved that self-form into an array, the loss of individual tiles does not result in a failure of the array.

A key aspect of RN DMC is that it will work with existing tactical radios and unmodified tactical waveforms. In a traditional tactical communications system, a radio connects directly to a directional antenna through a physical cable or RF coupler. RN DMC provides a physical communications connective layer that is largely independent of the participating tactical networks. As shown in Figure 1, with the potential implementation of the mosaic approach, a radio couples into a mosaic of tiles by connecting to a special ‘gold’ interface tile which retransmits the signal to the other tiles in the mosaic, referred to here as ‘blue’ tiles. The radio to gold tile connection can be either a cable or an over-the-air link.

Figure 1: Potential RN DMC Approach

The gold tile may impart one or more signal augmentations before transmission to the blue tiles, including frequency translation or the addition of adjacent subcarriers or low-power wideband underlays. It may also digitally transform the tactical signal into an altogether different waveform, provided that the transformation is reversible by the receiver. These augmentations and/or transformations may be added to support beamforming by the blue tiles, enhanced transmission performance, or perhaps even simple RF gateway translations.

The receive function of the gold node will effectively extract the tactical signal from any transmit augmentation or transformation, extraction potentially consisting of filtering, despreading, and/or translation back to the original carrier frequency.

The mosaic approach is inherently robust, as the loss of an individual tile will reduce maximum achievable gain but will not cause the distributed antenna to fail. It can accommodate highly flexible tile placement, for example random distribution on the surface of a ground vehicle or the hull of a ship. Furthermore, individual tiles function as repeaters that can relay any type of waveform (within limits of its RF performance). This will enable RN DMC clusters to serve as flexible physical gateways between disparate entry and exit points.

In addition to enabling the formation of directed spatial beams and nulls, the approach will provide the relative positions for each local tile. This will enable a squad leader with a tactical radio and an Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK) or other visualization tool to track the locations of his or her squad members, even in Global Positioning System (GPS)-denied environments. This will be accomplished through time of arrival and time-difference of arrival measurements by the tile elements.

RN DMC will not be reliant on the GPS and will provide relative position and time synchronization amongst forces and systems utilizing RN DMC nodes.

Proposers should develop a detailed approach in their proposals that will address the following expectations:

1. Describe the tactical radios and operational waveforms that will be demonstrated;

2. Include a system-level illustration of the proposed RN DMC approach. The illustration should describe the communications flow between two tactical radios through RN DMC and include mosaic antennas at both ends of the link as well as an intermediate relay mosaic as is shown in Figure 5, which depicts the end of Phase 2 demonstration;

3. Describe the components represented by the ‘blue’ transceiver tiles in Figure 1;

Description should include:

a. Functional system diagram of the tile showing key RF and processing subcomponents. The technological maturity of each subcomponent should be clear;

b. RF parameters including frequency range and sensitivity;

c. Digital processing capability;

d. Form factor including expected size, weight and power consumption of Phase 1 prototype;

e. Form factor including expected size, weight and power consumption of envisioned production tile;

4. Describe the tactical radio/RN DMC interface components represented by the ‘gold tiles’ in Figure 1. Description should address items a-e in the above blue tile list entry

5. Describe in detail how both distributed coherent transmission (DCT) and distributed coherent reception (DCR) will be achieved without GPS. The description should include:

a. Any initial baseline open-loop timing and frequency synchronization between tiles;

b. Explanation of the necessary level of inter-tile timing and frequency synchronization and how it will be maintained during operations;

c. The planned approach to RF channel measurement;

6. Describe any augmentations to or transformations of the tactical radio signals that will be implemented by the RN DMC system. Approaches may differ for different tactical waveforms. The receiver-side extraction of the tactical signal from any applied augmentations or transformations should also be described. Considerations should include the facilitation of DCT/DCR and also operational and architectural needs. For example if an approach calls for frequency translation, and/or a transformation that results in expanded RF bandwidth (BW), then the approach to frequency coordination with the operational environment should be explained;

7. Describe any communications between blue tiles that are distinct from the tactical signal relay. These communications are illustrated by the interconnected links contained within the ‘clouds’ in Figure 1. If interconnect links are proposed, then it will be important to minimize communications between blue tiles and also ensure that inter-tile communications are resilient and low probability of detection;

8. Describe an approach to computing the relative positions of the blue tiles;

9. Describe an approach that maximizes both information security and physical security, while allowing the blue tiles to remain unclassified and attritable;

10. Describe a network layer approach or an operational process that supports the long-range interconnection of two local ground tactical networks through RN DMC;

11. Present a realistic roadmap leading to production of the tiles 18 months or less after program completion. Explain how any SWaP-C reductions that are necessary to meet the program metric for ‘SWaP-C of production transceiver at quantity’ will be achieved.

Include the expected unit cost of a production tile at quantity and the methodology for determining this cost;

12. Describe any airborne platforms used for tests and demonstrations. Include discussion of the plans to integrate RN DMC hardware onto the platforms. Also include discussion of whether airborne platforms will be existing company assets, rented or procured and,

13. Include an initial view of the system risk register.

1. Program Structure

The RN DMC program will include three focus areas:

1. System Design;

2. Experimental Performance Validation and

3. Operational Architecture Definition

The RN DMC performers will be primarily responsible for the first two areas. An independent Verification and Validation (V&V) Team will help support the third area. This team will also support performance assessment throughout the program and collaborate closely with the performer teams. It is expected that the V&V team will be selected from government laboratories and/or a federally funded research and development centers.

The performers’ responsibility on the Operational Architecture Definition task will include analysis of what objective architectures would look like in terms of numbers of mosaic antennas and elements per mosaic-covered operating areas and geometries that define adversary intercept/jamming red-to-blue-ratios. The architectures will vary based on operational environments and missions. The V&V team, in coordination with the RN DMC program team, service partners, and performers, will provide operational vignettes and use cases which will inform performer architecture analysis and may be used to refine the objectives and parameters of system experiments and tests.

The RN DMC program is planned as a three phase, 45 month effort. The program structure and schedule is shown in Figure 2. The program will have a Phase 1 Base effort (Design & Prototype) of 18 months, Phase 2 (Option 1) effort (System Demonstration) of 15 months, and Phase 3 (Option 2) effort (Service Implementation) of 12 months. Proposers must propose to all three Phases in a single proposal. Phase 1 is considered the Base period and Phases 2 and 3 are Option periods which should be supported with the same level of detail as that of the base.

Program milestones include key test events and design reviews.

FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Design & Prototype

System Demonstration

Service Implementation

Government Support

BAA

Transition MOAs

Phase 1 Base

(18 Months)

Phase 2 Option

(15 Months)

Phase 3 Option

(12 Months)

Design & Prototype

System Demonstration Service

Implementation

Services

Government Support

Long Link

Demo Terrestrial

Test User Field Exercise

Relay Field

Exercise

System Design Review

(SDR) 1

SDR2

SDR4

SDR3

SDR5

Figure 2: RN DMC Schedule

RN DMC technology will be demonstrated at three key test events during Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Phase 3 assumes a formal transition partnership and is expected to include an additional demonstration event. Table 1 lists the key test events along with the links that will be demonstrated and the relevant use cases.

Table 1: RN DMC Key Test Events

Test Event Links Demonstrated Relevant Use Cases Long Link Test (Phase 1) Distributed ground mosaic to airborne receiver (>50 km) Ground-to-air communications

Terrestrial Test (Phase 2) Distributed to distributed ground-to-ground (> 1 km)

Army squad to squad

Relay Field Test (Phase 2)

Distributed to distributed to distributed ground to air-to-ground relay (>100 km)

Beyond line of site communication in a contested environment where satellite communications are denied

User Field Exercise (Phase 3)

Will be determined in coordination with transition partner. For planning purposes, a demo similar to the Phase 2 Relay Field Test can be assumed

Will be determined in coordination with transition partner

Phase 1

In Phase 1, performers will test the long link capability of the RN DMC by developing a plan and testing it in laboratory, controlled outdoor, and long-range environments. Phase 1 performers will complete trade studies, build prototypes for the tile hardware, and complete lab demonstrations followed by a long-range ground-to-air demonstration as illustrated in Figure 3.

The Long Link Test will validate the mosaic antenna concept over a minimum range of 50 km.

The test will include at least two tactical radios, three distinct operational tactical waveforms (at least one ground and one SATCOM), and 10 mosaic tiles that meet the initial SWaP-C targets.

Test configurations will include the following:

1. Ground based tiles at fixed locations communicating with the air platform while it is stationary and on the ground;

2. Same as previous configuration but with the ground based tiles carried by dismounted and mounted users at operational speeds (representative of a squad of soldiers or marines);

3. Ground based tiles at fixed locations communicating with the air platform while it is in flight at a distance of at least 50 km;

4. Same as previous configuration but with the ground based tiles carried by dismounted and mounted users at operational speeds.

The airborne test platform can be either manned or unmanned. Proposers may choose one of two options for flight testing. Under the first option, flight testing will not require the use of military airspace or aerial vehicles for testing and the performers will assume responsibility for the following:

1. Identification of the airborne platform;

2. Integration of all test hardware onto the platform;

3. Operation of the airborne platform;

4. Determination of test location including both the ground and air components;

5. All authorizations for flight and airworthiness;

6. All frequency clearance approvals.

This option is really a performer executed test and all costs associated with the test should be included in the proposal. The government will observe and measure performance in order to confirm performance.

Under the second option, government assets will be leveraged to support flight testing including flight vehicles and/or military airspace. Proposers who choose this option should include the following:

1. Description of desired test platform with integrated payload;

2. Description of expected RF aperture and any other payload interfaces;

3. Complete description of expected payload including tiles, tactical radios and hardware used to measure received signal power;

4. Size, weight and power (SWaP) of each key component as well as the aggregate payload

SWaP;

5. Complete description of transmit parameters for frequency clearance.

This option is a government run test with the performer providing support. The government will work with the performer to integrate onto the air platform and obtain all certifications and permissions. Under both options, the performer will be responsible for ensuring FCC approvals for authority to transmit.

For travel cost estimation purposes under this option, plan on one trip for a duration of two weeks to Berlin, Germany or Honolulu, HI, whichever is more costly to support this demonstration. Costs associated with use of government test ranges, flight time or government personnel effort to integrate the RN DMC payload should not be included in the proposal.

The demonstration will also include testing for system performance characterization in an interference environment. Interference testing will be collaboratively planned with the V&V team who will be responsible for determining what interference sources to test against. The Long Link Test will include testing where the performers are not provided specific details about the interferers including their location, power, directionality, modulation, bandwidth, duty cycle and other signal specific parameters.

>50 km

Red Interferer

Blue Node

Figure 3: Long Link Test at End of Phase 1

Phase 1 performers will also develop a system design that supports the distributed-to-distributed architectures needed to support the Phase 2 Terrestrial Test and the Relay Field Test. The design will include detailed descriptions of the approaches to DCT, DCR and relative positioning as well as the planned software, firmware and hardware implementation. An initial design overview will be presented at the program kickoff. The design will be presented in detail at the first System Design Review (SDR) during month 4, updated at SDR2 during month 10 and updated again at SDR3 during month 17.

End of Phase 1 deliverables will include the prototype tiles that will compose the first mosaic antenna, and reports of the results of the long-range ground-to-air test and system performance measurements.

The basis for exercising the Phase 2 option will include quality of effort and availability of funds. Quality measures may include performance against BAA metrics, system risk posture, and transition potential. A downselect in the number of performers is expected.

Phase 2 (Option 1)

Phase 2 performers will continue to refine their designs, mature the prototype tiles, procure airborne mosaic platforms, and support two key test events, the Terrestrial Test and the Relay Field Test.

The Terrestrial Test will validate distributed-to-distributed coherent communications over a terrestrial link at least 1 km long between two mosaic element antennas and will include both static and moving user test cases. This test will take place approximately 10 months into Phase

2. The mosaic antennas for this Terrestrial Test will be composed of at least ten tiles each (at least 20 tiles total), and the system will be tested with at least two tactical radios and two distinct operational tactical waveforms (both terrestrial). This test will be representative of an Army use case where two squads separated by a kilometer or more communicate through RN DMC. The Terrestrial Test will be conducted in at least three distinct RF propagation environments:

1. Line of sight (may require the tile carriers on at least one side of the link to be elevated on one or more hills or rooftops);

2. Non line of sight with minimal obstruction (rural propagation environment) and

3. Non line of sight with significant obstructions (such as a forested or a semi-urban environment)

Test configurations will include the following:

1. All users stationary;

2. Users in first squad are all stationary and users in second squad are all walking;

3. Users in second squad are all stationary and users in first squad are all walking;

4. All users in both squads are walking and

5. One squad is replaced by four ground vehicles (representative of a Stryker formation) and each carrying one or more blue tiles and moving at 25 mph or faster

Figure 4 illustrates the test concept which includes representative red force interferers and detectors that will be operated by the V&V team. The Terrestrial Test will include testing where the performers will not be provided details about the interferers including their location, power, directionality, modulation, bandwidth, duty cycle and other signal specific parameters.

It is expected that the Terrestrial Test will take place on a military base. For cost purposes, proposers should assume that the test will be the same duration and at the same location as the government testing option for the Long Link Test. The government will be responsible for the all soldiers/marines, military vehicles, and any range fees associated with on-base testing. These costs should not be included in the proposal. The performer should plan on supporting the government in the execution of the test.

The Relay Test Exercise at the end of Phase 2 will demonstrate a relay from a ground mosaic antenna to an airborne mosaic back down to a remote mosaic ground antenna at least 100 km away. The airborne mosaic will be on unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or High Altitude Platforms (HAP). The two ground mosaics and the airborne mosaic will be composed of at least ten tiles each (at least 30 tiles total), and the system will again be tested with at least two tactical radios. At least three distinct operational tactical waveforms will be tested including two terrestrial waveforms and one satellite communications waveform. This test will represent an approach to beyond-line-of-sight communications in a contested RF environment where satellite communications are denied, as illustrated in Figure 5. Performers will be responsible for identification of the specific UAS of HAP platforms, the integration of test hardware onto the platforms, and all costs and operations associated with the use of the platforms. Note that Figure 5 shows balloons, which are one option for the airborne mosaic tile platforms but not necessarily the only option that proposers may select. This Relay Field Test will also demonstrate adaptive beam nulling and computation of relative tile positions. It is expected that the Relay Field Test will be conducted by performers in collaboration with active duty tactical operators.

As in the Long Link Test and the Terrestrial Test, the Relay Field Test will include representative red force interferers and detectors that will be operated by the V&V team. The Relay Field Test will include testing where the performers are not aware of the details about the interferers and detectors including their location, power, directionality, modulation, bandwidth, duty cycle and other signal specific parameters. For cost purposes, proposers should assume that the test will be the same duration and at the same location as the Terrestrial Test. The government will be responsible for any range fees associated with on-base testing and these costs should not be included in the proposal.

The basis for exercising the Phase 3 option will include quality of effort and availability of funds. Quality measures may include performance against BAA metrics, system risk posture, and transition potential. A downselect in the number of performers is expected.

Figure 4: RN DMC Phase 2 Distributed-to-Distributed Test Concept

>100 km

Contested RF Environment

Figure 5: RN DMC Distributed-to–Distributed-to-Distributed Relay Test Concept

Phase 3 (Option 2)

In Phase 3, RN DMC technology will transition to the Services by configuring the system to meet the Service needs. RN DMC performers will configure their systems for Service-defined use cases and demonstrate the capability through a Service-led field exercise. End of Phase 3 products will include Service-specific systems ready for experimentation, design documents, and performance assessments. The User Field Exercise will be conducted at a site specified by the Service customer. For cost purposes, proposers should assume that the test will be the same duration and at the same location as the Terrestrial Test.

Deliverables

Phase 1 programmatic deliverables will consist of monthly technical and financial status reports, presentation materials, an integrated master schedule, and a program protection plan. Technical deliverables are described as follows:

System Design: This is a comprehensive design document that will be updated as the program progresses. It should define RN DMC as a system with the tiles (of which there may be different types) as the key subsystems. The system design document should include the following:

a. System-level description of RN DMC;

b. Subsystem-level description of the tiles;

c. Description of interface between tactical radio and RN DMC;

d. Any augmentations or transformations to the tactical waveforms imparted by the tiles to facilitate DCT/DCR;

e. Algorithmic approaches to DCT/DCR and relative positioning;

f. Description of prototype tile transceiver hardware including RF frequency range, gain, and sensitivity;

g. Description of processing flow and software implementation of algorithms for

DCT/DCR and relative positioning; and

h. Explanation of the development process.

System Operational Architecture Analysis: This document will provide analyses of what objective architectures would look like in terms of numbers of mosaic antennas and elements per mosaic-covered operating areas and geometries that define adversary intercept/jamming red-to-blue-ratios. The analyses will be based on vignettes which will be provided to the performers at the beginning of each program phase. The test events in Table 1 can be considered to be representative of the vignettes’ general complexity for proposal purposes. This document will be updated as the program progresses.

Test Plans: Detailed description of each test in Table 1 including:

a. Test objectives;

b. High level narrative description of test procedures for each distinct experiment;

c. Table of program metrics that will be validated;

d. Test location and duration;

e. Performer test personnel;

f. Any dependencies that the performer cannot control (for example, the weather);

and

g. Expected support from Government (either personnel or materials).

Security Test Plans: Detailed description of security concept of operation for each test in Table 1.

Test Reports: Detailed report on each test from Table 1 including:

a. Recap of test objectives and summary procedures;

b. Test results (what happened);

c. Performance against program metrics in table form;

d. Discussion of what worked and what did not;

e. Planned actions to resolve technical issues and/or improve system performance;

and

f. Conclusions and lessons learned.

Hardware: Includes all hardware purchased or developed for RN DMC. At least 12 mosaic tile transceivers are to be completed by the end of Phase 1. This includes 11 ‘blue tiles’ to support the Long Link Test (including one spare) and one ‘gold’ interface tile. At least 33 tiles are to be completed by the end of Phase 2, including 32 blue tiles (2 of which are spares) and two gold tiles.

Source Code and Software Installation Guide: This includes all source code developed for the purpose of analysis, modeling and simulation as well as source code for implementing real-time processing. It also includes an installation guide that describes the installation of software for real-time processing and documents any dependencies including hardware platforms, operating systems and external software libraries.

Final Report: Summary of program, accomplishments, metrics compliance, and technical documentation over the course of the program phase.

RN DMC Phase 1 Base deliverables are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Phase 1 Base Deliverables

Item Due Date (After Phase 1 contract award)

Monthly Technical and Financial Status Reports monthly

Integrated Master Schedule month 1 and 7

Program Protection Plan month 2

Presentation material for Phase 1 kickoff and all program reviews 48 hours in advance

Security Plan for Long Link Test month 12

Long Link Test Plan month 13

Long Link Test Report month 15

System Design Document month 4, 10, and 18

System Operational Architecture Analysis month 10, and 18

Hardware month 18 (deferred if performer proceeds to Phase 2)

Source Code and Software Installation Guide month 18

Phase 1 Final Report month 18

Phase 2 and Phase 3 deliverables listed are updates and extensions of the Phase 1 deliverables and are listed in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3: Phase 2 Option Deliverables

Item Due Date (After Phase 2 option exercise)

Monthly Technical and Financial Status Reports monthly

Integrated Master Schedule month 1 and 7

Presentation material for Phase 2 kickoff and all program reviews 48 hours in advance

Security Plan for Terrestrial Test month 9

Terrestrial Test Plan month 10

Terrestrial Test Report month 12

Security Plan for Relay Field Test month 12

Test Plan for Relay Field Test month 13

Test Report for Relay Field Test month 15

System Design Document month 4 and 15

System Operational Architecture Analysis month 4 and 15

Hardware month 15 (deferred if performer proceeds to Phase 3)

Source Code and Software Installation Guide month 15

Phase 2 Final Report month 15

Table 4: Phase 3 Option Deliverables

Item Due Date (After Phase 3 option exercise)

Monthly Technical and Financial Status Reports monthly

Integrated Master Schedule month 1 and 7

Presentation material for Phase 3 kickoff and all program reviews 48 hours in advance

Security Plan for User Field Exercise month 8

User Field Exercise Test Plan month 9

User Field Exercise Test Report month 11

System Design Document month 12

System Operational Architecture Analysis month 12

Hardware month 12

Source Code and Software Installation Guide month 12

Phase 3 Final Report month 12

B. Program Metrics

The metrics for RN DMC are provided in Tables 5, 6, and 7. These metrics may serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Although the following program metrics are specified, proposers should note that the Government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem.

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

There are three categories of metrics: Technical Performance (listed in Table 5), System Level (Table 6) and Manufacturability (Table 7). Some of the Technical Performance Metrics are For Official Use Only (FOUO) and will be provided in a FOUO Appendix to the RN DMC BAA.

See Section 4.2 and Section 10 for instructions on how to obtain this Appendix.

Table 5: RN DMC Technical Performance Metrics

Parameter Threshold (Objective)

Validation Method Validation Point

Signal to noise ratio enhancement (N2M for N x M mosaic)

50% (75%) of ideal performance Test End of phase 1 (M=1); End of Phase 2 (M>1)

Interference suppression

20 (30) dB for M-1 spatially distributed interferers where M is the number of mosaic transceivers

Test End of Phase 1

Mean side lobe suppression

-10Log(N) (- 20Log(N)) Test End of Phase 1

Relative position measurement accuracy

20m RMS across 5 or more transceivers in <60 seconds

Test End of Phase 2

Table 6: RN DMC System Level Metrics

Parameter Threshold (Objective) Validation Method Validation Point

Carrier frequency extent >3GHz (>10GHz) Test End of Phase 1

Number of currently operational tactical waveforms demonstrated (ground/terrestrial)

2 (4) Test End of Phase 1

Number of currently tactical operational waveforms demonstrated

(SATCOM)

1 (2) Test End of Phase 1

Maximum capacity of communications links between local mosaic transceivers (which are distinct from the communications which originate from tactical radios)

10 Kbit/sec (0) Test End of Phase 1

Maximum ratio of instantaneous BW of augmented or transformed tactical signal to instantaneousBW of non-augmented tactical signal

3 or less (1) Test End of Phase 1

Table 7: RN DMC Manufacturability Metrics

Parameter Threshold (Objective) Validation Method Validation Point

Volume: 20 in3 Inspection End of Phase 1 Weight: 1 lbSWaP limits of prototype transceiver Effective Isotropic Radiated Power: 1 W

Inspection End of Phase 1

Volume: 6 in3 Design analysis End of Phase 2 Weight: 0.5 lb

Effective Isotropic Radiated Power: 1 W

SWaP-C limits of production transceiver at quantity

Cost $2000 ($1000)

Design analysis End of Phase 2

Mission duration under normal mission comms load

72 (96) hours Design analysis End of Phase 2

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, as applicable.

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/or cost/price within a reasonable time, and the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a Procurement Contract 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.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

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 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 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 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. United States Enterprises to include:

Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses Accredited degree granting colleges and universities Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

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 not participate as a prime contractor. Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may act as subcontractors to the extent that the prime contractor can ensure that participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

(2) When proposing to perform classified work, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place 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 contract award. 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. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged. Specific content, communications, networking, and team formation are the sole responsibility of the participants.

IV. Application and Submission Information

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, please contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and full 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 (HR001120S0049), proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Proposals Format

All proposals must be in the format shown below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of all phases of RN DMC. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of 3 parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, is limited to 50 pages. Volume II, Cost Proposal, has no page limit.

http://www.darpa.mil/

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

(1) Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to Include

(1) BAA number HR001120S0049;

(2) Lead organization submitting proposal;

(3) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS,”

“SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS,” “HBCU,”

“MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER NONPROFIT;”

(4) Proposer’s reference number (if any);

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

(6) Proposal title;

(7) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), email (if available);

(8) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), email (if…