20210504 MINC Proposers Day - DARPA MINC.pdf

Mission-Integrated Network Control (MINC) Dr. Mary R. Schurgot

Program Manager, DARPA/STO

Briefing Prepared for Proposers Day

4 May 2021

Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

Agenda Virtual Session (Unclassified)

Time Title Presenter 0730-0800 Webinar Setup/Registration 0800-0810 Welcome Dr. Mary Schurgot, DARPA/STO 0810-0835 Doing Business with DARPA Ms. Catherine Brodo, DARPA/CMO 0835-0900 Mosaic Warfare Dr. Timothy Grayson, DARPA/STO 0900-0935 MINC Program Overview Dr. Mary Schurgot, DARPA/STO

BREAK

0950-1015 Battlespace Control Plane Dr. Carl Fossa, MIT Lincoln Laboratory 1015-1040 Fully Networked Command, Control, and

Communications (FNC3) Col Greg Stevens, OUSD(R&E)

1040-1105 Modernizing the Tactical Network Ms. Jamie Infantolino, U.S. Army DEVCOM 1105-1115 Q&A Dr. Mary Schurgot, DARPA/STO

BREAK

In-person Session 1 (Classified)

Time Topic Presenter 1145-1215 Registration 1215-143O Session 1 Multiple

BREAK

In-person Session 2 (Classified)

Time Topic Presenter 1415-1445 Registration 1445-1700 Session 2 Multiple

• BAA HR001121S0028 – Mission-Integrated Network Control (MINC)

• Unclassified BAA posted to beta.sam.gov on April 28, 2021

• Classified (collateral SECRET) addendum

• Request BAA addendum and SCG by following the instructions in Appendix 2 of the BAA

• Schedule

• BAA released: April 28, 2021

• Questions due: June 8, 2021 by 4:00 p.m. (EDT)

• Proposals due: June 29, 2021 by 4:00 p.m. (EDT)

• Administrative, technical, or contractual questions should be sent via e-mail to HR001121S0028@darpa.mil

• Note: HR001121S0028, the classified addendum, and any associated amendments are the official documents of the proposals. They supersede any statements made here.

BAA Overview and Schedule mailto:HR001121S0028@darpa.mil

• Unclassified Session

• Submit all questions during the unclassified session to the BAA mailbox:

HR001121S0028@darpa.mil

• Some questions will be answered during the Q&A session

• Answers to all questions will be posted to the DARPA/STO Opportunities website

• Classified Session

• Participants attending the classified session will receive notecards to write down their questions

• Notecards will be collected after each session

• Classified Q&A can be requested by performers along with the SCG, classified addendum, and classified Proposers Day briefs

Q&A During Proposers Day mailto:HR001121S0028@darpa.mil

Program Overview

MINC

MINC Problem Statement

MINC will ensure that critical data finds a path to the right user at the right time

Cross-domain kill webs are only as effective as the communications enabling the warfighting services

Static networks limit mission execution ‣ Need to dynamically control networks of networks on-demand

Manual network configuration does not scale and is prone to error

‣ Need to manage complexity

Future Network Control

New mission-driven approach for managing network configuration and information flows

• “Always on” network overlay to achieve backward and forward compatibility across heterogeneous networks

• Connectivity realized “on-demand” between kill web services

MINC will enable autonomous network discovery and mission-driven control

MINC

Today Future

Secure network control

Silos across warfighting and networking domains Virtual networking seamlessly connects networks

A New Approach to Network Control

MINC

Heterogeneous Networks

Commercial Homogeneous Network

Virtual networking approach to control mosaic networks

Manage multiple data and control planes via a secure control overlay

M an ag em en t

Control Parameters

Co nt ro l O ve rla y

AppAppAppApp

AppAppControl

AppAppData

AppAppAppApp

Data

Control

M an ag em en t

Control Parameters

SDN construct presents a new opportunity to dynamically control and manage networks

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) enables remote, intelligent control of heterogeneous networks

App: Application SDN: Software-Defined Networking Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

• SDN construct with an “always on” network control overlay to enable adaptive control of networks

• Information-Centric Networking (ICN) for resilient delivery of network control data

• Network Function Virtualization (NFV) to deploy virtual edge functions to overcome insufficient network capacity

• Intent-Driven Networking (IDN) to adapt network and applications according to mission objectives

MINC Technology Enablers

M an ag em en t

Control Parameters

Co nt ro l O ve rla y

AppAppAppApp

AppAppControl

AppAppData

IDN

ICN

SDN

NFV

SDN: Network programmability in software ICN: Discover and retrieve data by name NFV: Network functions decoupled from hardware IDN: Autonomously map user to network objectivesSDN: Software-Defined Networking

IDN: Intent-Driven Networking ICN: Information-Centric Networking NVF: Network Function Virtualization

Commercial investment is driving intelligent software-enabled networking albeit for less dynamic, homogeneous networks

MINC Focus Areas

Lack of network interoperability across heterogeneous communications systems at scale

Key Challenges:

Insufficient network capacity to support missions

Adapting to Mission Dynamics

Focus Areas:Key Insights:

• Software programmability

• Secure, Resilient ICN

• Control parameters across OSI layers including physical/virtual movement

• Jointly manage network and data

• Commercial IDN for military missions

• Adapt applications and data flows

FA 1: Secure Control Overlay

Resilient discovery and secure control of heterogeneous network resources

FA 2: Distributed Network Orchestration

Semi-autonomous network control in support of mission objectives and information needs

FA 3: Mission Integration

Integrated system and applications to achieve mission-driven networking

FA: Focus Area ICN: Information-Centric Networking IDN: Intent-Driven Networking Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

Challenges:

• Limited, intermittent communication paths

• Heterogeneity of networks and associated controls

• Cyber resiliency

Approach:

• Simple, yet expressive representation of resources and controls

• Adjust update frequency in time, space, and fidelity

• Network resource modeling and learning

• Secure, resilient networking protocol, e.g., ICN

Metrics:

• Scalability (number of networks, nodes, domains)

• Control overhead

• Reachability of resources

• C2 signature

• Control plane integrity

FA 1: Secure Control Overlay

Objective: Secure control with low overhead and fast response time across domains

FA 1: Secure Control Overlay

ICN

System model

FA1 securely controls heterogeneous networks in dynamic environments

C2: Command and Control FA: Focus Area ICN: Information-Centric Networking

Network Control

FA 2: Distributed Network Orchestration

Challenges:

• Insufficient network capacity to support missions

• Network and mission dynamics

Approach:

• Recommend movement as a degree of freedom

• Tune data flows to optimize availability and quality of information

(QoI), not quantity of data

• Instantiate virtual edge functions for network, information, and security management

Metrics:

• Packet delivery ratio

FA 2: Distributed Network Orchestration

Objective: Reliable data delivery and connectivity among kill web services

Network needs (QoS)

Control Settings

FA2 reasons over native control parameters and introduces new controls to realize mission objectives

Data needs (QoI)

- Native controls

- Movement

- Virtual edge functions

FA: Focus Area QoS: Quality of Service QoI: Quality of Information Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

FA 3: M ission Integration

Challenges:

• Autonomous control aligned with mission objectives

• Expressing mission intent

• Managing user interaction

Approach:

• Shift from static, pre-defined rules, e.g., data priority

• Mission-driven networking in which mission intent (semi)-autonomously drives network configuration

• Interactive applications providing customized access to information and services

Metrics:

• Mission execution success

FA 3: Mission Integration

Objective: System and applications for mission-integrated network control

User interaction

Secure Control Overlay

Situational Awareness Mission C2 AppsAppsApps…

Heterogeneous Networks

FA3 develops MINC-enabled applications adapting to the user, network, and mission

FA 2

FA 1

FA 3

FA: Focus Area

MINC System Overview

FA 1: Secure Control Overlay

• Discover available resources (networks, nodes, control parameters, mission services)

• Create secure control overlay and distribute control signals to task resources

• Model and monitor state of networks, nodes, control parameters, mission services

FA 3: M ission Integration

• Map mission objectives to network/information objectives

• Apps: UI/UX Dashboard, Blue Force Situational Awareness, Mission Command and Control

Mission inputs

Network and information objectives

Resources and state

Control recommendations

Control signals

External network info (e.g., model inputs)

FA 2: Distributed Network Orchestration

• Reason over available resources (networks, nodes, control parameters)

• Recommend additional controls, e.g., movement, virtual edge functions

• Build and deploy virtual edge functions Control settings, i.e. system configuration

User feedback

Feedback signals

User interaction

FA: Focus Area UI/UX: User Interface/User Experience

Heterogeneous Networks

Hours - Days

Seconds - Minutes

Minutes - Hours

Notional interaction of focus areas

• MINC program metrics provide the framework for assessing progress against MINC objectives

• Proposers are encouraged to provide additional metrics for use during the program

• Transition partners will also provide measures and objectives relevant to their systems and needs

• Metrics that will be evaluated during the program are defined below:

• Number of networks: Ability to discover heterogeneous assets across multiple networking and security domains

• Number of warfighting domains: Ability to discover heterogeneous assets across multiple warfighting domains

• Reachability: Probability an asset can be reached within time limit

• Overhead: Percent of control traffic relative to useful data

• Signature: Pattern of traffic revealing control structure as a tunable system parameter

• Control Plane Integrity: Ensure protection of control data and functionality by denying unauthorized access to the MINC system

• Packet Delivery Ratio: Relative improvement in network efficiency measured by packets received/packets sent

• Mission Execution Success: Quality-of-experience (QoE) in mission execution to be measured per MINC-enabled application

• See the classified BAA addendum for further detail

MINC Program Metrics

Program Structure

• Secure control framework

• Stand-alone network orchestration

• Blue Force SA Application

MINC Development Concept

• Secure control in a highly dynamic environment

• Integrated network orchestration

• Integrated Mission C2 Application

• Secure control in a highly dynamic, highly contested environment

• Advanced network orchestration

• Transition Application(s)

Phase 1 Minimum Viable Product

Laboratory Demo

Phase 2 Integrated System

LVC Demo

Phase 3 Transition-Ready System

Field Demo

Advanced capability

Initial capability

Expanded capability

LVC: Live Virtual Constructive SA: Situational Awareness C2: Command and Control

Secure Control Overlay

Situational Awareness

Secure Control Overlay

Situational Awareness Mission C2

Secure Control Overlay

Situational Awareness Mission C2 App(s)

- Native Controls

- Movement

- Native Controls

- Movement

- Virtual Edge

Functions

- Native Controls

- Movement

- Virtual Edge

Functions

FA 1 FA 1 FA 1

FA 3FA 3FA 3

FA 2 FA 2FA 2

MINC Program Milestones

9 180 3 6 12 15

Minimum Viable Product integrated with Blue Force Situational Awareness (SA) Application

Integrated system with BF SA app and Mission Command and Control (C2) app

Transition system with BF SA app, Mission C2 app, and Transition app(s)

2718 21 24 30

39 4830 33 36 42 45

Phase 1 Base

Phase 2 Option 1

Phase 3 Option 2

Transition Effort (not being solicited under this BAA)

Kickoff PI 1 PI 2 Ph1 T&E

Workshop 1 Workshop 2

PI 3

Performer Experiment 3

Code Review

Workshop 3

TRR

DevSecOps Planning

Transition Demo/Testing

Partner DevSecOps 1

Partner DevSecOps 2

PI 4

Performer Experiment 4

Code Review

Performer Experiment 1 Component-level

Code Review

Performer Experiment 2 Water-thru-pipes

Code Review

MVP

Code Review

Ph2 T&E

Integrated system

Code Review

Test Readiness

Review

(TRR)

TRR

Ph3 T&E

Advanced system

Code Review

1QFY22 FY23

FY24

FY25

DevSecOps

Planning

FY26

PI: Principal Investigator DevSecOps: Development Security Operations T&E: Test and Evaluation MVP: Minimum Viable Product Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited) 18

• Principal Investigator (PI) Meetings

• Presentations from performer(s) to discuss technical detail, programmatic/technical risks, and to demonstrate progress

• Test & Evaluation

• See the classified BAA addendum for further detail

• Code Reviews

• Will be performed by the Government team to assess the current state of the code

• Code should be made easily accessible to the Government team

• Workshops

• Workshop-style interaction to discuss research findings, define interfaces, identify desired features, and plan for program exercises including experimentation

MINC Program Events

Development Security Operations (DevSecOps)

User interaction

Secure Control Overlay

Situational Awareness Mission C2 AppsAppsApps…

Heterogeneous Networks

DevSecOps model drives frequent interaction and empowers transition partners

Create program mechanisms and behaviors that:

• Influence MINC features and applications

• Informs concept of operations (CONOPS) & use cases

• Creates real-time adaptability to support new CONOPS

MINC Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)

Support program with innovation and/or best practices to secure, assess, and transition MINC solutions

Security IPT

• Provide guidance on certification and accreditation

• Identify and manage cybersecurity risks

• Inform program exercises and user engagements

Experimentation IPT

• Refine and measure program metrics

• Design lab-based evaluation scenarios

• Facilitate definition of interfaces

Transition IPT

• Outreach and interface with key stakeholders

• Guide and facilitate DevSecOps

• Plan field exercises and demonstrations

BAA Overview

• Three focus areas, three phases

• FA 1: Secure Control Overlay

• FA 2: Distributed Network Orchestration

• FA 3: Mission Integration

• Phase 1: Minimum Viable Product (Base), 18 months

• Phase 2: Integrated System (Option 1), 12 months

• Phase 3: Transition-Ready System (Option 2), 12 months

• Additional Transition Effort, 6 months

• Proposers must bid to all three focus areas and all three phases with the exception of the transition effort

• Proposal instructions will be provided to Phase 3 performer(s) for the transition effort

BAA Programmatic Details

Phase Label

Phase Duration (months)

Technical Volume Cost Volume

Base 1 18 Yes Yes Option 1 2 12 Yes Yes Option 2 3 12 Yes Yes N/A 3

(Transition) 6 No; proposal instructions to be provided to Phase 3 performer(s)

No; proposal instructions to be provided to Phase 3 performer(s)

• DARPA recommends that proposers follow the templates outlined in the BAA including, but not limited to:

• Statement of Work summarized in table format

• Deliverables summarized in table format

• Three-slide summary of the proposal

• Proposal Work Breakdown Structure

• Science and Technology Protection Implementation Plan

BAA Proposals Format

Prime Contractor Team: Company A

Facility Facility Security Clearance (FCL)

Level

CAGE

Code

POCs*

Networks

Subcontractors

Note: Use this section to Identify relationship or OPSEC sensitivities, or site-specific policies (travel, communication, etc…) when dealing with this performer and/or location. Are there any CUAs required? Any unique or special security requirements or waivers? Use this table to describe additional work locations for MINC as proposed. Leverage the note section to document any unique security/facility/supply chain/protection-related requirements associated with that facility.

Subcontractor / Alternate Work Location: Company B

Facility Security Clearance (FCL)

Level

CAGE

Code

POCs*

Networks

Subcontractors

Note: Use this section to Identify relationship or OPSEC sensitivities, or site-specific policies (travel, required? Any unique or special security requirements or waivers? Use this table to describe additional work locations for MINC as proposed. Leverage the note section to document any unique security/facility/supply chain/protection-related requirements associated with that

Subcontractor / Alternate Work Location: Company B

Note: Use this section to Identify relationship or OPSEC sensitivities, or site-specific policies (travel, required? Any unique or special security requirements or waivers? Use this table to describe additional work locations for MINC as proposed. Leverage the note section to document any unique security/facility/supply chain/protection-related requirements associated with that

Statement of Work (Provide Separate Table for Each Phase of Program) WBS TASK and DESCRIPTION

(LIST) (LIST)

Contract Reporting Deliverables (Provide Separate Table for Each Phase of Program)

ITEM DUE DATE

(LIST) (LIST)

Technical Deliverables (Provide Separate Table for Each Phase of Program)

ITEM DUE DATE

(LIST) (LIST)

Please see BAA for additional details and templates

• Proposals should include discussion of any required Government Furnished Information or Equipment (GFI/GFE) deemed necessary during the MINC program. This includes:

• Gateways, translators, and/or adapters needed to interface between networks

• Relevant radio hardware

• Additional software and documentation, e.g. interface control documents (ICDs), needed to securely access, control and configure network resources

• Any other existing technologies with Government Purpose Rights integral to a MINC solution

• The Government will make every effort to provide the above as GFI/GFE during the program

• During Phase 1, the Government will also supply documentation, interfaces, and any related information necessary on the expected development environments noted in the classified addendum as GFI to the performers. In addition, the Government will work to provide performers a development kit for these environments, if applicable, that will help reduce integration time and reduce overall program risk.

Government Furnished Information/Equipment

Evaluation of Proposals

• Proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria:

• Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

• Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

• Cost and Schedule Realism

Evaluation Criteria

• The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete.

• The proposed technical team has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final product that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal clearly identifies major technical risks and clearly defines feasible planned mitigation strategies and efforts to address those risks. The proposal clearly explains the technical approach(es) that will be employed to meet or exceed each program goal and system metric listed in Section I.B. and provides ample justification as to why the approach(es) is feasible. The Government will also consider the structure, clarity, and responsiveness to the Statement of Work; the quality of proposed deliverables; and the linkage of the Statement of Work, technical approach(es), risk mitigation plans, costs, and deliverables of the prime awardee and all subawardees through a logical, well structured, and traceable technical plan.

Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

• The potential contributions of the proposed effort are relevant to the national technology base.

Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to make pivotal early technology investments that create or prevent strategic surprise for U.S. National Security.

• The proposer clearly demonstrates its capability to transition the technology to the research, industrial, and/or operational military communities in such a way as to enhance U.S. defense. The proposer should demonstrate knowledge of risk management framework processes and demonstrate how they plan to meet the accreditation criteria for operational use to the greatest extent possible. The evaluation will also take into consideration the extent to which the proposed intellectual property (IP) rights structure will potentially impact the Government’s ability to transition the technology.

Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

• The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent with the proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for the prime proposer and proposed subawardees are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the estimates).

• It is expected that the effort will leverage all available and relevant prior research in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding. For efforts with a likelihood of commercial application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation. DARPA recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies.

• The proposed schedule aggressively pursues performance metrics in an efficient time frame that accurately accounts for the anticipated workload. The proposed schedule identifies and mitigates any potential schedule risk.

Cost and Schedule Realism www.darpa.mil

31Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)