Notice

Competition document: Advanced Radio Frequency Sensing, Integrated Effects and PNT

Updated 11 April 2022

Important Update

The requirements in 7.5 Defence Cyber Protection Partnership have been updated

1. Introduction

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is funded by the Bright Corvus Project, under MOD’s Future Sensing and Situational Awareness (FSSA) Science & Technology (S&T) Programme.

This DASA competition will prioritise proposals focussed on raising the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) of a concept, ahead of proposals looking to develop existing innovation at a high TRL. The competition would welcome proposals from as low as fundamental technical principles and concepts (TRL 1 or 2), and at the end of the project, outputs should be at TRL3 to 6. Proposals must offer a view on exploitation beyond DASA project completion. Where feasible, at the end of projects, outputs should be suitable for consideration for exploitation via Bright Corvus experimentation activities.

Bright Corvus Project

The Bright Corvus Project aims to develop and demonstrate novel S&T in distributed Radio Frequency (RF) sensing; integrated RF effects; and provision of Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) as a Service (PNTaaS) that all contribute to delivering disruptive change compared to current Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

Resilience, agility, performance advantage, cost reduction and delivery of focused effects are key factors to support a move away from large monolithic sensors, towards spatially distributed, pervasive, sensor systems that exploit autonomy to enable rapid system self-configuration for mission agility and response to emerging threats. Integrating ISR systems with effectors capable of delivering RF effects will result in cognitive sensing, Electronic Warfare (EW) and datalinks from single payloads. This will be supported by absolute or relative PNT in a service-based architecture.

The Bright Corvus project has an initial 4 year timeframe (from mid 2021) with potential for follow-on work to realise the Bright Corvus 10 year vision; both timeframes may offer exploitation opportunities for successful DASA projects. DASA projects taken into Bright Corvus for exploitation (subject to agreement between all parties) will likely require successful bidders to collaborate with defence strategic suppliers; however there is no requirement for proposals funded through this competition to follow this route to market.

2. Competition key information

Submission deadline

Midday on Tuesday 26th April 2022

Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will require an account. Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

You must not submit any information classified above OFFICIAL. If you wish to add supporting information that may be above Official you must contact DASA in advance and we will discuss solutions with you.

Total funding available

The total possible funding available for this competition is up to £2.8m and is expected to fund 15-20 proposals.

3. Supporting Activities

Briefings & Dial-in sessions for Competition Launch

Thursday 3 March 2022 – A dial-in/online session providing further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions in an open forum is planned as part of Competition Launch activities. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite page.

Tuesday 8 and Thursday 10 March 2022 – A series of 15 minute one-to-one teleconference sessions, giving you the opportunity to ask specific questions. If you would like to participate, please register on the relevant Eventbrite page: Tuesday 8 March and Thursday 10 March. Booking is on a first come first served basis.

Industry Collaboration Survey during Proposal Preparation

We encourage collaboration between organisations for this competition. To support this we have a short survey to collect details of those who wish to explore collaboration possibilities. If you are interested in a collaboration, please complete the survey and your details will be circulated among other potential suppliers who have completed the survey and are interested in collaborating.

If you choose to complete the supplier collaboration survey, please be aware all of the information you submit in the survey will be provided to other suppliers who also complete the survey. All industry collaboration for proposal submissions is on an industry-industry basis. Inclusion or absence of any individual supplier organisation will not affect assessment, which will be solely on technical evidence in the proposal.

4. Competition Scope

4.1 Background

As highlighted in the MOD S&T Strategy, one of the most significant enduring capability challenges is pervasive, full spectrum, multi domain ISR. An increasingly congested and complex Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) makes it essential for Defence and Security organisations to develop capabilities for situational awareness and affecting adversary systems reliant on the EMS, whilst also using the EMS for understanding the effectiveness of operational activities.

Some traditional approaches are reaching fundamental limits, whilst novel uses of the EMS make combined or new approaches desirable for enhancing sensing modalities and combining effects in a timely manner in complex and often constrained environments from sub-threshold to warfighting.

This competition is set within the aims of Bright Corvus and the competition scope is broad; individual proposals are advised to focus on a targeted subset of challenges and evidence how the work will be carried out rather than referencing a wide variety of elements in only high level detail.

4.2 Scope

What innovations are we looking for?

Competition focus is multi-function, distributed RF Sensing (including RADAR and Electronic Surveillance (ES) of both communications and radar bands) in support of effects-based activities including ISR, situational awareness, targeting and post-action assessment. Multi-modal aspects are welcomed on platforms and between platforms. These can include cross-cueing of non-RF modalities (but NOT development of non-RF modalities).

Innovations supporting the targeting, delivery and post-action assessment of active RF effects (including Electronic Attack (EA), Electronic Countermeasures) are welcomed. Proposals in this area will need to comply with regulatory obligations relevant to their technology and its demonstration / testing.

Successful proposals will;

• describe how they will demonstrate benefits of their innovation against indicative scenarios or comparative technologies using lab or field demonstrations, modelling and analysis.
• show evidence of the innovation being enabled by self-configuring and adaptable architectures, which move away from ‘manual’ cooperative/coordinated approaches towards coherent sensing with autonomous sensor management and tasking.
• show evidence of how they support the identified broader Bright Corvus Project aims.

Contextualising deployment options

To give background to this competition a range of platforms ^{[footnote 1]} are being considered including, but not limited to, dismountable (into buildings of opportunity) and man-portable systems through to Unmanned Vehicles and elements that could be mounted onto manned vehicles. Your proposal should evidence this context and your specific technical considerations for RF sensing / effectors as payloads on your indicated platforms; suitability and potential use of distributed platform-mix are relevant factors, including context of use and constraints. Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) should be identified by the ‘common taxonomy’ in the NATO UAS classification system ^{[footnote 2]}. Platforms are not being supplied as Government Furnished Assets (GFX), an alternative should be provided.

Indicative Scenarios

DASA Proposals are NOT expected to address full ‘operationalisation’ but should demonstrate vision for how innovations could mature post-project to deliver benefit in a deployed context. To aid contextualising, scenarios are indicated below:

• dense urban environment with congested EM Environment (EME) and urban canyoning.
• littoral approach to wide frontage coastal defences
• maritime/Land surveillance conducted against localised target area but at range (e.g. over 100km) from base location
• surveillance in mountainous regions across multiple valley systems
• surveillance of non-co-operative air targets
• all scenarios should consider being a contested environment with potential for both physical degradation of sensors or platforms and disruption through the EMS against sensors of critical bearer mediums

5. Competition Challenges

This competition is comprised of 5 challenges:

Proposals can address one or more sub-components of any combination of challenges but are advised to focus on evidencing how they address a small subset. We welcome industry collaboration (under industry-industry arrangements) that leverages complementary skills and resources from partners across sensor, effector, platforms and testing.

Suppliers should characterise each part of their innovation using the following types. This will assist with the assessment of individual feasibility and funded project-mix with peer proposals:

• critical enabler technologies. Proposals would evidence how technologies (probably low TRL) are baselined and matured. Likely to be Lab-based in near term, with potential to inform longer term Bright Corvus Project vision
• ‘mid-TRL’ technologies that demonstrate truly novel approaches. These would be considered for Bright Corvus Project experimentation within 3 years.
• modelling / simulation – mathematical or virtual representation of performance to support comparisons between options. Consideration of re-usability by Defence & Security S&T.
• architectural / conceptual – longer term technical strategies to inform future Bright Corvus direction beyond Year 4 and out to 10 years.

5.1 Challenge 1 – Distributed RF Sensing

We need to detect, recognise and identify entities of interest as well as locate and track them. Targets will operate in complex terrain (including high multi-path, clutter) and the environment is likely to be contested with targets being designed to have small signatures against sensing. Current ISR capability has focused on high cost, small numbers of high performance sensors operating at range. We want to explore more sensors, at lower individual cost but supported by novel technology and techniques to provide equivalent or better overall performance when operating collectively.

This challenge focusses on enabling a network of multiple RF sensors, distributed around a target or throughout an area of interest. Priority will be given to radar and electronic surveillance/RF spectrum monitoring applications. We are interested in novel, distributed techniques that leverage multi-platform system configuration, geometry and motion; collective emission and reception activity; external and internal system data flows; and distributed algorithm concepts to realise a collective sensing function and/or effect, tasked and reporting as a single entity.

Proposals could range from a novel enhancement to a distributed algorithm, an enabling technology to realise distributed RF sensing or a complete end-to-end demonstration. Outputs could be a result of theoretical derivations, modelling & simulation, lab-based experiments and/or trials. Your proposal should evidence awareness of current capabilities and how you will add benefit through improvements to such things as sensor performance, system requirements/definitions, resilience or reduced costs.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• multi-static radar applications
• ES of communications and radar emissions through multiple distributed receivers
• high performance RF sensing from multiple low SWAP-C (Size, Weight and Power - and Cost) sensors
• enhanced distributed sensing by sustaining and exploiting RF coherence between sensors
• persistent sensing in complex, congested and contested physical and EM environments
• support to planning, modelling/simulation or execution of distributed coherent sensing
• distributed sensing techniques that result in benefits to system integration and operating costs of the sensor network (e.g. reduced data exchange, autonomous tasking and optimisation, automated reporting and databasing)
• distributed beamforming techniques to deliver power to target for radar and EA applications

Exclusions:

• non-RF sensing modality development
• proposals without an approach to measuring the benefit of their innovation

5.2 Challenge 2 – Integrated Sensing & Effects

Uses of the EMS can be highly dynamic. Waveforms and behaviours of communications and radar systems are increasingly set by software and adaptable in response to mission and EM environment. We see trends towards intelligent management of spectrum use by individual devices and networks but away from fixed allocations. Effective targeting of EM effects, the assessment of achieved effect and assurance of avoiding collateral damage is very difficult. We are interested in building greater intelligence and adaptability into ISR and EW systems to help overcome this challenge. This competition is interested in the means of effect delivery rather than identification of specific vulnerabilities.

We seek proposals that advance integration of sensing with RF effect delivery at range or within challenging environments. Proposals should increase automation, intelligent application of resources and collaboration of nodes in tactical systems responsible for sensing, understanding and orchestrating EW missions. Proposal will demonstrate awareness of peer capabilities and evidence how their innovations outperform their peers. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• less a priori intelligence of a target’s capability
• reduction in transmit peak power, bandwidth and time (for reduced SWAP or increased endurance)
• precise delivery of RF Effects with reduced chance of collateral damage
• faster tasking-to-effect process
• efficient effects attack against adaptive targets

Applications to communications and radar targets are welcome. Conceptual proposals against generic targets are acceptable in order to keep the classification of the proposal at OFFICIAL.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• measures of effectiveness / battle damage assessment / change detection of target system, platform or associated units.
• ability to enhance targeting and measuring effectiveness of EA by tasking and exploiting other existing sensor modalities (priority given to radar applications)
• synchronised/fused tracking of physical and EM changes against expected patterns
• ES against unknown or highly adaptive targets
• tools to analyse and display success and impact on EW EM operations
• techniques and tools to plan, model, simulate and assess RF effector operations.
• intelligent resource management across multiple networked EW systems including optimising target allocation and co-ordinated effects delivery
• resilient, sustained, precise targeting and delivery of RF effects from a network of distributed sense and effect systems, in congested and contested environment

Exclusions:

• proposals without an approach to measuring the benefit of their innovation
• sensing that does not benefit delivery of effects
• non-RF effects or excessive RF effects that may result in destruction of a target

5.3 Challenge 3 - Integrated Sensing & Effects Enablers

This challenge is interested in enablers to core systems, including antennas, power and modularity. It demonstrates potential to unlock a step change in how we operate and deploy a variety of different future systems. Strong proposals will link aspects of this challenge as supporting elements to other challenges.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

A. Antenna and front end circuitry developments

Technologies that enable different compromises between performance, SWAP and platform integration. Focus is towards the lower SWAP aspects.

• multi-octave broadband coverage
• switchable functions – comms, radar, electronic warfare
• simultaneous functions, multi-beams
• conformal or concepts that integrate antenna requirements into platform (air, navy, land deployments or covert placements) or can exploit surrounding environment
• selectable levels of directionality within a single unit or across a family of interchangeable units
• 3D shaping
• exotic, novel materials
• software addressable
• frequency selective
• integrated assemblies
• high degrees of freedom between frequency coverage, bandwidth, numbers of channels and ability to tune within that at high rates

Exclusions:

• element arrays unsuitable for small, mobile platforms such as UAS
• very narrowband (<MHz) proposals
• systems with a large physical footprint such as parabolic reflectors

B. Power

Direct application of new power generating technologies that demonstrates benefit to low SWAP-C multi-function, sensor and effect systems.

• small form factor power amplification technologies and associated novel heat dissipation approaches
• technologies for efficient generation of RF power over broad many-octave bandwidths with high efficiency
• technologies that enable novel power management approaches
• technologies and concepts that are suited to applications requiring high peak power in short, infrequent bursts e.g. multi-function systems that remain passive for a long time but must be able to deliver a short burst of high EM power on demand.
• technologies and concepts that may increase endurance of low SWAP-C RF systems such as power harvesting/recharge at range

Exclusions:

• generic battery technology evolution
• proposals that do not result in a demonstrable benefit of the innovation through a radar, communications or EW application

C. Modular system design approaches

Suitable for complex small devices that can be updated, upgraded or have interchangeable functionality.

• systems that can be built or broken down (potentially by operators in the field) to suit operating conditions and SWAP for distribution between multiple dismounted troops, UAS, or platforms in a Maritime Task Group
• demonstrating multi-functionality (comms, radar, EW) within low SWAP envelopes
• systems design, development and integration approaches, supported through rapid prototyping (particularly in relation to software defined radios), that provide deployment agility as campaign requirements evolve and enable future technology insertion.

Exclusions:

• generic system design methodologies and proposals that do not identify the benefit to deployments of RF sensors and effectors
• conceptual proposals unlikely to offer a demonstration in a 4 year timeframe.

5.4 Challenge 4: PNT as a Service

To enable the formation of coherent RF sensing and effects across a distributed network of nodes resilient, source-agnostic “PNT-as-a-service” solutions (including novel Alternative Navigation (AltNav) technologies, sensor development and PNT data fusion and dissemination) are required. Proposals should include evidence of how they enable distributed RF sensing and effector concepts, while operating in a contested electromagnetic environment (CEME) where Global Navigation Satellite Services (GNSS) signals are likely to be unavailable or severely degraded.

This challenge focusses on generation and dissemination of PNT Services through:

• technologies that provide a highly accurate estimate of position in globally referenced coordinates (better than GNSS);
• technologies that can accurately measure small changes in absolute position (to within ~1cm);
• technologies that enable different nodes within a network to very accurately estimate their position relative to one another (to within ~1cm);
• technologies and methodologies that enable different nodes within a wireless network to synchronise in time (to sub nano-second level) and/or frequency (to 1x10-10 or better);
• Novel Positioning concepts which explore a distributed, asymmetric network of sensors and effectors (e.g. where positional accuracy of individual nodes in a network is improved through the sharing of positional information);
• PNT sensing and distribution services resilient against active/environmental disruption (including bearer requirements and demonstration of feasibility - combined bearers for sensor, PNT and platform C2 are within scope)
• PNT interference detection and geolocating across a distributed collection of on-board sensors
• contributing to MOD developing a long term strategy for architectures and standards that enable provision of PNT as a source agnostic service.

PNT Services must be derived and disseminated in context of constraints brought by platform size, weight power and cost (SWaP-C) and the deployed environment. This competition is specifically interested in technologies that, when mature, are suitable for unmanned platforms (e.g. Class 1 & 2 UASs ), are Low Probability of Detection / Intercept / Disruption and that can operate in a wide range of environments (day, night and all weather) and your Proposal should evidence where it positions within this context. While GNSS may form part of a proposed solution (e.g. for initialisation), the proposal must evidence how the solution would continue to perform in GNSS denied or degraded environments.

Precision PNT is a potential enabler to sensing alongside jamming or other effects. Additional factors for PNT services come during times of high stress (e.g. extreme manoeuvres or disruption of EMS) and data on which effector decisions are based may require after action review (and be non-disputable). Platform vulnerability means captured units must not easily compromise disposition. Proposals should demonstrate how ‘trust’ (e.g. uncertainty, assuredness, etc.) in a sensor or technology output is captured, quantified and disseminated.

PNT data needs to be disseminated between platforms/sensors. In tactical engagements, units are likely to be within hundreds of metres of each other; across an operational theatre, key nodes may be tens or hundreds kilometres apart and the relationship with strategic PNT sources may require further considerations. Dissemination will require appropriate mediums, which could include optical, RF or other means. Consideration of directionality between nodes (single or dual), as well as factors relating to point-to-point or broadcast/multi-station dissemination and bandwidth constraints, multi-functionality and shared links will also be important. Modelling / simulation of these factors would be valued, particularly if the model is portable/easily re-usable by the wider Bright Corvus project.

Opportunistic reuse of on-board PNT sensor and Anti-Jam equipment could contribute to situational awareness capability (e.g. interference detection and geolocation) and this competition would consider proposals which looked to augment or extend current capability.

This competition would welcome proposals that demonstrate value for money in exploring the 10 year source agnostic ‘PNT as a service’ challenge for MOD. This is likely to be an academic, theoretical study into the integration of PNT sensors including radical architectures, frameworks, strategies and data fusion algorithm types, both ‘on and off board’ (i.e. on platform, distributed, centralised, external and situational awareness). This should look to inform development of a MOD-owned open standard for the fusion of PNT information and associated meta-data.

Exclusions:

• development of GNSS is out-of-scope;
• development of quantum technologies is out-of-scope;
• PNT solutions of inappropriate SWAP-C for indicated platform mix;
• PNT Test Range and/or Service offering;
• evolution of known individual AltNav techniques such as visual odometry, visual pattern matching, signals of opportunity (this exclusion does NOT apply to fusion of existing techniques in novel ways).

There is opportunity for suppliers to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) to attend the annual ‘GNSS denial’ trials held at Sennybridge Training Area (SENTA). This year’s trial is between 15th and 26th August 2022; with a further event expected to be at a similar point in 2023.

Due to high demand for trial allocations, EOIs are considered by the trials facilitator on a case by case basis (not by DASA nor the Bright Corvus Project). If suppliers wish to explore these trials as part of their testing regime, they should submit an EOI to the trial’s mailbox ([email protected]), providing a scope of testing and short justification/benefit (for MOD) – this should be based on the technology under test, not just that a DASA Proposal is being submitted. This EOI is separate from the DASA Proposal and not required as part of the competition.

DASA proposals must not assume or rely on SENTA trial attendance being granted and must have a viable fall-back option to testing/demonstration in event that SENTA trials are not available to their project. Only Suppliers who intend to test in GNSS denied environments should submit an EOI to the SENTA trials. Due to timeframes of the SENTA trials, such Proposals should indicate their intent and request an appropriate time extension to accommodate participation at the SENTA trials, subject to approval by the SENTA trials facilitator.

5.5 Challenge 5 – Novel Concepts and Architectures for advanced RF Sensing and Effectors

This challenge has three specific sub-challenges for low-SWAP-C future distributed RF systems:

A. Autonomy

Achieve autonomous (machine speed) coordination of RF sensor/RF effector units across multiple platforms to autonomously position teamed mission packages to maintain continuous sensing, tracking or effect delivery in a deployed scenario:

• environment ‘awareness’ to avoid hazards and improve general mission sustainment
• optimisation of collective sense/effect mission package functions and relative platform positions/orientations to strengthen sensing/effects and mission resilience (NOT every sensor optimised but proactive addressing of ‘blind spots’)
• responding to target’s change in position or performance to sustain optimised sense/effect delivery by collective mission package. This may also include detection and evasive action to adversary threat to mission package.
• sustainment of mission effectiveness and controlled degradation during non-availability (e.g. due to low power, equipment malfunction, or enemy action).
• network optimisation through automatic load balancing or use of common mediums for disseminating PNT, platform command and control and sensor/effector data Proposals are welcomed on:
• development and demonstration of algorithms to manage/integrate these tasks across sensor/effector payloads and platforms.
• modelling and simulation of collaborative (multiple) Uncrewed (or unmanned) platform (UxV) platform and sensor/effector payload deployments, demonstrating and validating algorithms in realistic scenarios.
• demonstration of collaborative UxVs sensing/effecting moving targets in complex, evolving urban environments using distributed RF sensing. Exclusions:
• development of autonomy not integrated with distributed, coherent sensing/effect delivery

B. Security

This competition seeks to understand the latest security functions/techniques to enable secure and discreet data flow across multi-layered, distributed, ISR from tactical edge sense/effect to core information dissemination and decision-making:

• securing low-SWAP edge sensors/effectors and processing devices containing sensitive applications/techniques and captured data upon loss, allowing them to be considered expendable and of limited intelligence value
• low-SWAP cross-domain solutions, enabling connection of tactical to core networks and in context of identified platform mix within the proposal.

Exclusions:

• encryption algorithm or device development
• cross-domain solutions inappropriate for a low-SWAP context
• solutions that require intense use of non-organic infrastructure to sustain security but which is external to sense/effect systems

C. Edge Network Processing

This competition seeks low latency, high bandwidth computing resource, available at the tactical edge to support data processing and exploitation in distributed sensing/effector systems and reduction in data volumes transited between nodes. Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) is a possible enabling technology of interest and we wish to understand how MEC could be applied to distributed, coherent sensing and effector contexts, including development and demonstration of enabling technologies and Modelling / simulation of MEC in realistic scenarios.

5.6 We are interested in…

In addition to the specifics of each challenge, we want novel ideas to benefit end-users working in UK Defence and Security. Your proposal should include evidence of;

• the maturation of technologies for RF Sensing and Effectors. Exemplars of cross-cueing other modalities can be included (but without development).
• an understanding of the distributed, coherent and integrated properties and contrast with existing approaches.
• an understanding of how the innovations would improve detection, recognition and identification properties and support locating and tracking geographically or in the EMS
• technical cross-cueing abilities between RF sensors and with RF effectors.
• methods of theory development or low TRL proof of concept research which demonstrates potential for translation to practical demonstration in later activities.
• how specific innovation or creative approaches will be achieved (not just what the innovation is).
• innovation or a creative approach
• clear demonstration of how the proposed work applies to any defence and security context

5.7 We are not interested in…

We are not interested in proposals that;

• are about Underwater or Space segment ISR
• primarily represent platform development
• represent direct development of underpinning Autonomy or AI technologies (although application of mature approaches to distributed sensing/effector context is welcomed)
• constitute consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation.
• are an unsolicited resubmission of a previous DASA bid
• offer demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development
• offer no real long-term prospect of integration into Defence and Security capabilities
• offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions

6. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

It is important that over the lifetime of this DASA competition, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. This will depend on the nature and starting point of innovations and how they may integrate with broader Bright Corvus activities. Early identification and appropriate engagement with potential end users during the competition and subsequent activities are essential in order to develop and implement an exploitation plan.

All proposals to DASA should articulate the expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the contract and how this relates to improved operational capability against the current known (or presumed) baseline. Your deliverables should be designed to evidence these aspects with the aim of making it as easy as possible for potential collaborators / stakeholders to identify innovative elements of your proposal to consider routes for exploitation.

6.1 How to outline your exploitation plan

This DASA Competition is supporting the overall Bright Corvus Project; it is intended to offer suitable DASA projects opportunity for exploitation (and potentially further funding) via broader Bright Corvus activities. There are two ready-made exploitation paths which your Proposal could consider:

• Bright Corvus experimentation within 3 years. This will require evidence of appropriate technical maturity and a willingness to explore collaboration with the industry team supporting the wider Bright Corvus Project. The industry team will be supporting systems integration, experimentation and demonstration activities of the Bright Corvus Project and at present, this role is via the SERAPIS Lot 1 Industry Research Consortium. Exploitation via this route would be subject to future agreement between all parties. The industry team supporting Bright Corvus will not:
  • have access to DASA proposals
  • be involved with decisions on whether a DASA proposal is funded or its progress
  • be a form of GFX
• Bright Corvus concepts and strategy activities within 10 years. This will require evidence of strategic technical vision relevant to Defence and Security and without proprietary lock-in. Proposals would support a future Bright Corvus positioning statement and may be asked to participate in future activities.

Dstl intends to hold collective ‘Mid-Contract and ‘End of Contract’ Events, where funded DASA suppliers will be required to brief Government Stakeholders. It is also an opportunity for suppliers to cross-brief each other and Bright Corvus industry integration leads, followed by networking opportunities. These opportunities will maximise potential for exploitation of DASA projects via wider Bright Corvus project activities. Direct industry collaboration would be on mutually agreed, industry-industry basis.

Exploitation via the Bright Corvus project is not mandatory and Proposals may exclude this and offer evidence of viable exploitation paths, positioned relative to the overall Bright Corvus aims, for consideration during assessment and prioritisation.

Evidence of a rise in technology maturity is expected at the end of DASA Projects and for follow-on activities. The following information should be included to help the assessors understand exploitation plans:

• means of baselining innovations at the start of your project for contrast at the end
• indication of your appetite to engage with Bright Corvus as an exploitation path (without commitment or prejudice)
• how your outputs could be tested in a representative environment as part of broader Bright Corvus project activities or independently
• any additional defence or security users of your final solution and whether you have engaged with them, their procurement arm or research and development arm
• awareness of, and alignment to, any existing end user procurement programmes
• by contrast with peer technologies you are aware of, the anticipated benefits (for example, in cost, time, improved capability) that your solution could provide
• evidence of it being able to integrate with other technologies or platforms and to move between platforms as operational needs require in the context of the wider Bright Corvus project
• expected additional work required beyond the end of the contract to develop an operationally deployable commercial product (for example, “scaling up” for manufacture, cyber security, integration with existing technologies, environmental operating conditions)
• additional future applications and wider markets that you have considered for exploitation
• wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation
• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation (including the developed platform and resources required for testing)

6.2 Is your exploitation plan long term?

Long term studies may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should be clear that there is credible advantage to be gained from the technology development. Informing the future Bright Corvus project positioning out to 10 years is valid provided you identify viable technical steps beyond the DASA Project.

Include project specific information which will help exploitation. This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We may collaborate with organisations outside of the UK Government and this may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future.

7. How to apply

Submission deadline

Midday on Tuesday 26th April 2022

Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will require an account. Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

You must not submit any information classified above OFFICIAL. If you wish to add supporting information which might be higher, you should contact DASA in advance and we will discuss solutions with you.

Total funding available

The total possible funding available for Phase 1 of this competition is up to £2.8m and is expected to fund 15-20 proposals.

For further guidance

Click here for more information on our competition process and how your proposal is assessed.

Queries should be sent to the DASA Help Centre – [email protected].

7.1 What your proposal must include

Included?	Your proposal must include…
	proposals that include development of models, datasets or other synthetic environments need to explain how they will remain accessible for MOD re-use after the DASA Project and/or be delivered as a usable output.
	proposals that include development of prototypes and/or test facilities should include proposed disposal of such assets at the end of project
	proposals should focus on the Challenge requirements but must also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required for commercial exploitation
	when submitting a proposal, you must complete all sections of the online form, including an appropriate level of technical information to allow assessment of the bid and a completed finances section. Experience suggests that large volumes of additional information or not following the online format generally obscures evidence in comparison to peer proposals.
	proposals must comply with financial rules set for this competition. There is no upper-limit for this competition but it is anticipated that £2.8m will fund 15-20 proposals. Proposals will be expected to evidence value for money.
	you must include a list of other current or recent government funding you may have received in this area if appropriate, making it clear how this proposal differs from this work
	a project plan with clear milestones and deliverables must be provided. Deliverables must be well defined and designed to provide evidence of progress against the project plan and the end-point compared to the initial baseline. It is advisable to include a GANNT chart to show relationships between work items.
	individual funded projects will need to participate in meetings at kick off and end of project, which may include other Government stakeholders. These will be agreed with the TP and may be virtual or in person. These are often at Dstl or supplier sites although could include demonstration locations, if applicable. Regular updates and an outline monthly report will be required to evidence progress.
	all funded projects will be required to present at a mid-contract event and an end of contract event with Government stakeholders. Subject to mutual agreement, these events will also include opportunities for cross-briefing other DASA Suppliers and Bright Corvus industry integration leads. This could enable ad hoc networking under your own arrangements and maximises potential for exploitation of DASA projects via wider Bright Corvus project activities.
	your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (maximum 12 months). Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant
	all DASA proposals are required to demonstrate a viable understanding of Regulatory issues applicable to their Proposal. DASA may be able to assist in obtaining necessary permissions if the issues are clearly highlighted. For this competition, you are advised to consider and identify if your proposal may require approvals related to any of the following; MODREC; Investigatory Powers Act for interception and disruption of intended targets and collateral systems; OFCOM Regulations including for effectors and ‘test-targets’; Data Protection Act /GDPR including consideration of sensed data; for those proposals involving air platforms, evidence of understanding of the Civil Aviation Authority requirements for the relevant platforms and procedures for flights is advised; other applicable regulations related to the specifics of a proposal .

7.2 What your resourcing plan should include

Your resourcing plan must identify, where possible, the nationalities of proposed employees that you intend to work on this phase. Evidence of expertise or resources should focus on those aspects that are relevant to the challenge being addressed. Pre-existing regulatory approvals (or experience in obtaining them) relevant to the challenges should be identified.

If your proposal is recommended for funding

In the event of a proposal being recommended for funding, the DASA reserves the right to undertake due diligence checks including the clearance of proposed employees. Please note that this process will take as long as necessary and could take up to 6 weeks in some cases for non-UK nationals.

You must identify any ethical/legal/regulatory factors both for the development work and testing of your proposal (including permission for own units and targets to transmit and covered by Ofcom regulations) within your proposal and how the associated risks will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received.

Approvals can take months to receive and therefore you should evidence taking this into account in your plan. If you are unsure if your proposal will need to apply for MODREC approval, then please refer to the MODREC Guidance for Suppliers or contact your Innovation Partner for further guidance.

This competition is not offering Government Furnished Assets (GFX), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities. Whilst your proposal may include requests for GFX, DASA cannot guarantee availability. If you apply for GFX, you should include an alternative plan in case it is not available.

Failure to provide any of the above listed could automatically render your proposal non-compliant.

7.3 Cyber risk assessment

7.4 Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ)

Innovators must complete a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ), using the DASA Risk Assessment Reference (RAR) for this competition: RAR- 213311997 and answer questions for risk level “Very Low”.

DASA has completed a Cyber Risk Assessment (CRA) for this competition. In order to submit to this competition innovators are required to work towards cyber resilience. If selected for funding, the innovator must prove cyber resilience before a contract will be awarded.

7.5 Defence Cyber Protection Partnership

The Defence Cyber Protection Partnership (DCPP) will review your SAQ submission and respond with a reference number within 2 working days. However, SAQ submissions will not be processed between 12pm on the 14th April 2022 and 9am in the 3rd May 2022. You will not receive the SAQ reference number back from the DCPP prior to competition close at midday on Tuesday 26th April 2022.

Please continue to download and attach the completed SAQ form within the DASA submission service portal when the proposal is submitted. If selected for funding, we will ask for your SAQ reference number, which will have been received from the DCPP after the 3rd May 2022.

If the proposal is being funded, the SAQ will be evaluated against the CRA for the competition, and it will be put it into one of the following categories:

1. compliant – no further action
2. not compliant – if successful in competition and being funded, the innovator will be required to complete a Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP) before the contract is placed, which will need to be reviewed and agreed with the relevant project manager

Innovators can enter a proposal without all controls in place, but are expected to have all the cyber protection measures necessary to fulfil the requirements of the contract in place at the time of contract award, or have an agreed Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP).

The CIP provides evidence as to how and when potential innovators will achieve compliance. Provided the measures proposed in the Cyber Implementation Plan do not pose an unacceptable risk to the MOD, a submission with a Cyber Implementation Plan will be considered alongside those who can achieve the controls.

A final check will be made to ensure cyber resilience before the contract is placed. Commercial staff cannot progress without it. This process does not replace any contract specific security requirements.

Further guidance for completing this process can be requested by emailing the DASA Help Centre: [email protected].

Additional information about cyber security can be found at: DCPP: Cyber Security Model industry buyer and supplier guide.

7.6 Public facing information

When submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a title and a short abstract. The title and abstract you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments, to describe your project and its intended outcomes and benefits. They may be included at DASA events in relation to this competition and in documentation such as brochures. The proposal title will be published in the DASA transparency data on GOV.UK, along with your company name, the amount of funding, and the start and end dates of your contract. As this information can be shared, it should not contain information that may compromise Intellectual Property.

7.7 How your proposal will be assessed

At Stage 1, all proposals will be checked for compliance with the competition document and may be rejected before full assessment if they do not comply. Only those proposals that demonstrate compliance against the competition scope and DASA mandatory criteria will be taken forward to full assessment.

Mandatory Criteria

The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition	Within scope (Pass) / Out of scope (Fail)
The proposal clearly details a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan to complete the work proposed	Pass / Fail
The proposal contains a credible test plan where appropriate	Pass / Fail
The proposal identifies the need (or not) for MODREC approval	Pass / Fail
The proposal clearly identifies the requirement, or not, of GFA	Pass / Fail
The proposal does not exceed competition funding limit of £2.8m	Pass / Fail
The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities/services (including delivery of the final report) will be completed within a maximum of 12 months from award of contract (or less)	Pass / Fail
The innovator provides unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract	Pass / Fail
The innovator has submitted a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ) – See section 7.4 above	Pass / Fail

Proposals that pass Stage 1 will then be assessed against the standard DASA assessment criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), other government departments and the front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to view or comment on assessors’ recommendations.

DASA reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from innovators during the procurement process (including information identified by the innovator as Commercially Sensitive Information in accordance with the provisions of this competition) to any third party engaged by DASA for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting DASA in the evaluation of the innovator’s proposal. In providing such information the innovator consents to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

Further guidance on how your proposal is assessed is available on the DASA website.

After assessment, proposals will be discussed internally at a Decision Conference where, based on the assessments, budget and wider strategic considerations, a decision will be made on the proposals that are recommended for funding.

Innovators are not permitted to attend the Decision Conference.

Proposals that are unsuccessful will receive brief feedback after the Decision Conference.

7.8 Things you should know about DASA contracts: DASA terms and conditions

Please read the DASA terms and conditions which contain important information for innovators. For this competition we will be using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC), links to the contract: Terms and Schedules. We will require unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions; if applicable, please ensure your commercial department has provided their acceptance.

Funded projects will be allocated a Project Manager (to run the project) and a Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). In addition, the DASA team will work with you to support delivery and exploitation including, when appropriate, introductions to end-users and business support to help develop their business.

We will use deliverables from DASA contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract terms and conditions.

For this competition, up to £2.8m is currently available to fund proposals. There may be occasions when additional funding may become available to allow us to revisit proposals deemed suitable for funding. Therefore, DASA reserves the right to keep such proposals in reserve. In the event that additional funding becomes available, DASA may ask whether you would still be prepared to undertake the work outlined in your proposal under the same terms.

8. Key dates

Dial-in	Thursday 3rd March 2022
Pre bookable 1-1 telecom sessions	Tuesday 8th and Thursday 10th March 2022
Competition closes	midday Tuesday 26th April 2022
Feedback release	Friday 17th June
Contracting	Aim to start 1st July 2022 and end a maximum of 12 months later (30th June 2023).

9. Help: Contact the DASA Help Centre

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to the DASA Help Centre at [email protected], quoting the competition title. If you wish receive future updates on this competition, please email the DASA Help Centre.

While all reasonable efforts will be made to answer queries, DASA reserves the right to impose management controls if volumes of queries restrict fair access of information to all potential innovators.

10. Launch Event Question and Answer

10.1 General Questions

Q: Do you need an innovation outline submitted prior to a full proposal for this competition?

A: No, an innovation outline is not mandated. If you would like to submit one please submit it as soon as possible given the timescales of this competition.

We recommend that you get in contact with your Innovation Partner if you have any questions or doubts about your idea.

Q: Will proposals for sub-elements of a Challenge only, be accepted? Or, must proposals be for the entirety of a Challenge?

A: We are not expecting suppliers to cover the entirety of the competition document or the entirety of all details in any single challenge. We encourage suppliers to identify the challenge areas that they can best address in their proposal. We would recommend picking a small number so that you can go into detail on the sub-challenges - describing not only what you plan to do, but how you plan to do it. Collaboration between suppliers may offer a stronger proposal. From the competition document:

“Proposals can address one or more sub-components of any combination of challenges but are advised to focus on evidencing how they address a small subset. We welcome industry collaboration (under industry-industry arrangements) that leverages complementary skills and resources from partners across sensor, effector, platforms and testing.”

Q: I have two possible solutions that fit in the same challenge area. Should I submit two separate proposals?

A: It is possible to submit more than one proposal but each must be self-standing and will be assessed individually on its own merits. If they cover distinct areas of technology it could make sense to submit more than one proposal, but we advise that the proposals acknowledge each other and clearly explain the distinction between them. Please contact your Innovation Partner if you have any further questions on this.

Please bear in mind that if all your proposals are successful, they all need to be delivered within the stated timescale. Please also ensure that you are able to adequately resource projects, with none to the detriment of the other’s timeline or deliverables.

Q: Will the Dstl project teams contact details be shared for further discussions on scope?

A: No, all contact on this competition should be conducted through DASA. Either via your Innovation Partner or the DASA Help Centre: [email protected].

Q: Will DASA aggregate sub-proposals for whole solutions?

A: Each proposal submitted to a DASA competition is an entity in its own right. We will not be aggregating proposals.

You are welcome to collaborate with other suppliers to develop a complete solution. To help facilitate this we have created a collaboration survey, see section 3. Supporting Activities.

Q: Will any selected company be required to be X-Listed at any time?

A: All proposals should be submitted at OFFICIAL so there is no requirement to be X-listed.

If you are successful and during the project there is the possibility that the security classification may increase, this should be discussed with your Technical Partner once on contract. The appropriate measures will then need to be put in place.

Q: Are the challenges within this competition duplications of the work being contracted to SERAPIS?

A: No, there are no duplications. This competition has been constructed by the Bright Corvus Dstl project team to open up their research and development activities to academia, SMEs and non-traditional defence suppliers.

Q: Can you share a bit more info about the ‘Bright Corvus industry integration leads’? What will their role/influence be?

A: We do not have a definitive role in mind at the moment only that it is anticipated that industry partners will assist with the future delivery of the broader Bright Corvus Project and that this is a potential exploitation path for successful DASA projects, subject to further agreement. The industry integration leads will only become relevant if all parties agree to collaboration. This is encouraged to enable the Bright Corvus exploitation path but will not be mandated.

There is no involvement of industry during the DASA competition process, for example in the assessment of proposals which is carried out by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), other government departments and the front-line military commands.

Q: The ISC Terms and Conditions: does Dstl think that it is reasonable to request industry to accept £5M liabilities for ~£100k contracts?

A: A limit of £5 Million, or 150% value of the contract (whichever is the Larger sum) is the default position for all contracts using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC). Although the contract value itself might be minor, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the liabilities (e.g. damage to property, Government equipment) we would be exposed to would also be minor. The purpose of the clause (and its value) is to ensure that we do not expose ourselves to any contingent liability by setting the values too low.

Once we have selected which proposals are to be funded, if required we could review some of those risks on a contract by contract basis.

Q: Is a Phase 2 planned? Is there an exploitation path in mind? Is there an ‘end user’ or buy in from a Frontline Command?

A: We are not planning on running a Phase 2. We are envisaging that during DASA projects, we will explore exploitation through the wider Bright Corvus project, but other routes and stakeholders are not excluded if they align with the Bright Corvus focus on RF sensing, integrated effects and PNT. The wider Bright Corvus project has a range of stakeholders.

However, within your proposal please detail what you see your exploitation pathway being.

Q: Is there a price cap on the proposals?

A: We have not got a price cap on proposals, however we are expecting to fund between 15-20. We decided not to put a price cap because we want to assess each proposal on its own merit. The proposal must be good value for money, which, of course, becomes harder to demonstrate as the cost of a proposal increases. The evidence for the costings must be clear in your proposal and remember that this is a competition so other innovators will also be vying for the funding.

Q: Can we cost for patents in our proposal?

A: No, everything you cost for within your proposal needs to be relevant to the output of the project. Patents do not fall in to this.

Q: Could the budget plan include consumables, recruitment?

A: Capital equipment is in scope if appropriate and good value for money, particularly if it’s specific to a prototype you are developing. Capital items valued at £10K or more will be considered Government Furnished Assets and will be listed as such within the Contract.

Recruitment can be included only for the purposes of the contract, such as hiring consultants/specialists to aid the project.

Q: How long should our proposal be? There is no word limit guidance.

A: There is no formal word limit. Be concise, each assessor should be able to read, understand and assess your proposal within 1 hour and 30 minutes. Remember that you will be assessed on evidence in your proposal, so clear, succinct points in the identified format will assist assessors in understanding your evidence. Quality over quantity is advised.

Q: We do not have a military background so it is hard for us to explain how a military end user could use our solution.

A: We do not require suppliers to have expertise in military matters; what is important is their knowledge of the technology and how you will mature that. We have provided some Indicative Scenarios to hopefully help you contextualise your solution.

We expect you to have a working knowledge of peer or open-market technologies so that you can describe the technical benefits of your proposal’s solution.

Within your proposal do not just say what you are doing, explain how you are going to do it with evidence.

Q: How do I contact a DASA Innovation Partner?

A: Please follow this link on the DASA website.

Q: Do we need to include a prototype in the proposal or can we spend more money on the theoretical research?

A: Theoretical work is welcome but you would need to include a roadmap for future development, as well as some form of deliverable to prove the progress you’ve made, for example modelling and simulation. We would welcome reusable models that we can extend over time.

Q: If we partner with another company, should we focus on short or long term partnership?

A: Partnering should focus on the short term deliverables. You can detail your vision for the future in terms of partnerships where relevant, but we wouldn’t expect to see those costed for unless directly related to the output of the proposal.

Q: If we submit a proposal early, will it be reviewed early?

A: No. We will start to assess all of the proposals after the close date. We would however not recommend leaving your submission to the last minute in case you experience technical difficulties.

Q: We’re a micro company – should we apply ourselves or do we need to collaborate?

A: DASA competitions are set up to enable SMEs to access the Defence marketplace. Collaboration with other partners can be positive where that collaboration adds value to the proposal. You can access other expertise through the collaboration survey.

Q: How can I apply to collaborate with other organisations?

A: If you are interested in a collaboration, please complete the survey and your details will be circulated among other potential suppliers who have completed the survey and are interested in collaborating. The information you provide will be sent out unedited each Friday until 15 April 2022 to all of the respondents to this survey

If you choose to complete the supplier collaboration survey, please be aware all of the information you submit in the survey will be provided to other suppliers who also complete the survey. All industry collaboration for proposal submissions is on an industry-industry basis. Inclusion or absence of any individual supplier organisation will not affect assessment, which will be solely on technical evidence in the proposal.

Q: Are there ways to get feedback on the development of a proposal as it builds?

A: Your innovation partner will be able to help guide you in your submission, although they will not help to develop your proposal iteratively. You may choose to produce an innovation outline which can then be passed on to the technical team.

Q: Would a higher TRL output that is better value for money be more desirable than a lower TRL one at greater expense?

A: DASA exists to help explore the early development of technology and to help pull it through. We cannot say whether the higher or lower TRL output is preferable as both have their merits in context. All proposals will be addressed against the requirements in the competition document which identifies technology maturation as valued over any specific entry or exit criteria.

Q: What is the development time for the competition?

A: You will have 12 months after starting the contract. The only exemption is for those proposals that invoke the specific circumstances identified for testing PNT services in GNSS denied environments

Q: Do the sub-challenge bullet points hang off use cases and can we have access to those?

A: The competition document includes indicative scenarios but we tried not to be prescriptive, leaving it open to innovators to showcase what they can bring. You should not feel overly constrained by end use cases at this stage as your technology maturation may be taking place at a low TRL.

Q: Can we find out any more information about the Bright Corvus project?

A: There is a section in the competition document on Bright Corvus, which is all the information you need for your DASA proposal. Bright Corvus is one potential exploitation path and further information may be provided at a later stage if necessary. If you have other exploitation paths in mind you should reference these in your proposal including demonstrating their relevance to the Bright Corvus context outlined.

Q: Will a demonstration be expected at the end of the project?

A: You will need to provide evidence of the benefit of your innovation. There is a limited 12 month timeframe so we would not expect to see a completed product at the end of your DASA project. However we would like to see the technology maturation demonstrated in some form which may include prototypes in representative or laboratory conditions, models, simulations, mathematical conceptual proofs or other relevant means which you put forward in your proposal.

Q: How long after the submission date do we get our feedback?

A: You will receive your feedback after 17th June 2022.

10.2 Scope Questions

Q: What is the frequency range of the RF in the context of the competition? Are terahertz and mid-infrared going to be considered?

A: Generally RF 300GHz max but realistically looking at lower than that, for example commercial communications and radar bands.

For challenges 1-3 development of electro-optic or infrared modalities is not in scope, although limited use of existing sensor technology as an identified complement to the RF-focused development may be appropriate. Challenge 4 could include non-RF based solutions although proposals must be clear how it supports the context of RF sense and effect functions.

Q: Are there some examples or further clarification on “difficult target” for RF sensing in relation to this competition?

A: We are looking at targets that will challenge radar or electronic surveillance; targets that have low signatures, low transit powers, fleeting signals, targets that adapt etc.

The target is only one element, with the environment that the target is in being another. For example the terrain, congested spectrum, urban environments and other factors affect the effectiveness of RF sensing and effectors. A future end system would be operating in a highly complex and contested electromagnetic environment.

Q: Is novel PNT technology, unlikely to be mature in 3-5 years (e.g. quantum gravity), going to be excluded?

A: There are two main avenues of exploitation. 3-5 years for experimentation themes within the Bright Corvus project and a 10 year activity looking at the project’s long term vision. For more details, please see section 6.1 How to Outline your Exploitation Plan. We are looking for a breadth of different technologies. Lower TRL solutions with a strong technical vision could feed in to the 10 year activity.

Development of Quantum PNT technologies is out of scope under Challenge 4 of this competition; however, use of existing Quantum technology components is not excluded.

Quantum technologies applied to other Challenges are in scope.

Q: Can a proposal focus on integrating components to produce a system which provides a novel effect? Or should we focus at the lower level i.e. just the sensor?

A: We are interested in the integration elements. We are interested in the ability to improve and provide better capability. Bringing parts together is certainly seen as useful, it might be an enabler across many areas. The key question is whether the result is novel.

Q: Do we need to demonstrate the security effectiveness of the system?

A: The proposal should recognise these risks exist, but we are not looking at the security effectiveness of the system/solution at this stage. This competition is interested in novel applications of security to enable the sense/effect context.

Your proposals will not be expected to include full operational accreditation, evaluation or equivalent processes, although demonstrating awareness of an appropriate technology roadmap would assist assessors in understanding the evidence presented in your proposal.

Q: Is a sensor which sits on a buoy in scope for this competition? Or would it be considered underwater and therefore out of scope?

A: It is the sensors and effectors you mount on a platform that is the focus of the competition rather than any specific platform. We would welcome proposals that demonstrate enabling mission agility through portability between different potential platforms; understanding of platform-mix factors; or other platform contexts.

Q: To better understand the level of RF front end LNA protection, can you provide an indication of interference signal level versus frequency one should consider?

A: We are not working to any specific design specifications. Proposals should demonstrate your awareness of the known state-of-the art-and include a discussion on how your work will advance on it. For this specific example, a proposal may be for a new component, design or processing that offers higher front end protection than known market leaders. This then has the potential to allow ES, Radar and EA assets to work in closer formation, for example.

Q: Regarding the possible Machine Learning component in novel solutions: will there be support with the provision of datasets?

A: We are not expecting to provide any GFX as part of this competition, although we will consider requests to do so. Your proposal should not depend on it being supplied. Your proposal could include exemplar datasets and identify potential issues or mitigations you foresee. Your proposal is for a science and technology project at OFFICIAL; so identifying key steps on technology roadmaps towards a minimal viable product would be useful for assessors to understand post-DASA-project exploitation potential.

From the competition document: “Whilst your proposal may include requests for GFX, DASA cannot guarantee availability. If you apply for GFX, you should include an alternative plan in case it is not available.”

Q: We have a solution which we can progress within a 12 month period. Further work would be required to move it on to a final product, is that OK?

A: We are not expecting an end-product at the end of the 12 months. This DASA competition values technology maturation rather than specific start/end TRL levels. At the end of a successful DASA project, we would expect technologies to be anywhere between TRL 3 and TRL 6.

We won’t be buying products at the end of this; we want to develop science and technology for future capabilities. You must remember to outline risks and appropriate mitigations in your project plan, and it would also be advantageous to include a roadmap of where you see the technology going past this competition.

Q: Would a solution that combines Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) products be in scope?

A: Yes, if the bringing together of the COTS products is novel. You need to make it clear in your proposal what the innovation is and what the new and novel development is that you are delivering. We would recommend reaching out to your Innovation Partner if you have further questions.

Q: Within the competition document you state a desire for sub-nano second timing. Is this based on protocol IEEE 1588-2019?

A: The competition document lays out the PNT challenges that have been identified within the Bright Corvus project. In order to achieve the coherent sense and effects elements it has been identified that GNSS positioning and timing precision is insufficient and that sub-centimetre position and sub-nano second timing precisions will be necessary. IEEE 1588-2019 is a precision timing protocol which accommodates the timing precision required, however the DASA call has been very careful not to prescribe or solutioneer so as not to stifle innovation and the potential for other solutions to meet the challenges.

Q: For Challenge 4, would developing a new protocol or waveform to do transmission be in scope?

A: No, a proposal that solely described that would not be in scope.

Q: Are there any specific platforms we should aim for?

A: We’re not mandating particular platforms or types. This competition wishes to explore reduced size, weight, power and cost for individual payload units and being able to describe expected benefits of your proposal in comparison to traditional large form factor and cost of single monolithic units would be useful for assessors.

Evidencing portability between platform types and relevant platform mix in context of mission type and agility would be useful. It is expected that some proposals would benefit from combining different types of platform and this should be explained.

Q: For Challenge 1 you are looking for a network of sensors. Do you have a number in mind?

A: There are no hard limits. Some proposals may have low numbers depending on their technical context and the specific innovation being described; other proposals may focus on distributed collaboration and how this could deliver benefit over a basic collection of individual sensors.

Having multiple distributed sensors collaborating is hoped to also improve mission resilience though reducing single points of failure and reducing the impact of attrition through technical failure or operational circumstances.

Where relevant, proposals should consider your anticipated duration of sense or effect missions and explain how system elements may join or leave the mission collective to achieve appropriate persistence.

Q: Are you looking for a high degree of PNT accuracy at all time and even over featureless terrain?

A: The high degree of accuracies stated in Challenge 4 are relevant to mission context and may not be required for all scenarios at all times (i.e. they are likely to be required to enable coherent sense and effect functions during their windows of operation with periods of lower precision and recovery / realignment / re-calibration). They are a target not a minimum requirement.

Please see the competition document. The PNT challenge seeks novel technology development to drive towards these challenging requirements. You do not need to address all of the challenge points and your proposal may identify future steps beyond a DASA project to more fully realise the technology potential.

Q: Is the development of low SWAP technology preferable to higher accuracy PNT?

A: While both low SWAP-C and high accuracy PNT are end goals for Challenge 4, your proposal should primarily establish the technical feasibility and push the boundaries of the PNT technologies and techniques being matured. Reduction in SWAP-C once the PNT technology has started to mature is acceptable and future iterations may be described in a technology roadmap rather than within your proposed project activities.

Your proposal should recognise the deployed context of the indicative scenarios and platforms for the sense / effect missions being supported by PNT services and evidence how the technology may meet the SWAP-C constraints once matured.

For PNT services, sub-centimetre and sub-nanosecond accuracy is given as the target aspiration for navigation and timing respectively; however, these may not be required at all times or in all circumstances. These are stretching targets not minimum requirements. Alternatively, your proposal may include evidence of benefits that explain why your novel technology would not aspire to these high targets in your identified context.

Q: Are you looking for low or high power EA? Is it only RF bands or KA bands as well?

A: Please see the exclusions to Challenge 2. We are looking more towards the lower power end because we are anticipating higher numbers of smaller transceivers that we would hope could manoeuvre closer to target receivers. KA band would be in scope and considered as part of RF. Proposals including RF effect delivery should identify the intended targets and explain the novelty of the means of delivering effects. Mitigations against collateral effects and electronic fratricide should also be evidenced.

Your proposal should be submitted at OFFICIAL and should not describe specific technical vulnerabilities in detail. Further advice can be sought from your DASA Innovation Partner.

Q: Are software deliverables acceptable?

A: Yes. We are particularly interested in software that can operate at the edge, under low SWAP conditions. However we are not biased towards the creation of either software or hardware.

Q: What frequency bands should antenna and RF circuitry proposals cover?

A: The mission will require a broad range of frequencies from HF to 40GHz but we are not constraining to just those and options that support higher (up to 300GHz) are also in scope. We understand that it is unlikely to be feasible to cover the entire spectrum of interest in one solution. The vision includes an ability to cover multiple bands with multiple antennas across multiple distributed platforms and we are interested in the compromises that result in the lowest overall system costs. Scalability and re-configurability of technology are of interest. As a minimum, we’d accept single solutions that have a bandwidth in the order of 10s-100s MHz

Q: Would distributed radars be in scope?

A: Yes, under challenge 1 around distributed sensing. Consider the non-static case and how your configuration might be adaptable to new operational considerations. Preference would be given to proposals that exploit the multiple radars in a coordinated, collaborative and ideally coherent way. For example, proposals around using multiple monostatic radars independently to increase geographic coverage would not score highly.

Q: Which targets are of interest: fast moving, manoeuvring targets or more stationary and cluttered ones?

A: All of them are of interest, but you do not have to cover all targets in your proposal – simply be clear about your focus and any exclusions you believe to be relevant when providing evidence of your understanding of the problem space you are focussing on. You may wish to align your identified target set to the performance criteria your proposal can best amplify.

Q: If we develop a model, does it need to be reusable – as this will limit the amount of analysis we can do with it?

A: Reusability and extensibility are about improving your models over time and their potential applicability beyond the DASA project; you retain your IP which will be protected at all times. Reusable models may have a cost associated with them but they are likely to enhance your proposal.

Q: Would a technology current being looked at by police to counter organised crime be in scope?

A: Whilst there may be some commonality of interests with law enforcement or security organisations, this competition is focussed on sensing and effects in the deployed military environment.

1. Platform refers to a transport/deployment medium, which, in this case, could be a vehicle (manned or un-manned), man-portable (carried by a person) or dismountable (placed in a static location). ↩

2. Table 2.5 in Joint Doctrine Publication 0-30.2 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems ↩