Guidance

Competition document: Countering Drones - Finding and neutralising small UAS threats Phase 2

Updated 24 June 2020

1. Introduction

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is seeking proposals that can develop the technology needed to counter Unmanned Air Systems (C-UAS) and demonstrate how these can be integrated together to form a capable system.

Please note this is the second phase of funding for a multi-phase competition. It is not compulsory to have been involved in previous phases to apply. You should however make yourself aware of the previous competition and the bids we funded. It is anticipated that work for this phase will reach higher maturity than work funded in Phase 1.

The introduction of UAS, or drones, has been one of the most significant technological advances of recent years and represents a paradigm shift in military capability. The threat has evolved rapidly and we and other nations are beginning to see the use of hostile UAS threats in several roles in current overseas theatres of operation. There is a similar problem at home with the malicious use of drones becoming a security challenge at events, critical infrastructure and public establishments.

Small commercially available UAS have already been used as weapons in overseas theatres and have allowed forces hostile to UK interests to deploy cheap, pervasive, low observable surveillance capability across the battlefield. This asymmetric change bypasses traditional air defence and ground security measures. The UAS threat to national security is therefore a prevalent pan-government issue; there are many different UAS threats, each of which may require a different mitigation approach.

Reducing or eliminating the risk posed by a hostile UAS requires a range of capabilities; detecting the presence of a drone, locating it, identifying it and what it is seeking to do, and then supporting or deploying measures (effectors) to mitigate its effect. Each of these activities is dependent on the previous stage in the “kill chain”, and they must work quickly and effectively together in order to provide overall protection. Consequently countering UAS is reliant on a broad range of specialisations; technologies, policy, procedures & tactics, training and logistics.

There are three challenges in this competition that are consistent with and build on the Phase 1 themes. Your proposal must meet one or more of these challenges. They are:

Challenge 1 – Fixed Site Protection

Challenge 2 – Mobile Protection (mounted and dismounted)

Challenge 3 – Maritime Protection

2. Competition Scope

2.1 Threat background

The threat that we wish to mitigate is that posed by commercial, improvised or military grade small UAS (sUAS), including both multi-rotor and fixed wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Our primary focus is on UAV platforms smaller than approx. 50kg Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW); Class I(d) and below UAS under the NATO classification scheme (see below):

NATO UAS Class	Maximum Take Off Weight	Common Taxonomy
I(a)	<200g	Nano
I(b)	200g to 2kg	Micro
I(c)	2kg – 20kg	Mini
I(d)	20kg-150kg	Small
II	150kg-600kg	Tactical
III	>600kg	M/H ALE

The small physical size, relatively low altitude and low speed associated with UAVs pose a significant detection challenge in themselves but these difficulties are compounded by other key attributes that make such UAS a very difficult air defence target:

• extant control and navigation systems make current UAS easy to use and offer a level of redundancy
• the sensors mounted on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and state sponsored UAV systems, can detect and track objects, in some cases autonomously, at ranges that typically preclude our awareness of their presence
• the signals used to control UAVs are long range and may use many different radio bands and are rapidly evolving
• these control signals may be unique or they might be difficult to pick out amongst the rest of the radio background
• the operator/ground control station (GCS) is often located some distance away, and in some scenarios, defeating the operator/GCS is the preferred countermeasure

Our concerns are heightened by predicted developments in UAS capability. Future threat UAVs will be faster and less detectable, they will have a greater operational range, they will carry larger, more sophisticated payloads, they will incorporate advanced artificial intelligence (AI)-based navigation and situational awareness systems (reducing the need for control signals) and they will use emerging communication methods (e.g. 5G). Specific, key, concerns of this future threat are:

• the increasing use of autonomy, and the associated increased threat from single UAVs, multiple-UAV attacks or swarms with minimal or no use of conventional communication signals
• the increasing numbers of flying objects in the modern battlespace/local airspace, that will make the detection and identification of hostile single and multiple UAV very challenging amidst the growing legitimate users and clutter

2.2 Operational Context

There is no one, single, “drone threat”. There are, potentially, many different threats from UAS to UK interests, some of which we have yet to discover. Generic examples include a range of effects either delivered directly or enabled by UAS, including surveillance, targeting and explosive threats.

As there are many potential threats to various users across defence and security, C-UAS solutions are faced with operating within a wide range of environmental factors such as weather, terrain and buildings, complex electro-magnetic (EM) environments and many different types of “clutter” (such as birds). Additionally many of the potential UAS threats will require defensive coverage 24/7 for extended periods. The manpower load to achieve this with current systems is prohibitive.

Some of the most challenging factors that C-UAS will need to contend with are crowded physical spaces and “urban canyons” formed from large, tall buildings with concentrated, noisy EM environments. These conspire to reduce the effectiveness and range of traditional radar, electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR), acoustic and radio frequency/electronic support measures (RF/ESM) sensors. Within most urban environments, operational rules of engagement and concerns about physical and EM fratricide and collateral damage will place severe limitations on the use of many current and proposed effectors.

Emerging Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) systems will help police identify legitimate UAVs in some military and civilian scenarios in the future, but C-UAS Detect Track and Identification (DTI) systems will still be required at specific locations and at specific events to deal with non-compliant and deviant UAVs. Accordingly, compatibility between DTI systems and UTM will become an increasingly more important consideration in the homeland and in Operations Other Than War (OOTW) and will be a major factor in developing a common UAV air picture in other military scenarios.

In more demanding military scenarios, future systems and sensors will need to function in the face of direct attack (such as jamming) against C-UAS. The adversary also use on-board UAS “Airborne Protection Systems” known as Counter-Counter-Measures (CCMs) as the value of UAS operations and product becomes increasingly more important to potential opponents.

2.3 Scope

This is a phased competition.

Phase 1: Phase 1 has delivered or is planned to deliver proof of concept of proposed advanced technology components and subsystems which could be developed and integrated into full C-UAS systems.

Phase 2 (this phase): In Phase 2 we seek to mature components towards military and security stakeholders future operational needs and where sufficiently mature integrate these technologies into a counter drone system; performing wide area detection, positively identify a threat, accurately track its location, successfully deny or defeat it.

We will prioritise proposals that show increased levels of integration, particularly with SAPIENT. All proposals need to show how their technologies will be able to be matured into an operational system. By the end of Phase 2, we will require suppliers to demonstrate their solutions against relevant UAS threats, and then illustrate how this performance would translate into operational settings.

Phase 2 is an open competition (bidders do not need to have completed their Phase 1 project and it is also open to new suppliers) but successful bidders must show the viability of their solution in their proposal in some detail.

Demonstration Option (this phase): there may be the opportunity to demonstrate technologies at a representative counter-drones test event; more details are given below.

Future Phases: The structure and funding of future phases will depend on the outcome of Phase 2. The focus of future phases is likely to be development and maturation of successful Phase 2 projects and working with other suppliers in order to meet the needs of the user community.

3. Challenges

Given the scope above, this DASA call aims to address the increasing UAS threat to the security of UK military forces at home and abroad, as well as to civilian assets, VIPs and the wider public. We continue to seek the technology attributes described in the Phase 1 competition, summarised as;

Automated Sensing

• robust automated UAS detection, tracking and/or identification
• a high probability of detection and a low false alarm rate
• provide C-UAS sensing over wide and complex areas, in all weathers

Proportional Effectors

• very low risk of physical effect/impact on personnel
• minimal impact on own/civilian equipment (including RF spectrum, electronics and optics)
• known and controllable effects on the target

Modular integration and autonomous fusion (preferably through SAPIENT)

• link multiple and different types of sensors together and fuse their output automatically
• provide autonomous sensor management by intelligently tasking sensors
• provide information that aids operators’ threat assessment, engagement decisions and use of effectors
• reduce cognitive burden for operators

Mitigating future UAS threats

• developing technologies for mitigating the effect of swarm or mass attacks
• identifying approaches for countering threats in an airspace crowded with many more UAS (own force, allied, civilian and adversary)

Reflecting the increasing maturity of technologies, Phase 2 has an increasing focus on meeting operational issues faced by defence and security users. We are looking for responses that will contribute solutions to the three challenges detailed below. Each contains a typical scenario that illustrates some of the issues faced in each domain; these are not exclusive and there will be other potential threat behaviours or environmental limitations that need to be considered as solutions are developed.

3.1 Challenge 1 – Fixed Site Protection

This challenge is focused on providing protection from small UAS to fixed sites, including airfields, domestic infrastructure and large-scale deployed operating bases. Of key concern here is the need for persistent and reliable detection, tracking and identification of UAS, including of the operator, and the capability to prevent the threat from completing its mission.

We need highly autonomous, multi-modal, unattended C-UAS sensing that is capable of 24/7 operation with no operator intervention needed for the monitoring element. Any use of mitigation technology is likely to be severely constrained by the potential impact on other personnel and equipment, both from the effect itself and the UAV it is targeting.

A typical scenario might include providing protection to a domestic airfield where there are a large number of assets to protect, over an extended area and period of time. Numerous multi-rotor threat UAS are being launched indiscriminately, over a prolonged period from >5km. Some UAVs are carrying explosives whereas some are acting as decoys for general disruption and confusion. The UAVs are flown without the direct controls of an operator or active links. Technology solutions will be required to provide persistent protection, including the ability to:

• detect and track each UAV
• differentiate between weaponised and decoy UAVs
• assist the user in the decision to deploy appropriate mitigation solutions
• locate the launch and return point (if applicable)

Additionally this scenario may have to contend with crowded physical spaces, line of sight constraints from buildings and vegetation, and a concentrated, noisy electromagnetic (EM) environment (such as air traffic radars, and facility or public radio frequency communication) all of which may reduce the effectiveness and range of sensor and mitigation technologies.

In the future, an adversary may have an additional advantage, with the need for C-UAS to discriminate between friendly or neutral UAS and potential hostiles. The challenge will include extensive “clutter” from the widespread proliferation of legitimate UAS for commercial and military use.

Although in the future some of these difficulties may be offset by UTM systems, we are looking for integrated solutions that enable a highly automated, scalable, distributed and affordable C-UAS sensor and effector network. Our preference is that the SAPIENT concept is adopted for this, as it is both an openly published interface and embodies a modular and autonomous approach.

3.2 Challenge 2 – Mobile Force Protection

This challenge is based around the needs of land forces operating in conflict scenarios, however some of the technologies suitable may also be used in domestic security settings, such as by the police.

This challenge is focused on providing mobile C-UAS solutions. The key requirement is for C-UAS solutions that have low Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) and are operable in a moving, contested environment. The purpose is to enable them to be mounted on vehicles or carried by personnel, and provide mitigation of UAS whilst on the move.

Two typical scenarios are used to illustrate some of the key challenges of mobile force protection.

• Multiple, layered, fixed wing threat UAS being flown from >10km against mechanised infantry; the threat is collecting video imagery of high value assets, which is used to provide near real time targeting for multi-rotor UAVs to deliver precision explosives and other methods of attack, such as artillery and mortar fire
• Dismounted infantry are operating in a contested urban environment. The adversary uses ‘pop-up’ (locally and rapidly launched) and ‘perch-and-stare’ (dormant UAV’s downloading sensor feeds) UAS to provide timely intelligence. The UAS are controlled by existing cellular communication links

In both of these case C-UAS solutions are required to;

• provide timely warning of hostile UAS
• deny the adversary capability to collect intelligence (including defeating the UAV sensors)
• defeat UAVs delivering explosives

Counter drone systems for this challenge are tactical in nature, and may not face the same level of persistent threat as in Challenge 1. However, they should not require specialist personnel or dedicated platforms; they should be agnostic of the operator and not present an undue cognitive or physical burden on personnel already focussed on other mission tasks.

Depending on circumstances the C-UAS solution may be subject to RF signature constraints to avoid the enemy detecting or denying signals, but be less stringently constrained on the use and type of effectors. They will require a mobile power supply and, where possible, be integrated into existing military, police or security capabilities; this may involve utilising and extending the capability of existing in-service systems.

Deployed land forces may also require C-UAS solutions to be able to work at extended range to mitigate offensive targeting, as part of an integrated Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) System manned by GBAD specialists. This may include distributed sensors and effectors such as deployed/disposable sensors forward of the units that are low cost and easily replaced.

3.3 Challenge 3 - Maritime Platform Protection

The focus of this challenge is on providing C-UAS capability to Royal Navy ships. The need is for detection systems and effectors suitable for use in the maritime environment.

A typical scenario may include single or multiple ships navigating up to 20km from shore. A fixed wing UAS is launched to conduct surveillance and targeting on the vessels; intelligence is only downloaded to the operator intermittently. Subsequently multiple fixed wing UAS are launched to directly attack the ship(s) with explosives. C-UAS will be required to

• detect and warn of the presence of the surveillance UAS
• prevent the surveillance UAS from obtaining targeting data, without physically defeating it
• provide timely detection and defeat of attacking UAS

However, there are significant issues with the integration of systems into a complex warship which will take significant investment; this is beyond the scope of this call.

There are also challenges with mutual interference on board ships. Capabilities that mitigate threats at a distance away from ships are one method of overcoming both of these issues. They could potentially avoid the need for costly integration and provide threat mitigation at range. Standoff concepts such as decoys, hunter-killer UAVs, seaborne drones and precision munitions, may provide the necessary at range effects to ensure platform integrity. Such platforms may need to be of low value and disposable in nature, and must carefully consider the engagement timelines in order that detection, tracking, identification and defeat occur before the UAV gets close enough to complete it attack.

Additionally solutions may show promise if they utilise and extend the capability of typical existing ship-borne sensors and weapons, to provide cost-effective mitigation of UAS. We are also interested in solutions that utilise typical sensors on manned air vehicles.

4. Clarification of what we want

We want solutions to benefit users working in UK defence and security. Your proposal should include evidence of:

• an innovative approach to development
• clear enhancement over existing C-UAS options
• C-UAS Solutions, or a clear explanation of how technologies can be integrated into solutions
• clear explanation of how the work can be exploited

We are aiming to harness advances in integration, sensing, fusion, autonomy and non-lethal effectors to provide solutions to UK defence to counter an adversary’s use of UAS across the battlefield, while preventing or minimising collateral damage. Some of these developments may also be applicable to the security challenge faced in the civilian sector. This could include systems or components that deliver or enable:

• flexible and rapid multi-modal integration, particularly adopting the SAPIENT concept(s)
• low cost, efficient, automated sensors, particularly those compliant with SAPIENT
• automated and networked sensing systems over wide and complex areas
• methods of robustly defeating or denying current and next generation UAS in a range of scenarios and environments
• significant and rapid improvements to extant systems for deployment
• autonomous decision making
• signal processing to improve discrimination and identification
• approaches which may use and extend the capability of existing sensing systems, such as CCTV
• ability to identify, locate and track the UAS operator
• airborne or expendable solutions

5. Clarification of what we don’t want

For this competition we are not interested in proposals that:

• constitute consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation
• are an identical resubmission of a previous bid to DASA or MOD without modification
• offer demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development (unless applied in a novel way to the challenge)
• offer no real long-term prospect of integration into defence and security capabilities
• offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions
• offer manpower intensive detect, track and identification solutions
• offer standard barrage jamming
• offer highly bespoke, closed or crude integration
• offer low potential for cost efficiency

6. Exploitation

It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. Early identification and appropriate engagement with potential end-users during the competition 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 baseline. Your deliverables should be designed to evidence these aspects with the aim of making it as easy as possible for possible collaborators/stakeholders to identify the innovative elements of your proposal in order to consider routes for exploitation. DASA Innovation Partners are available to support you with defence and security context.

You may wish to include some of the following information, where known, to help the assessors understand how your solution could be exploited:

• the intended defence or security users of your final product and whether you have previously engaged with them, their procurement arm or their research and development arm
• awareness of, and alignment to, any existing end-user procurement programmes
• the anticipated benefits (for example, in cost, time, improved capability) that your solution will provide to the user
• whether it is likely to be a standalone product or integrated with other technologies or platforms
• 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 for exploitation
• wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation
• requirements for access to external assets, including GFA - for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities
• how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later phases
• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation

This competition will trial advance C-UAS technologies and concepts. We want to demonstrate to MOD and other government department stakeholders the benefits, and potential limitations, of the next generation of C-UAS and how this can evolve to meet the challenges of the future UAS threat.

The benefits of demonstrating this research to MOD will show:

• what’s possible with the current state-of-the-art technologies
• what may be possible with further research or investment
• which approaches and techniques work well, and which don’t

Although this competition isn’t as yet tied to a specific procurement route, we aim to carry out capability assessment and operational analysis in parallel with the competition to provide evidence concerning the system solutions developed. MOD will then be in a better position to consider the procurement and application of such a capability in the future.

This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We’re also collaborating with several organisations within the United States Department of Defence (US DoD) which may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future.

7. How to apply

7.1 Funding

Proposals for funding to meet these challenges must be submitted by Friday 31 July at midday (BST) via the DASA submission service for which you will be required to register.

The total funding available for Phase 2 of this competition is anticipated to be at least £1.5M. Individual proposals are expected to be in the range £250-£350K. The upper-limit for this competition is £350K (ex VAT). If successful, contracts will be awarded for a maximum duration of 12 months.

Further guidance on submitting a proposal is available on the DASA website.

7.2 What your proposal must include

Your proposal should focus on the Phase 2 requirements but must also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required for 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. Completed proposals must comply with the financial rules set for this competition. The upper-limit for this competition is £350K (ex VAT). Proposals will be rejected if the financial cost exceeds this capped level. It is also helpful to 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 for this phase; they must include a final report. You should also plan for attendance at a kick-off meeting at the start of Phase 2 and a mid-project event, as well as regular reviews with the appointed Technical Partner and Project Manager; all meetings will be in the UK. Your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (12 months). Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant.

The final report should include (as a minimum) the technical progress made during the contract, conclusions, and recommendation for further work. In addition, data generated or used during any trials or demonstrations should be provided, where applicable.

By the end of Phase 2, we will require suppliers to demonstrate their solutions against relevant UAS threats, and then illustrate how this performance would translate into operational settings. The proposal must include a demonstration at your site.

A resourcing plan must also be provided that identifies, where possible, the nationalities of those proposed research workers that you intend working on this phase. In the event of proposals being recommended for funding, DASA reserves the right to undertake due diligence checks including the clearance of proposed research workers. 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 within your proposal and how the associated risks will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received. MODREC approvals can take up to 5 months therefore you should plan your work programme accordingly. Further details are available in the DASA guidance. If you are unsure if your proposal will need to apply for MODREC approval, then please contact DASA for further guidance.

Requirements for access to Government Furnished Assets (GFA), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities, should be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available. You must also identify any work above the UK OFFICIAL classification that will be used or produced as part of the contract.

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

The proposal may also provide a costed option to deploy to a government hosted, representative C-UAS trial event. Whilst precise detail and timing of these trials are not finalised, bidders may assume:

• a UK based, restricted access test range, will be provided GFA
• a flying programme will be provided GFA, representing a threat set of UAS covering common threats from Class I (b) & (c)
• the trial will run for 1 working week of testing, excluding set up and decommissioning

Suppliers will be expected to:

• transport equipment and personnel to and from event
• provide accommodation and food for their own staff
• where possible integrate with other C-UAS technologies via SAPIENT
• apply for any necessary regulatory permissions (with assistance from authority where required)

7.3 Export Control

All bidders must abide by the export control requirements of their originator country. All relevant export control regulations will apply if a company wants to sell a developed solution to a foreign entity. All bidders must ensure that they can obtain, if required, the necessary export licences for their proposals and developments, such that they can be supplied to the UK. If you cannot confirm that you can obtain the requisite licences, your proposal will be sifted out of the competition.

7.4 Public facing information

When submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a proposal title and a short abstract. The title and abstract you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments, to describe the project and its intended outcomes and benefits. It will be used for inclusion at DASA events in relation to this competition and included in documentation such as brochures. The proposal title will also 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.

7.5 How your proposal will be assessed

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 who demonstrate their compliance against the competition scope and DASA criteria will be taken forward to full assessment. Failure to achieve full compliance against stage 1 will render your proposal non-compliant and will not be considered any further:

Mandatory Criteria

The proposal outlines how it meets the outline aims of the DASA call or falls within the scope of the competition	Within scope (Pass) / Out of scope (Fail)
The proposal fully explains, in all three sections of the DASA submission service, how it meets the DASA criteria for this call	Pass/ Fail
The proposal clearly details a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan to complete the work proposed in Phase 2	Pass/ Fail
The proposal identifies the need (or not) for MODREC approval	Pass/ Fail
The proposal identifies any Government Furnished Equipment (GFA) required for Phase 2	Pass/ Fail
The maximum value of proposal is £350K	Pass/ Fail
The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities/services (including the date of the final deliverable) will be completed within 12 months from award of contract (or less)	Pass/ Fail
The bidder has obtained the authority to provide unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Contract	Pass/ Fail

Proposals will then be assessed against the standard DASA assessment criteria by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), other government departments and front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to comment on assessors comments.

DASA reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from bidders during the procurement process to any third party engaged by DASA for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting DASA in the evaluation of your proposal. For the specific purposes of considering additional funding for a competition and onward exploitation opportunities, DASA also reserves the right to share information in your proposal in-confidence with any UK Government Department. In providing such information the bidder consents to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

Further guidance on how your proposal will be 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.

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

7.6 Things you should know about DASA contracts

Please read the DASA terms and conditions which contain important information for suppliers. For this competition we will be using the Standardised Contracting (SC) Innovation Contract, links to the contract here: Terms and Schedules. We will require unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions. For the avoidance of any doubt, for this Themed Competition we are NOT using the DASA Short Form Contract (SFC).

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.

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

For this phase, £1.5M is currently available to fund proposals. There may be occasions where additional funding from other funding lines may subsequently become available to allow us to revisit those proposals deemed suitable for funding but where limitations on funding at the time prevented DASA from awarding a subsequent contract. In such situations, DASA reserves the right to keep such proposals in reserve. In the event that additional funding subsequently becomes available, DASA may ask whether you would still be prepared to undertake the work outlined in your proposal under the same terms.

7.7 Phase 2 Dates

Competition briefing (webinar)	01 June 2020
1-1 telecom sessions	01 June 2020
Competition closes	31 July 2020, midday (BST)
Contracting	October 2020
Feedback release	23 October 2020

7.8 Supporting events

01 June – A webinar session providing further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions about this competition in an open forum. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite page.

01 June - 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 your interest on the Eventbrite page.

8. Help

DASA has a network of regionally based Innovation Partners who are available provide guidance to suppliers on submitting to a competition. If you would like guidance, please submit an outline of your idea via the DASA website. This will be sent to an Innovation Partner who will contact you within ten working days to discuss.

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 suppliers.

If you are experiencing technical difficulties with the submission service, please contact [email protected].