Notice

Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence Phase 3 Stream 2: Competition Document

Updated 24 April 2024

Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence Phase 3 (Stream 2)

1. Introduction: Modelling Mitigating Solutions

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is seeking proposals that can model the effectiveness of various proposed mitigations to reduce the impact of offshore windfarms on UK Air Defence (AD) surveillance.

The competition is organised by DASA, but is funded by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) Net Zero Innovation Portfolio (NZIP); and is undertaken in partnership with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

This is an open competition and participation in Phases 1, 2 and Stream 1 of Phase 3 is not a requirement to submit a proposal into Phase 3 Stream 2

2. Competition key information

2.1 Submission deadline

Midday on 24 October 2023 (BST)

2.2 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.

2.3 Total funding available

The total possible funding available for Phase 3 Stream 2 of this competition is £500,000 (excluding VAT).

Only one proposal will be funded in this competition.

3. Supporting events

3.1 Dial-in session

12 September 2023 – 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 Eventbrite page. Booking is on a first come first served basis.

General clarifications given to individuals in these sessions will be published on the competition document page to ensure information is made available to all suppliers. Details about specific project plans will not be shared.

4. Context

Offshore Wind (OW) will play an increasingly critical role in the UK’s renewable energy supply to enable the Net Zero ambitions. This is manifested by a 50 GW by 2030 target in the British Energy Security Strategy (BESS) and predictions by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) of between 65-140GW of OW capacity by 2050, depending on which pathway is adopted.

The offshore windfarm installations may adversely impact the quality of data obtained from the long-range Primary Surveillance Radars (PSR) which are the backbone of the UK’s Air Defence detection capability. A technological solution, or combination of solutions, is needed to enable the long-term co-existence of windfarms and AD and enable the deployment of offshore wind. It should be noted that the working assumption is that PSR will continue to supply the backbone of MOD surveillance.

Through the Joint Air Defence and Offshore Wind Task Force and programme NJORD, the MOD is currently working on procuring mitigation solutions in the near term that will enable the next generation of large-scale offshore windfarms to be built that will become operational from 2025 and beyond.

This innovation programme is running in parallel to and complements the MOD work and focuses on helping to find solutions that will support the compilation of a satisfactory air surveillance picture in the presence of a proliferation of offshore windfarms.

5. Programme Breakdown

The Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence programme has been running for several years and this competition is Stream 2 of Phase 3. Refer to Stream 1 competition document for more details - the breakdown of Phase 3 is as follows:

• Stream 1: DESNZ grants for projects demonstrating mitigating solutions (COMPETITION CLOSED FOR SUBMISSION)
• Stream 2: DASA contract for modelling the effectiveness of mitigating solutions (THIS COMPETITION)

6. Competition Scope

6.1 Background: Why is a model required?

To date, the Windfarm Mitigation for UK Air Defence programme has supported many different technologies which could be used to mitigate the effect offshore windfarms have on UK Air Defence surveillance. These could be generally split into 3 categories and include:

• Radar and signal processing approaches: aim to improve the probability of detection of objects of interest,
• Materials approaches: aiming to reduce the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the turbines,
• Alternative Tracking approaches: use of different surveillance techniques to add to the surveillance picture obtained from the standard radar network.

The above categories are not mutually exclusive and combinations of the above are also in scope.

To support the decision making on further development of the most promising technologies and potential deployment at scale it is necessary to develop a model which can be used to objectively compare the various solutions under development, determine their effectiveness in reducing the impact of proposed offshore windfarm developments, and predict the effect and trade-offs of combining solutions together.

6.2 Scope: What should the model do?

As outlined in the Competition Document for Stream 1 the model will be used to build an evidence base to inform future policy decisions. The primary objective is to allow the comparison of disparate mitigation techniques, including those that are based on:

• Improved radar tracking approaches, whether by the use of better discrimination algorithms to allow the windfarm clutter to be rejected or additional radars to improve tracking performance over the windfarm.
• Materials approaches, where the materials used to construct the turbine are altered to reduce the clutter observed by the radar.
• Alternative tracking approaches, where non-radar sensors are used to supplement the existing radar network over the windfarm.

These three areas are not mutually exclusive and combinations of these are also in scope.

The model should be able to measure/determine the effectiveness of these approaches over a representative set of scenarios that are designed to challenge proposed mitigation approaches.

Although evidence of validation will be required, the intent is not to conduct flight trials at this stage.

To measure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigations, the successful bidder will work with Dstl to define a set of metrics that can be used to compare different techniques. These metrics should include track maintenance effectiveness, latency and any increases to the false alarm rate.

Where possible, reuse of existing, validated, models is encouraged. However, it is accepted that some adaptions may be needed to meet all the requirements listed. For planning purposes, bidders should assume that the technologies and scenarios to be modelled are as listed below and design their proposal accordingly. The actual cases modelled will be agreed between Dstl and the successful bidder.

Technologies to be modelled:

• Radar approaches: enhanced signal processing to reduce the impact of windfarm clutter and / or additional radars to provide enhanced cover
• Materials approaches: model the impact of a proposed radar absorbing material, including the effects of directionality, bandwidth and absorption.
• Alternative tracking approaches: model the effects of supplementary sensors and how these might be incorporated into an integrated picture.

Models will need to be able to cope with radars operating from 1-5GHz as a minimum, and preferably up to 16GHz.

The model should not be limited to assessing the performance of the Stream 1 technologies but should be adaptable to allow for assessment of alternative technologies in future, within the 3 categories of radar, material and alternative tracking, therefore the proposal should explain how the model would be adapted in future to represent those alternative technologies. In particular, the model should be capable of representing all the technologies explored in phase 2, in addition to those in phase 3. In the absence of Phase 3 Stream 1 activities addressing radar solutions it will be necessary for a successful supplier to obtain appropriate radar data to allow comparison of radar solutions with materials and alternative tracking solutions.

It is expected that a model developed under this competition will be delivered at TRL 6 - Technology model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

6.3 Suggested Scenarios

Examples of scenarios to be modelled (specific set to be notified once Stream 2 commences):

1. An airliner loses height over the windfarm (such as Sheringham Shoal)
2. Several military jets cross over the windfarm
3. A fast jet performs a high g turn over the windfarm
4. A supersonic fast jet traversing the windfarm at high altitude
5. A conventional cruise missile traversing the windfarm at very low altitude
6. A moderately stealthy fast jet traversing the windfarm.
7. A helicopter traversing the windfarm at typical civilian operating altitude.
8. A small UAV is launched from within the windfarm and flies out towards land
9. Repeat of scenarios 1-8, but with a more distant windfarm such as Hornsea 3. That second windfarm should include the turbines with the largest diameter likely to be in use today and in 2030s, and with appropriate spacing between the turbines

Note that the above scenarios cover a range of target velocities, to test the effect of these on the proposed mitigations
Each scenario should address a range of weather / visibility conditions to allow for the impact of non-radar sensors.

The model should be able to represent:

• Improved radar tracking approaches
• Materials approaches
• Alternative tracking approaches
• System solutions that combine elements of the above

6.4 Suggested Metrics

The metrics are intended to provide both “within class” comparisons of similar approaches and “between class” comparisons of different approaches, allowing us to rank them in order of merit. As the different approaches rise in TRL , more sophisticated measures of performance are likely to be needed, including a subjective assessment of the likely impact upon the usability of the mitigation (e.g. the overall effect in terms of obscuration and distraction of the unwanted returns, both to the human eye and to the algorithms in the system). One way to do this would be via a suitable expert judgement panel, where a representative group of users rank simulated outputs. The level of detail needed to do this is beyond the scope of Phase 3.

All metrics should be on an absolute scale, but referenced against the performance of the existing radars over open sea in the same location.

In this case, the phrase “over the windfarm” should include any areas that are affected by the windfarm’s radar clutter, not just directly over the turbines. Example metrics to form a basis for bidding. The final metrics will be agreed between the selected supplier and Dstl:

1. Probability of Detection (Pd) over the windfarm. (Pd is insufficient on its own, hence the use of other metrics)
2. Update rate.
3. Percentage of time over windfarm that the target remains tracked
4. Time to re-establish track if lost
5. Latency of any tracking.
6. Any increases to the false alarm rate (Pfa)
7. The target signature limits at which the Pd would fall to 50%, if below that specified in the scenario. Obviously the signature would vary with the sensor being used, but it in the case of radars it would be very useful to know what RCS level caused the tracking to fail.
8. Percentage of time over the year that the target could be tracked effectively if weather / visibility dependent and what drives this. (This is primarily aimed at non-radar tracking options.)
9. Any sensitivities in the scenario assumptions that may lead to a significant change in performance (e.g. if material performance is highly tuned, it may fall off sharply with changes to radar frequency or this particular mitigation only works with certain classes of windfarms).

6.5 Deliverables: What should the supplier deliver?

The winner of Stream 2 is expected to deliver:

• A model that is capable of assessing the performance of different mitigation techniques on a like for like basis, so that the performance of different technologies or combinations of technologies could be compared, and trade-offs understood. The model must fulfil the requirements described in the scope of this competition. The model should be developed in line with good software quality management practice and the approach used should be clearly documented.
• An evidence-based final project report containing:
• A description of the modelling techniques used
  • Any assumptions and limitations
  • Evidence of validation of the approach taken
  • An assessment of the robustness, likely error bounds of the results and key sources of uncertainty
  • A summary of the software quality control process used
  • Detailed description of the results of the modelling undertaken in this study, any lessons learned for future modelling and any conclusions that can be drawn about the relative effectiveness of the different approaches
  • A description of how the model can be accessed and modified in future once the contract is ended
  • An explanation of how third parties could access this model to assess the merits of their technologies in future
  • Key successes and lessons learned in the project
• Full data sets of all the inputs and results generated during the project
• Detailed documentation of the operation of the model and what inputs are needed and outputs generated

6.6 Timelines: What are the indicative timescales for delivery?

It is anticipated that the projects will follow the outlined 15 month timeline:

• Project Kick-Off and engagement with Stream 1 winners in January 2024
• An initial version of the model should be available for testing September 30 2024
• Final version of the model must be delivered and demonstrated by January 31 2025 (See Scope and Deliverables sections)
• Following the delivery of the final model, the model must be available for additional assessments until March 31 2025
• End of contract March 31 2025

6.7 How does this link to Stream 1?

You will be required to work with Stream 1 projects, and they are required to provide ad-hoc technical and troubleshooting support to enable the development of the model. There are two projects in Stream 1; one in the Materials category and one in the Alternative Tracking category.

As part of their budgeting, Stream 1 projects have been asked to make provisions for up to 25 person-days for the anticipated support to be provided to the Stream 2 winner (the level of support required will be reviewed once Stream 2 contract is in place).

Your proposal must include a description of how you propose to obtain data that your model will need to evaluate tracking performance. In particular, you will need to describe what data you need from both Phase 2 and Phase 3 participants. Details of successful Phase 2 projects can be found here. In addition, to support the understanding of technologies developed in Phase 2 a technical summary of the funded Phase 2 projects will be made available to potential bidders upon request, under an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.

You will need the expertise to generate reasonable assumptions if the full data sets are not available (e.g., for radar performance).

Your organisation or consortium must contain organisations with a proven track record of modelling radar and other sensor performance.

Stream 1 winners: (submitted project abstracts)

Please do not contact either of the organisations below to discuss their Phase 3 Stream 1 development work during the bidding phase of this competition.

1. LiveLink Aerospace

CAPSTANS is a project which will integrate a minimum of passive RF (Radio Frequency), passive acoustic, and EO/IR sensors, specifically PTZ (Pan-Tilt-Zoom) cameras, into a mesh sensor network, building on its DASA Phase 2 success in validating a proof of concept through deployment on the Levenmouth Wind Turbine Generator.  By combining these sensors into a mesh network, each sensor corroborates the other sensors in the network, resulting in a composite surveillance picture.

The key innovation is the use of a suite of small low-cost yet robust passive sensors, which do not emit any signals themselves, and therefore do not interfere with the radar returns from wind turbines, and also offers the enormous potential of reflected primary radar returns from conventional AD radars.

This addresses the challenge of radar clutter caused by the rotating blades of wind turbines, which can degrade the performance of air defence radars and create gaps in surveillance coverage. In this project we will scale from a single WTG to multiple WTG both onshore and later offshore, with the aim of reaching an overall TRL6 level of maturity.

The composite surveillance picture will integrate with GUARDIAN to provide the infill capability which will give a more complete and accurate situational awareness, enabling more effective monitoring and protection of UK airspace. The added benefits include wider perimeter protection, monitoring of aircraft inside the windfarm, and supporting regulatory development of new aircraft operations.

1. Trelleborg

This project will deliver an optimised stealth material solution for wind turbine radar interference, taking it from current TRL-6 attained during Phase 2 (where a 9m blade was manufactured for simple reflection loss testing in an anechoic chamber), and accelerating it to TRL-7 in this project, culminating in the manufacture of six 24m wind blades by an official blade manufacturer and testing on two operational wind turbines. The end result of this project will be a system which is not only proven to work in an operational environment but is also readily commercially available. The blades will be made by a blade manufacturer currently selling into the wind industry, and validated and certified against their existing standard blades. The result will be stealth blades suitable for long term operation on real wind turbines. As a global leader in engineered polymer solutions, Trelleborg will use its existing expertise in manufacturing and developing stealth materials (honed during a successful DASA Phase 2 project) to deliver a reduced Radar Cross Section (RCS) wind blade for an at-source solution to windfarm radar clutter. With no change to blade geometry, design or weight and minimal impact on cost, the proposed solution could lead to a future of radar-friendly wind turbines designed responsibly during manufacture to minimise reflected power. This will in turn improve signal to noise ratio of radar systems in operation (present and future), increase ability to accurately track low-RCS targets and clean up the radar screen over and around wind farms.

6.8 Monitoring and reporting

The project will be allocated a DASA Project Manager and a Technical Partner from Dstl, it will also be overseen by a DESNZ Programme Manager. Applicants will undertake their own project management and will be overseen by the DASA Project Manager. Projects are required to engage with the appointed Project Manager and Technical Partner regularly and effectively throughout the duration of the project. 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.

Regular project monitoring and reporting will be as follows:

1. The Project team will be required to meet with their Project Manager and Technical Partner at a kick-off meeting (planned for January 2024) and then once per month to update on project progress. Projects will share a slide pack covering progress, project achievements, technical challenges, invoice update, risks and issues and RAG. In addition, a monthly 1 page project report is required using this template.
2. The Project will be required to submit a project progress report every quarter. We expect this report to cover, as a minimum:
   • progress against the project delivery plan and project milestones
   • upcoming work over the next quarter
   • financial information (including budget spend so far and budget forecast)
   • an updated risk register (including flagging where risk ratings have changed or new risks/issue have emerged)
   • recent highlights and outputs
   • any key lessons learnt during delivery, and progress against relevant programme benefits.

This competition also has a requirement to demonstrate the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the wider DESNZ Net Zero Innovation Portfolio. More information will be shared with the winner of Stream 2 during the kick-off meeting.

The Project will also be required to share deliverables and a final project report, as outlined in the deliverables section. It is important to allow for this work, as well as the milestone invoicing, when resourcing the project management and reporting element of the project.

We are interested in…

We want novel ideas to benefit end-users working in UK Defence and Security. Your proposal should include evidence of:

• theoretical development, method of advancement or proof of concept research which can demonstrate potential for translation to practical demonstration in later phases
• innovation or a creative approach
• clear demonstration of how the proposed work applies to any defence and security context

We are not interested in…

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

• an unsolicited resubmission of a previous DASA bid

• 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

7. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. How long this takes will depend on the nature and starting point of the innovation.

7.1 A clear route for exploitation

For DASA to consider routes for exploitation, ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for collaborators/stakeholders to identify the innovative elements of your proposal.

Whilst DASA recognises that early identification and engagement with potential end users during the competition and subsequent phases are essential to implementing an exploitation plan, during the competition phase there should be no correspondence between suppliers and DASA other than via the DASA helpdesk email at [email protected], or their local Innovation Partner.

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 capability against the current known (or presumed) baseline.

7.2 How to outline your exploitation plan

A higher technology maturity is expected in subsequent phases. Include the following information to help the assessors understand your exploitation plans to date:

• 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
• how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later phases
• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation

7.3 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.

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.

8. How to apply

8.1 Submission deadline

Midday on 24 October 2023 (BST)

8.2 Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will be required to register.

Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

8.3 Total funding available

The total funding available for Phase 3 of this competition is £500,000 (excluding VAT).

8.4 How many proposals will DASA fund

It is intended to fund one proposal from this competition.

8.5 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 mentioning Windfarm Mitigation in the subject line.

9. What your proposal must include

• the proposal should focus on the Phase 3 Stream 2 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
• completed proposals must comply with the financial rules set for this competition. The upper-limit for this competition is £500,000 (excluding VAT). Proposals will be rejected if the financial cost exceeds this capped level
• 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 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 3 Stream 2, a mid-project event and an end of project event at the end of Phase 3 Stream 2, as well as regular reviews with the appointed Technical Partner and Project Manager; all meetings will be in the UK. Meetings may also take place virtually.
• your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (15 months). Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant

10. 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.

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 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. 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.

Requirements for access to Government Furnished Assets (GFA), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities, may be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available. If you apply for GFA, you should include an alternative plan in case it is not available.
Failure to provide any of the above listed will automatically render your proposal non-compliant.

11. Cyber risk assessment

11.1 Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ)

On receipt of a ‘Fund’ decision, successful suppliers must prove cyber resilience data before the contract is awarded. The start of this process is the submission of a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ allows suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the specified risk level and the corresponding profile in Def Stan 05-138, and the level of control required will depend on this risk level.

To expedite the contracting time of successful suppliers we ask all suppliers to complete the SAQ before they submit their proposal. The SAQ can be completed here using the DASA Risk Assessment RAR-954641280 and answer questions for risk level “Very Low”. In the form, for the contract name please use the competition title and for the contract description please use the title of your proposal.

11.2 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. The resulting email response from DCPP should be attached (JPG or PNG format) and included within the DASA submission service portal when the proposal is submitted. You will also be asked to enter your SAQ reference number. Please allow enough time to receive the SAQ reference number prior to competition close at midday on 24 October 2023 (BST).

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.

12. 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.

13. Mandatory Criteria

Within Scope

The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition

Pass/Fail

The proposal fully explains in all three sections of the DASA submission service how it meets the DASA criteria

Pass/Fail

The proposal clearly details a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan to complete the work proposed in Stream 2

Pass/Fail

The proposal value does not exceed £500,000 (excl. VAT)

Pass/Fail

The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities / services (including delivery of the final report) will be completed by within the proposed timelines

Pass/Fail

The proposal identifies the need (or not) for MODREC approval

Pass/Fail

The proposal identifies any GFA required for Phase 3 Stream 2

Pass/Fail

The bidder has obtained the authority to provide unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Contract

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.

13.1 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.

As per previous Windfarm Mitigation contracts placed by DASA, Foreground Intellectual Property will be handled under DEFCON 705 Full Rights. In addition, the Authority further requires the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to have Full Rights under this agreement

More information on DEFCON 705 can be found by registering on the Knowledge in Defence site.

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, £500,000 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.

14. Phase 3 Stream 2 key dates

Pre bookable 1-1 telecom sessions	12 September 2023
Competition closes	Midday 24 October 2023 (BST)
Feedback release	9 December 2023
Contracting	Aim to start January 2024 and end 15 months later in March 2025

15. 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. Click here if you wish receive e-mail updates on this competition.

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.

16. Technical Clarifications (from supplier 1-2-1 sessions in September 2023)

Q: How can bidders obtain details of the information from both the Phase 2 and Phase 3 Stream 1 projects?

A: The funded projects under Phase 3 have agreed that they will provide the information needed for the modelling (radar, alternative tracking and materials). Details from Phase 2 are available upon request in the form of a report describing the outcome from the Phase 2 research. There is no contractual obligation for Phase 2 winners to provide more information as part of this competition. If applicable, any additional information will be covered by a suitable Dstl expert representative.

Q: How is suppliers’ Intellectual Property protected?

A: We would expect details to be presented in terms of Probability of Detection vs. clutter, or similar. So it will be focused on outcomes and not the actual mechanics. We also expect information to be handled appropriately and ethically.

Q: Are the required parameters going to be generic enough not to be challenged as proprietary or exclusive for a universal tool?

A: We accept the model developed will not be a perfect representation. Later on this model will act as a baseline for far more detailed modelling. But for now we are looking to show the representative performance of each of the methods, and cross compare between them.

Q: Are you looking to use AI models to navigate around wind turbines?

A: The idea is to make a piece of software to compare the different impacts of solution to radar interference. We want to work out what happens when there is no mitigation, and beyond that work out what benefits we get from different solutions to that problem, i.e. the impact of windfarm and clutter on Radar. Safe navigation is not what we are trying to solve.

Q: What are you expecting the software to do?

A: As specified in Section 6.3 of the Competition Document there are 9 representative scenarios. We expect the model to simulate the impact the mitigation has on these scenarios. For example:

• Mitigation A, a simulation on radar absorbing materials on blades
• Mitigation B, a simulation on radar enhancement
• Mitigation C, a simulation on other forms of tracking which isn’t radar based

It should also allow us to compare the performance of those solutions individually and when combined.

Q: Will there be a need to modify the model after the contract?

A: Section 6.5 of the competition document describes how we expect your proposal to contain details of how your model can be accessed and modified after the contract has finished, by Dstl and third parties.

Q: Are collaborative bids allowed?

A: Yes, bids should come from one lead organisation but may be formed from collaborations.

Q: Whilst we have experience in aero/aerodynamics, how do you feel about receiving a bid without offshore windfarm experience?

A: The credibility of the model is to do with radar and other different sensors, you would need an understanding of those key factors. If that expertise comes from a team of appropriate people that would be all right. The more you can prove the team has the relevant skillsets which will give the model confidence, the better.