DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of wireless communication and electronic warfare. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.



The goal of the Precision Electronic Warfare (PREW) program is to demonstrate technologies and a prototype system that will enable the fielding of an ad hoc sparse array consisting of multiple airborne and/or ground nodes that can perform surgical jamming. The PREW system should be able to project RF energy that results in the coherent combining of focused power within a small geographic area of interest (AOI). When operating outside the AOI, the system must minimize the coherency of the RF energy to limit the impact to collateral systems. This capability will allow the warfighter to impact the battlespace concept of operations (CONOPS) by disrupting and controlling communications and navigation services. The PREW system should be designed to be robust, low cost, small size, weight and power distributed platforms. The PREW concept envisions an array of nodes (40 or more) that have synchronized clocks, enabling the signal from each node to be aligned so that the array focuses energy at the desired location. The array will use both spatial and temporal characteristics to exploit the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and temporal requirement of the target and collateral systems. More specifically, this program defines jamming as a denial of Quality of Service (QoS) as opposed to the traditional saturation of receiver front ends. This definition applies for both the intended target, and collateral (unintended) receivers. The operational PREW system effect will be to place the desired energy on the specific target area while not affecting the non-target area. The system should be designed for multi-scenario, multi-platform capability and capable of deployment on airborne platforms or advantaged ground locations. Key technology challenges include oscillator synchronization, accurate pointing, and energy control. Key system objective is to degrade the quality of service of the intended target, while minimizing the quality of service impact to collateral devices. The PREW program is planned for transition in FY13.



See attached DARPA-BAA-09-65 package. Amendment 1 to DARPA-BAA-09-65 Precision Electronic Warfare (PREW)



The purpose of Amendment 1 to DARPA-BAA-09-65 Precision Electronic Warfare (PREW) is to provide the following solicitation questions and answers and make the following changes:



1. Page 4, change the “Proposal Due Date” from 13 October 2009 to 20 October 2009.



2. Page 24, change the date the proposal is due on line 3 of Section 4.5.1 from 13 October 2009 to 20 October 2009.



3. The following solicitation questions and answers are provided:



Q1. What is the anticipated number of awards, the size of each and the period of performance?

A1. Multiple awards are possible. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The dollar value and period of performance depends on the offerors proposed approach.



Q2. Will the presentations from today be available on the BAA website?

A2. The presentations will be available on the DARPA website http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/index.html.



Q3. What is the interface between the target detect and identify system and the jamming nodes?

Q3a. Do they share any hardware? Antennas, receivers, etc?

Q3b. Does the jammer communicate with the C2 system during jamming? Is the comm. Link part of the SWAP-C budget?

A3. There is none

A3a. There is no target detection required. Interfaces are up to each offeror.

A3b. Up to each offeror.



Q4. What is the dynamic bandwidth? That is, can nodes be “reconfigured” for particular channels?

A4. This will be determined by the offeror’s proposed approach.

Q5. Is there a maximum solid angle (or minimum solid angle) from the target that the sparse array must be contained in?

A5. No



Q6. Can we assume that the position of the intended victim is known and/or provided as SA data to the PREW system and for operating frequencies?

A6. It is anticipated that each offeror will be jamming a small area. The PREW focus is on denying spatial regions and each offeror will specify the frequency a priori.



Q7. For airborne platforms, what is the required loitering/mission time?

A7. This is CONOPS dependant.



Q8. How long must the array be effective?

A8. This is CONOPS dependant.



Q9. Please clarify BAA statement that “jamming techniques” are not of interest.

A9. PREW should be viewed as an appliqué, a physical layer methodology, focused on rimes and spatial energy control.



Q10. Does BBN have any conflict of interest or other restriction to bidding the BAA response?

A10. It is up to each offer to identify any conflict of interest. See BAA paragraph 3.1.1 for further guidance.



Q11. What multipath considerations were included in the seedling?

A11. Multipath was not directly address, but is understood to be a potential consideration.



Q12. If the nodes are going to be on a balloon what is the expectation in terms of control of them so that the area of jamming is fixed for a given time? Balloon moves where the wind is. So control question corresponds to this.

A12. Your proposal will provide this.



Q13. Please comment on SPAWAR interest in this project and reason for SPAWAR as agent.

A13. SPAWAR was selected as the agent to assist in technology transition to the warfighter if the technology proves to be successful.



Q14. Please comment on the importance of airborne platform solution v. ground based platforms.

A14. The focus is on producing a small robust node that can be transitioned for multiple concept of operations.



Q15. Will today’s UNCLS slides be available electronically?

A15. Yes, http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/index.html.



Q16. Will classified in be available on the SIPRNET?

A16. No. It will be provided as hard copy using appropriate handling methods. See the BAA.



Q17. Are there any assumptions that should be made about antenna gain and pattern for individual nodes?

A17. No



Q18. What type of clocks, antennas are expected to be on the nodes?

A18. Offerors may provide in their proposed approach.

Q19. Are the specs of the nodes available to the proposers?

A19. There are no specifications. Each offeror is to provide their proposed approach.

Q20. What other platforms other than balloons are going to be considered?

A20. Each offeror is to provide their proposed approach (i.e., UAVs, a/c, etc.)



Q21. Is it expected to implement the algorithms on these nodes?

A21. The BAA does not dictate the design. Each offeror is to provide their proposed approach.



Q22. Will Phase 2 be a full and open competition or will it be restricted to those having won a Phase 1 award?

A22. Phase 2 will be proposed as an option and included in any resultant base award. See BAA paragraph 1.2.2.



Q23. Will DARPA consider an extension to the submission date given the short response time following the Proposers' Conference?

A23. The BAA was issued 24 August 2009. This amendment extends the date as stated in the BAA on page 4 and again in paragraph 4.5.1., in order to be considered during the initial round of selections; however, proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to one year from date of posting on FedBizOpps. Proposals may be submitted at any time from issuance of this announcement through the closing date or due date otherwise specified by DARPA; however, proposers are warned that the likelihood of funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline.



Q24. Is it correct to assume that the mention of "end-of-phase demonstration"

in 1.2.1 and "airborne demonstration of brass board nodes." in 1.2.2 are demonstrations that are preformed analytically for the Phase 1 and 2 metrics and literally in Phase 3 since paragraph 1.2.3 states that "Airborne and ground based prototype arrays will be demonstrated in this phase."?

A24. Refer to section 1.3 PROGRAM METRICS, Table 1. For Phase 1, synchronization and pointing loss will involve demonstrations. Jamming precision will be done by simulation as a minimum in this Phase. In Phase 2, all 3 elements in the aforementioned table will involve demonstrations.



Q25. Does the Government intend to provide support to the FCC licensing process for over-the-air testing of PREW hardware?

A25. It’s allowable to propose GFE or government test ranges for consideration.



Q26. Does the Government have a test range available for PREW over-the-air testing?

A26. Proposer is allowed to propose government test range needs.



Q27. The text of the BAA (page 8) describing Phase I states “… key element to be developed and demonstrated in Phase I include … energy coherence at 10 km range …” but Table 1 (page 12) includes an entry for Phase 1 of a Jamming Range (Minimum) of 1 km. Is the Phase I demonstration required to be at a minimum distance of 1 km or 10 km?

A27. The synchronization and point loss demonstrations in Phase 1 are at 1 km range minimum. The simulation for jamming precision should be done for 10 km range. Phase 2 will be entirely at 10 km minimum range.



Q28. Are the results of the seed study (final report, simulation, algorithms developed) going to be made available? If so, when?

A28. We have posted the currently cleared version of the seedling results at http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/index.html. No additional postings or information is expected to be released during the initial BAA solicitation period.



Q29. We are interested in including academic institutions on our team and are planning to propose that they participate in the basic research aspects of this effort which would be independent from any specific application of the techniques developed. These academic institutions would be fire-walled from any work related to the applications of these techniques. Is this acceptable to the Government? If so, we request the government consider prime contract relief or waiver for university subcontractors of DFARS 252.204.7000, Disclosure of Information, and for export-controlled data.

A29. The proposer is allowed to propose this and other approaches dealing w/ basic research and issues dealing with academic institutions; however, see BAA paragraph 2. entitled “Award Information”.



Q30. Can we submit resumes of the personnel who (Company Name) proposes to work the effort / are the resumes included in the page count / can they be a part of the appendix that contains the white papers?

A30. Proposers are allowed to include key personnel and additional information in the proposals as referenced in paragraph 4.4.1. Proposal Format.



Q31. Do we need to submit a DD2345 - Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement?

A31. A DD2345 is not required.



Q32. If we were to do a trade of frequency coverage vs. cost and risk, are there any frequencies that are considered essential and not open to trade?

A32. Proposals are allowed to indicate trades, cost, and risks as appropriate.



Q33. Would a CPFF contract be an acceptable vehicle to propose? If so, can you please provide clarification of what is meant by “payable milestones” (BAA page 20, paragraph C) in a cost-reimbursable context?

A33. See paragraph 4.4.1.2 Volume II, Cost Proposal (10). Proposers should propose the appropriate contract type to the circumstances of the proposal.



Q34. To avoid making the entire technical volume classified, can the response to how we will address the requirements in the classified appendix be contained in a separate classified appendix to the technical volume, i.e. a separate file?

A34. It is allowable to propose an unclassified and classified segment of Volume 1 or submit one classified volume.

Amendment 2 to DARPA-BAA-09-65 Precision Electronic Warfare (PREW)

The purpose of Amendment 2 to DARPA-BAA-09-65 Precision Electronic Warfare (PREW) is to  make the following changes:

1. Page 4, change the "Proposal Due Date" from 20 October 2009 to 3 November 2009.

2. Page 24, change the date the proposal is due on line 3 of Section 4.5.1 from 20 October 2009 to 3 November 2009.

 End of changes