Notice

Map the Gap: autonomous gap crossing survey Phase 2 Competition Document

Updated 9 February 2021

1. Introduction

This Phase 2 Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition, run on behalf of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), aims to develop and trial a number of system demonstrators able to tackle some of the key issues of gap crossing survey.

Successful submissions will demonstrate a clear plan to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 demonstrator (Technology model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment) as part of Phase 2, with an outline plan of how the technology could be developed into an in-service capability.

Proposals will be judged against their ability to meet the challenges described below. Bids should consider the wider requirements associated with fielding and deploying the final system (the Concept of Operation or “ConOp”).

The total funding for Phase 2 of the project is up to £2 million, with 2-4 bids being funded.

This Phase 2 DASA competition follows Phase 1 and is open to new applicants. We suggest that potential bidders familiarise themselves with details of the Phase 1 Competition and also the successful suppliers. It is not a pre-requisite to have participated in or submitted a bid for Phase 1 to submit a proposal for Phase 2.

2. Competition Scope

2.1 Background to the problem space

When advancing into enemy territory the military needs to be able to cross obstacles such as rivers (and other ‘wet gaps’ such as canals and streams). Any form of obstacle crossing slows tempo, but wide wet gaps (gaps greater than 40 metres in width) are perhaps the most challenging. Wide rivers constrain ground forces’ manoeuvre and can become campaign critical obstacles. Land and coastal military units, at any scale, require enabling capabilities to cross these obstacles at a time and place of their choosing.

Currently, the only way of identifying suitable crossing points is to send Royal Engineer reconnaissance troops to survey both banks of the river. The current methods are laborious and utilise manually operated basic survey equipment to take readings to generate a gap profile and obtain key characteristics, such as the banks’ ground bearing capacity, to inform crossing requirements. Wide wet gap crossings may also require divers to survey the river bed and ensure amphibious M3 rigs have a clear path to ferry assets. These characteristics have been summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Required gap crossing characteristics

The current method exposes soldiers to danger at the forward edge of the battlefield, and also risks compromising the potential crossing point by revealing our interest in that location with unique engineering equipment. The slow road speed and large numbers of vehicles concentrated in a small area as they wait to cross the bridge, makes ground forces vulnerable to enemy attack. Therefore, obstacle crossings are likely to be supported by strategic assets, including Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and joint weapon systems. Vulnerability can be decreased through speed of decision making and fast action. Decreasing the time taken to survey a potential crossing point can increase the tempo of the deployable military formation and/or allow a greater number of sites to be surveyed, therefore increasing manoeuvre options to the ground commander, and enabling surprise and deception.

In order to fully remove reconnaissance engineers from harm’s way, any system brought into service will have to encompass a larger role than just the reconnaissance of the gap itself. Submissions to Phase 2 will need to consider access to and from the potential crossing sites and potential rendezvous areas for military formations waiting to cross. These systems should exploit leading autonomous technologies to best effect to reduce the burden on the user (examples include but are not limited to: waypoint following, task execution, obstacle / hazard avoidance, and route planning software packages and algorithms). Autonomy should be considered in every stage of the reconnaissance. Proposals will also need to consider how these systems are controlled: operating at the forward edge of the battlespace, these systems will likely be both bandwidth limited and/or GPS denied. A premium will be placed on proposals where sub-systems could be integrated on alternative platforms in the future. The fielded capability could utilise the best performing sensors and platforms, or employ successful sensors on in-service platforms.

Future systems will also need to consider integration with in-service communication systems. This will be enabled by an open system architecture.

2.2 Scope

This competition is seeking technologies to demonstrate an automated or autonomous system to reconnoitre a potential wide wet gap crossing site. This includes both the navigation to and from potential crossing site and data collection. Phase 1 of this competition has indicated that it is possible to integrate existing sensors to delivery platforms to gather the physical gap measurements required. Submissions for Phase 2 should consider how a final system would be deployed within a military context. Submissions should provide a ConOp of their system as evidence of desirability.

Phase 2 aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of different ConOps to which different sensors, delivery platforms, and levels of autonomy lend themselves. This is in order to ultimately reduce the burden on and risk to Royal Engineers. This phase will culminate in system demonstrations at TRL 6 to the British Army and other defence stakeholders. It is expected this will take place over a two week period at a representative wet-gap site within Germany. Should a demonstration in Germany become infeasible, a representative site in the UK will be used. Suppliers will be expected to demonstrate their system a number of times during this period. As part of this process suppliers will be required to obtain the appropriate licences to demonstrate (e.g. drone operation); and provide risk assessments and sufficient documentation to confirm the safety of their system to project staff.

Successful bidders will be assigned a Dstl Technical Partner (TP) as their point of contact throughout the project. TPs and Dstl project staff will attend supplier testing where possible to assist and advise concept development. TPs will help suppliers to arrange up to two workshops to allow successful suppliers to meet and interact with end users to understand where development is best directed and steer system design (these may be held online).

3. Competition

3.1 Example Wide Wet Gap Scenario

The Army must cross a 200 metre wide wet gap to reach its objective 100 km beyond. The river stretches across its path of advance. The Commander, orders a wide wet gap operation to take place. Royal Engineers (RE) need to survey potential crossing sites (pre-identified by a desktop ‘Map Recce’) to determine their suitability for crossing. Key data from the recces will provide enough information to the Commander to determine the most appropriate crossing site. All data collected from the recce, is then transmitted to the amphibious bridging commander who along with the bridging troops, will make the detailed plans for the crossing itself. A solution needs to, within in a low bandwidth, GPS denied environment:

• deploy and navigate to multiple identified potential crossing sites along a river (bank length greater than 1 km);
• measure the crossing site gap characteristics (defined in challenge 1);
• increase the tempo at which the decision to cross can be made, this requires the key data of crossing site options to be provided to the Commander in a timely manner.

The above scenario is illustrative of a wide wet gap crossing. This is the focus of Phase 2, though the system could be utilised for combat bridging and other gap crossing operations.

3.2 Competition Challenges

This competition aims to produce a system capable of taking measurements to inform the potential crossing of a wet gap obstacle. Focus has been given to a wide wet gap crossing recce, as this is deemed particularly challenging. Submissions must answer the competition challenges with a solution and provide a ConOp of this solution within the example scenario above.

The key activities of the above scenario have been split across six challenges outlined below. Any proposal submitted should provide an answer to a minimum of challenges 1-6. Challenge 7 aims to reduce the burden even further by eliminating the ‘Map Recce’. Challenge 7, though desirable, is not a requirement. The team appreciates there are likely to be some trade-offs between challenges, where this is the case please indicate in your proposal your reasoning for making any trade-offs.

Challenge 1

Solutions must collect all^{[footnote 1]} physical gap measurements (Figure 1) of a potential crossing site. Solutions should be capable of gathering these measures across wet gaps up to 300 metres wide (an in-service capability may be required to measure further). These comprise:

• Near and far bank ground bearing capacity (GBC), to an accuracy of ±50 kPa up to 35 tonnes per metre squared
• A 16 metres wide (minimum width) bank height profile of the near and far bank contact zone (shown in Figure 1) encompassing 2 metres below minimum water line and 8 metres inland of the bank edge
• Gap width between banks to a tolerance of ±50 mm
• Difference in bank heights to a tolerance of ±20 mm
• Water flow rate to an accuracy of 10%
• A full river bed profile to 3 metres deep and a minimum of 16 metres wide

In order to prevent the need for divers to survey the underwater area of wide wet gaps, the fidelity of profile needs to be able to map the presence of small diameter (30 mm) vertical obstacles such as poles.

Challenge 2

Autonomy technologies must be exploited to reduce the burden on the operator. The ConOp must detail how the burden on the operator is reduced at each stage of the operation and where autonomy technologies are used to achieve this.

Challenge 3

Obfuscation of solution intent must be considered through all stages of the operation (detail this in your ConOp). Examples of obfuscation include but are not limited to:

• low EM signature
• inability to pinpoint objective bridging location

Challenge 4

Data must be presented in a user-friendly format. An example of this could include presenting a high-level view of the key recce metrics in a simple form to the commander with more detailed data available to the amphibious bridging commander.

Challenge 5

Further to the gap characteristics observed in Challenge 1, the solution must provide some insight into the access zone (Figure 1). This could be through photograph, video, point cloud or any other means. The information this provides should assist the selection of a suitable crossing site. Useful insight could include any of the below examples:

• potential crossing site entry / exit routes including any nearby roads as appropriate
• any trees and foliage
• construction area dimensions
• ground trafficability on route entry / exit and construction area

Challenge 6

Proposals must consider how solutions can overcome any vulnerabilities inherent to the platform / sensor technology utilised. Solutions must be able to collect these measurements across a wide range of environmental conditions. Considerations include but are not limited to: maritime (coastal), ground conditions (mangrove swamp, silty river beds, rocky uneven river beds, snow), river access (steep banks, reeds, fast flowing water), lighting (day/night), weather (fog, windy), obstacles (trees, underwater obstacles, floating trees / detritus).

Challenge 7

The solution identifies potential sites within the area of operations to recce, rather than relying on pre-identified sites. This could include, but is not limited to, a full survey of the gap and banks.

3.3 Clarification of what we want

Successful submissions will demonstrate a clear plan to deliver a TRL 6 demonstrator as part of Phase 2, with an outline plan of how the technology could be developed into an in-service capability. Proposals will be assessed against their ability to meet the challenges above, within the proposed solution for fielding and deploying the final system. Assessors may identify more suitable and desirable ConOps of the technology proposed, if this is the case this will also be considered. We want novel system solutions to benefit users working in UK Defence and Security. Your proposal should include evidence of:

• innovation or a creative approach;
• clear demonstration of how the proposed work applies to the defence and security context.

While we anticipate that these measurements are produced using a single system, teamed and dispersed solutions and any technology capable of taking these measurements will be considered. While it is expected that the vehicle will be fit for multiple tasks, cheaper sacrificial systems (or systems with sacrificial elements) will be considered.

Phase 2 of Map the Gap requires a wide range of technologies to be integrated and demonstrated by a solution. Joint submissions are encouraged to fully utilise a range of industry expertise. Tolerance and fidelity values are the minimum required, performance exceeding the minima will be considered when systems are compared and should be highlighted in each proposal.

3.4 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
• focus on the development of low TRL autonomy technologies, submissions should exploit and develop existing autonomy and apply it to a wet gap recce solution

4. Exploitation

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 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.

This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We are also investigating collaboration with several organisations, including the United States Department of Defence (US DoD), and this may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future. The UK and Germany collaborate to provide NATO with an assured Wide Wet Gap Crossing (WWGC) capability, further exploitation of “Map the Gap” may take place under these bilateral agreements.

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 be dependent on the nature and starting point of the innovation. Early identification and appropriate engagement with potential end users during the competition and subsequent phases are essential in order to develop and implement an exploitation plan. This will be facilitated through the end-user workshops referenced above.

Longer term studies may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should always be clear that there is some credible advantage to be gained from the technology development.

5. How to Apply

Proposals for funding to meet these challenges must be submitted by 9 March 2021 at midday via the DASA submission service for which you will be required to register.

The total funding for Phase 2 is up to £2 million (ex VAT). We plan to fund 2-4 bids as part of Phase 2. If successful, contracts will be awarded for a maximum duration of 10 months for Phase 2 with the demonstration at month 9. Month timescales are approximate; any submission must meet the required demonstration date and final report deadline.

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

5.1 What your proposal must include

The proposal should focus on the Phase 2 requirements but must also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required to bring the capability into service, including the wider areas outlined in the background to the problem space.

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. 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, a mid-project event, a demonstration at a representative wide wet gap site, and an end of project event at the end of Phase 2. Short monthly reports will be required, as well as regular reviews with the appointed Dstl Technical Partner and Dstl Project Manager; workshops and events will be in the UK or held virtually where appropriate. The demonstration site is TBC, however the representative wide wet gap for the Phase 2 demonstration is expected to be in Germany (or the UK as an alternative). Any submission must consider the relevant timelines and costs incurred by a demonstration in Germany. Your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales. Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as noncompliant.

A resourcing plan must also be provided indicating the Research Workers that you intend working on this phase. Where known, the nationality of the Research Workers must be indicated. In the event of proposals being recommended for funding, the 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. Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (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, beyond that referenced above for the demonstration and workshops, should be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available.

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

5.2 Export control

Contracts awarded as a result of this competition will fall under an extant memorandum of understanding between the UK MOD and Germany This will facilitate the unimpeded exchange of proposals, prototypes and associated information between the UK and Germany governments. However, this effective exemption from export controls only applies to the UK and Germany, not to third countries, and all bidders must therefore abide by the export control requirements of their originator country. All relevant export control regulations will apply if a company ultimately wants to sell a developed solution to a foreign entity. If we believe that you will not be able to obtain export clearance, additional checks may be conducted, which may also result in your proposal being sifted out of the competition .

5.3 Cyber Risk assessment

This competition has a cyber risk level of ‘very low’ and as such, suppliers must submit a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ) on the Supplier Cyber Protection Portal. The SAQ allows suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the specified risk level and the corresponding profile in Def Stan 05-138, the levels of controls required will depend on this risk level. Suppliers should create an account in the Supplier Cyber Protection Portal if they do not already have one, and will be able to find the corresponding SAQ to the requirement by searching the Risk Assessment Reference (RAR) for this competition: RAR-4XCX87FF. Further guidance can be found at: DCPP: Cyber Security Model industry buyer and supplier guide.

Suppliers must complete the SAQ prior to competition close at midday GMT on Tuesday 9 March 2021. You will be prompted to enter the SAQ reference number within the submission service portal when you submit your proposal.

5.4 Public facing information

When submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a proposal title and a short abstract. If your proposal is funded, the title and abstract you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments as appropriate, 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 for the event. Your 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.

5.5 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 which demonstrate their compliance against the competition scope and DASA mandatory criteria will be taken forward to full assessment. Failure to achieve full compliance against Stage 1 will render your proposal noncompliant and will not be considered any further.

Mandatory Criteria
The proposal outlines how it meets 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.	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 clearly identifies the requirement, or not, of GFA and GFI for Phase 2.	Pass / Fail
The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities/services (including delivery of the final report) will be completed by the 4th of March 2022 (Contracts expected to commence Mid April 2021).	Pass / Fail
The bidder has obtained the authority to provide unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract.	Pass / Fail
The bidder has submitted a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ) - see section 5.3 above.	Pass / Fail

Proposals that pass the mandatory pass/fail criteria 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 front-line military commands, and third party assessors. 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 (including information identified by the bidder 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 bidder’s proposal. In providing such information the bidder 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.

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

5.6 Things you should know about DASA contracts

Please read the DASA terms and conditions which contain important information for suppliers. For this competition the Innovation Standardised Contracting (ISC) Contract will be used, 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 Dstl Project Manager (a separate role to funded projects’ internal project management) and a Dstl Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). In addition, the DASA team will work with you to support delivery and exploitation including where appropriate introductions to end-users and business support to help SMEs develop their business.

DASA also collects information from projects after the project has concluded and you should expect to be contacted once your project has completed for measurement purposes.

We will use deliverables from DASA contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract terms and conditions. In particular, Full Rights Versions of Deliverables delivered under any resultant contract will be shared in confidence with the US DoD under the Master Information Exchange MOU.

For Phase 2, up to £2 million 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.

6. Phase 2 dates

Competition Launch	Tuesday 12 January 2021
One-to-One sessions	27/28 January 2021 & February 10 2021
Completion of Supplier Assurance Questionnaire	Tuesday 9 March 2021 at 1200 GMT
Competition closes	Tuesday 9 March 2021 at 1200 GMT
Contract commences	Mid May 2021 (Expected w/c 10 May 2021)
Phase 2 demonstration	Mid February 2022 (Exact dates TBC)
Contract completion	Friday March 4 2022

6.1 Supporting events

One-to-One sessions

27/28 January 2021 & 10 February 2021 – 20 minute one-to-one teleconference sessions will be available to prospective suppliers, giving you the opportunity to ask specific questions. If you would like to participate, please register on the Map the Gap 1-to-1s Eventbrite pages.

Wednesday January 27 2021

Thursday January 28 2021

Wednesday February 10 2021

Collaboration Survey

For this phase we are encouraging collaboration between suppliers. To support this we have a short survey to collect details of suppliers who wish to explore collaboration possibilities.

7. Help

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title. If you wish to be added to the campaign on ECS please email a request into the accelerator inbox, this will ensure you receive future 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 suppliers.

8. Annex A: Technical; Clarifications

The following section comprises of answers to questions posed to the Map the Gap team. All questions have been reworded into a generic format. The answers provided supersede any verbal communications provided prior to February 9 2021. Answers may also go further and provide greater clarification owing to further time for the project team to consider questions.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Q: What do you want to see in the Concept of Operation (ConOps)?

A: A description of how the solution is to be fielded within the context of the example scenario provided in 3.1. Covering stages from system deployment to the stage that the data is in the hands of the decision maker, including any recovery of the system. This should indicate how the proposed solution will complete the competition challenges, how it is operated while doing so, and from where. This will essentially describe how your system is to be used.

Q: What are the current ConOps for a recce?

A: : The extent of the recce will depend on the nature of the crossing. Close Support operations typically focus on shorter gaps up to 24.5 metres wide and are conducted at speed to maintain the tempo of the fighting force. They are more concerned with the banks and approaches rather than the space below the water line. Royal Engineer (RE) recce will survey the approaches to the potential crossing site, the strength and gradient of the banks, the width of the gap and egress routes. They will recommend suitable crossing assets and pass this information to the Battle Group Engineer (BGE) in the Battle Group Headquarters (BGHQ) who will decide when and where to conduct the crossing.

General Support operations focus on wider gaps which may require placing piers, pontoons, or rafts in the water. As such there is a greater focus on the space below the waterline with depth, flow rates, obstacles, and bottom conditions becoming more important. Gaps between 24.5 metres and 32 metres would likely be addressed with General Support Bridging which does not need to put any furniture in the water. Gaps above 32 metres will require pontoons, piers, or the use of M3 amphibious rigs. Such a crossing may require an RE dive team to ascertain the bed conditions of the wet gap. Again the information collected by RE recce will be passed up to the BGE to inform BGHQ planning.

The process for recce will be the same in both cases. Potential crossing points will be identified from maps and aerial photographs. Battle Group recce will investigate these sites from a tactical perspective, narrowing the focus for the RE recce who will take detailed measurements of the sites deemed most suitable. Both Close and General Support recces are in scope for proposed systems.

Q: What is the current baseline for tempo of operation, distances, and speed of decision making?

A: Tempo will be situation dependent and is defined by the level of the formation the asset is supporting. The most likely scenario would see the asset supporting at the Battle Group level which operates on a decision – action cycle of approx. 24 hours. As such, the asset should be able to move / be moved tens of kilometres to multiple potential crossing points, take measurements, and send the information collected to the Battle Group Engineer within approx. 8 hours.

Q: Where is this system likely to be deployed from?

A: This is highly dependent on the ConOps, your solution may plan to deploy from kilometres away or tens of metres away from a potential crossing site.

Q: Is there a size limit to our solution?

A: No, however the size of the platform will need to be taken into account in your ConOps, a small solution may be backpack transportable whereas a larger solution may have a higher logistics burden but have a longer deployment range. Each may have its benefits and drawbacks, any trade-offs should be identified and justified.

Q: Is operating in a GPS denied environment a Competition Challenge?

A: Operating in a GPS Denied environment is challenging though it is not a specific competition challenge. It has a large impact on how a solution is controlled and is important to Challenge 2 and the exploitation of autonomy. This is not however the focus of the call and technology to answer this question has been developed in other competitions and fields. Map the Gap solutions should exploit, where possible, these pre-existing solutions from these areas. Bids are not expected to cost for the development of GPS deniable comms, other than integration of these pre-existing solutions into the proposed solution. How a solution could be used in a GPS denied environment should be detailed in the concept of operation. If a different method of operation is required for the same equipment to operate GPS denied, describe this.

Q: How do you define low bandwidth?

A: The description of a low bandwidth environment refers to the primary use case of peer or peer plus warfare, where communication links may need to be hardened and encrypted. Where there is an expectation to use established military networks data would need to be in a magnitude of kbit/second, and will have a high latency. Where there is no intention to use existing military networks these restrictions will not be applicable, but wider considerations (such as Security and Resilience to attack) should be considered.

Q: What were the successes and lessons learned from Phase 1?

A: Phase 1 was used to determine whether sensors can be integrated successfully with platforms to gather gap characteristic measures. This was determined to be possible. Phase 2 looks in more detail at how technologies will be fielded, the environments in which they will be used, and the full cycle of data collection to offloading, this poses new challenges as described in the document.

Q: Are there any technologies from Phase 1 we need to leverage for Phase 2?

A: No particular technologies, however solutions must be developed to TRL 6 for the Phase 2 demonstration.

Q: Should we be using a specific platform?

A: No, different platforms will lend themselves to different concepts of operation, as such a variety of different solutions may be funded to further develop this understanding.

Q: Are we limited to a single platform solution?

A: No. A system of systems would be acceptable, but all gap data should be provided from the equipment proposed within this challenge and should not be collated from external sources. Any justification surrounding this decision should be included within the submission.

Q: Will we be scored based on our collaboration / size of consortia?

A: No, proposals will be assessed based on their merits and coverage of the competition document, along with a judgement on the maturity and reliability of the technology proposed.

Q: Our company has a specific field of expertise, how can we find another company to collaborate with?

A: Sign up to the collaboration survey to be provided with details of other companies looking to collaborate on Map the Gap.

Q: When is the demonstration?

A: All demonstrations will take place over a fixed period in February 2022 to be determined by Dstl. Exact dates will not be confirmed until part-way through the contract period and will be discussed through Technical Partners before decisions are confirmed.

Q: Where is the demonstration?

A: Germany, however should this not be possible, an alternative demonstration site will be located in the UK.

Q: Should we consider export restrictions on equipment?

A: As a concept demonstration all solutions must meet the requirements of the competition which includes the demonstration. As long as solutions can be exported to the demonstration site (if this is required) it will meet the requirement of this contract.

Q: We submitted a bid for Phase 1 but weren’t successful, can we modify our proposal for Phase 2?

A: Yes, however all proposals must be modified to meet the scope of the Phase 2 competition and the expectations detailed within the competition document.

Q: Can we submit more than 1 proposal?

A: Yes, you can submit more than one proposal. All proposals must have a single prime, who will be the contracted party in the event of a successful submission, with any other members of the bidding consortia acting as sub-contractors. If you submit multiple proposals you must be able to facilitate and resource all submitted bids simultaneously in the event that they are all successful.

Q: How long should our proposal be?

A: Assessors are assigned 45-90 minutes to read, assess, and comment on proposals. proposals which are excessively lengthy may only receive partial scoring based on teh allocated assessment time.

Q: How can we show our bid is innovative?

A: Innovation can come from innovative technologies, applying technologies to new use cases such as a WWGC recce, or the integration of a solution. However, all solutions must achieve TRL 6 by the Phase 2 demonstration.

Q: Is there any issue in using open source software?

A: No, the use of open source software can reduce cost of submissions and could even improve the ease of integration in any future capability.

Q: Should we be using Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA)?

A: The use of GVA is not a requirement as this is a concept demonstrator. Phase 2 demonstrated solutions will not be the final procured system. However the use of GVA and open architecture may de-risk any future procurement activity.

Q: Should this solution integrate with TYRO?

A: The proposed system should be capable of being used to inform a wide variety of gap-crossing solutions, however direct integration with the equipment solution is not expected at this stage.

Q: Are there any cost thresholds on bids?

A: No. It is expected that 2-4 proposals will be funded, the allocation of costs to each funded project can vary depending upon the assessed benefits. Value for money is a consideration in the bid assessment.

Q: Can we rent the equipment for our demonstrated solution?

A: Yes. This is a demonstration only and renting equipment is acceptable should this provide the best value for money. This should be articulated in the bid, with evidence (such as quotes or letters of support from suppliers) to suggest renting of the equipment is achievable.

Q: Is it appropriate for me to exploit my contacts of end-user groups to inform this bid?

A: Existing contacts may be consulted however the requirements for the competition are first and foremost in this competition document and will be assessed against such.

CHALLENGE 1

Q: What if our system cannot meet the required tolerances?

A: Any solution not able to complete Challenge 1 in full will be considered by exception. This exception applies to both the tolerances and the measurement coverage of solutions. Any solution not able to achieve the required tolerances should highlight in their proposals why this is the case, whether there is a benefit gained by this cjhoice and why the expected tolerance is sufficient.

Q: What is the purpose of the 30mm resolution riverbed profile?

A: Where a wide wet gap crossing is performed with current methods, divers may be required to assure the amphibious crossing commander that there are no obstructions in the water that may cause damage to crossing equipment. 30mm was selected to represent small vertical tubes / poles, or debris. The purpose of this measurement is to provide enough assurance to prevent the need for divers. Hence consideration should be given to this purpose in the presentation of this information.

Q: How important is the GBC?

A: The GBC must provide assurance that the ground will support the bridge during crossing. Hence the ground bearing capacity should be surveyed where the bridge would be expected to lay. A single value to describe this on each side is sufficient. However this should be derived from multiple points / or the area over which the bridge lays to ensure stability. In a WWGC scenario the GBC may be less critical however the same measurement can assess trafficability of the ground. In some instances GBC can be approximated, by known ground type, without physical measure however this has its risks. For example solid stone may be taken as a safe crossing ground without measure from a RE.

CHALLENGE 2

Q: What level of autonomy is required?

A: There is no explicit level required. The purpose behind the inclusion of autonomy is to a) reduce user burden, and b) reduce communications to the solution which may give away both position and intent. Solutions must incorporate some autonomy, however other methods may also be used to complement the autonomy.

Q: Should this be built with Royal Engineer end users in mind or any Military Operator?

A: Reducing user burden and simplifying the system for multiple user groups would be beneficial and should be noted in your concept of operations.

CHALLENGE 3

Q: What do you mean by low EM signature?

A: The purpose of Challenge 3 is to avoid giving away the intention of the operation or location of crossing point. Achieving a low probability of detection in the electromagnetic spectrum (by having a low EM signature) is one method of contributing towards this end. Hardening equipment against forms of electronic attack could be considered a benefit, but it not a key challenge at this stage.

Q: Can we use decoys?

A: The means of solution obfuscation have been left open and does not exclude decoys, this should be articulated as part of your concept of operations.

Q: Can we use disposables?

A: Yes. However this should be considered alongside the concept of operation and in relation to the effect on obfuscation and logistics.

Q: Are there any sensors the have been ruled out?

A: No sensors have been ruled out. However, drawbacks of certain sensors will be considered during assessment.

Q: Are there any methods of data transmission that have been ruled out?

A: No, any benefits or drawbacks of certain methods should be fully considered, particularly with regards to obfuscation of intent.

CHALLENGE 4

Q: Is there a specified format we need to present the data in or defence standards we should adhere to?

A: No, different methods and concepts of operations may lend themselves to different presentation methods and Phase 2 will likely inform future methods. The key criterion is that the commander has the right information at the right time to make effective decisions. This may utilise visual information presented on-screen, or key metrics sent over radio link.

Q: Is data processing a key consideration?

A: Solutions should increase the tempo of operation by ensuring the data is in the decision maker’s hands early. Data can be sent in pieces, some pre-processed data, or key metrics could be presented before a detailed transmission or offload of data. Post processing times should be minimal.

Q: Should the data be available on multiple systems or just on one device?

A: Data gathered from the recce will be required by several parties to enable high level decisions, as well as more tactical planning for the crossing operation. Therefore there are advantages to accessing data from multiple locations. As a minimum, the key gap measurements should be extracted from the raw data for onward transmission.

Q: Is the data we collect dependent on the bridge that will be laid?

A: The data detailed in the competition document follows current doctrine and provides information for a wide variety of close and general support bridging as well as WWGC equipment. Longer-term bridging such as logistic support bridging (LSB) are not the focus for this system.

Q: Do we need to integrate our solution with any existing communications networks?

A: Integration with other military communications networks will depend on your concept of operations. Where this is proposed, we do not expect to see integration at this stage, but this can be de-risked by use of open architecture and should not be prevented by the fundamental system design.

CHALLENGE 5

Q: Would information on any crossing obstacles or enemy locations be useful for Challenge 5?

A: Any information regarding the wider picture of the crossing site would be useful to inform the decision maker.

Q: How large is a typical construction area?

A: The exact sizes are dependent on the bridge that is used and the size of the crossing, but appreciation of the space available and access routes to both bank is key.

Q: Should we inform what preparations to the site may be required?

A: Information regarding roots, trees, foliage, ground conditions, may all inform the RE on what preparations are required to establish a crossing at the site.

CHALLENGE 6

Q: Can we overcome our limitations through different sensor packs?

A: Systems should be able to take all the measurements specified in the challenges, any requirement to change sensors to complete a full survey should be identified and explained in the concept of operations. This acceptance of sensor-changes will likely depend on the distance of deployment, but unless there is significant justification, the preference would be for all measurements to be taken in a single visit.

CHALLENGE 7

Q: If Challenge 7 is optional, how is this weighted compared to the other Challenges?

A: Primacy will be given to Challenges 1-6, but Challenge 7 will be used as a discriminator where necessary.

1. bids that don’t meet all the Challenge 1 criteria will be considered by exception should the benefits of their technology outweigh the loss of any uncaptured data ↩