Guidance

Contemporary Deception for the British Army: Frequently Asked Questions

Updated 2 July 2024

Q: The final deliverable (report etc.) mentioned in the competition document is due 14 February 2025, but there is a validation event mentioned that will occur by 31 March 25.  How do we factor the potential cost of travel etc. to that validation event into our proposal, if it is after the date of the final deliverable?  If we add this is as a separate deliverable after the 14th Feb, it makes the project longer than the 5 months limit and would be unlikely to be for at least 20% of the total cost of the project.

A: When reviewing your proposal for compliance to the time line criteria, we will be looking to ensure that all development work up to and including the final report intend to be completed by 14 February 2025 with a costed validation activity to follow after this but no later than 31 March. Contracts will cover the validation activity.

As stated in section 1 of the competition document: “Successful proposals which intend to achieve TRL 5 will be expected to validate their deception technology in a relevant environment. This could include validation against a range of representative sensor technologies in a formal tactical trials environment. An appropriate level of evidence will be required for solutions expected to exit at TRL 3 or 4. The standard DASA requirement for the last stage payment deliverable to be at least 20% of the total proposal value will be waived for this competition.”

Q: Speaker asked for bids of £120-250k and the funding pot is 900k for 6-8 successful bids. This does not appear to match your funding pot and number of projects to be funded. Please can you clarify?

A: When 100-250k was referred to, that was relating to the DASA Open Call, not this competition.

The funding part for this competition is £900,000 and we are seeking to fund between 6-8 proposals.

Q: Is there funding for a technology which has previously been funded by DASA but still needs to move to a high TRL?

A: Yes, you are welcome to build on previous work from another funding source to further mature it, as long as it is in line with the aims of this competition. Please note that the TRL end point for this competition is TRL 5. Please tell us how you plan to do this in line with the competition aims.

Q: What follow-on funding is there to allow Army to exploit the outputs of this call?

A: This depends on the proposals that are received and funded. If there are ideas that we think have real merit in exploiting, then we will look to fund them.

Q: Can you advise on the manner and form of writing a proposal through an OFFICIAL portal, with solutions that would benefit from FSC clearance protocols. Should words be redacted?  

A: All proposals submitted to DASA are at Official level. We can only accept proposals that come through our portal, available at the GOV.UK website. It is important that for any of your proposals for any competition, sufficient technical detail of your innovation is provided in order for our assessors to provide an assessment. However it is up to you as the innovator as to how much of that information you want to provide.

Q: Are ISO27001 and Cyber Essentials needed? These would take time and the timelines for this competition are fast-paced. Please clarify.

A: Section 11 of the competition document clearly details the requirements for the Supplier Assurance Questionnaire that must be in place on receipt of any fund decision.

Section 11.1 of the competition document also describes what you need to do in order to adhere to the rules around the Defence Cyber Protection Partnership.  

The process for the Supply Assurance Questionnaire, including the risk assessment number and risk level is detailed in the competition document.

Q: You state technology needs to exit at TRL 5 but the DASA call pdf states you are also interested in “proof of concept research”, does it have to exit at TRL 5?

A: You can exit between TRL 3 and 5, so you cannot go higher than five.

If you come in at TRL 3-4 and can demonstrate that you have achieved TRL 3-4 within the five months of your project, that would be in scope.

Q: It would appear that you welcome both tactical proposals at local field trial level and geostrategic paper exercises, please clarify.   

A: We are not looking for paper exercises, that would be out of scope. We are looking at TRL 3-5 as the exit point criteria. Section 5.4 of the competition document states what we do not want.

This also links to scaling, where we talked about the tactical local level. We recommend thinking of the big operational deceptions in history and then the strategic is really that much grander scale, much more across government, whole of government and longer term.

It is about using those different techniques and ideas, but at different levels of scaling and integration.

That is what we are talking about in terms of strategy.

Q: Section 5.2 of the competition document says “ideally in more than one area of the electromagnetic spectrum” But this was not mentioned earlier. Is this important?

A: We are trying to influence our adversaries understanding, so mislead the adversary.

The adversary gets his or her understanding from a variety of different sources, and some of those are sensors which operate in the RF spectrum to radar in the visual spectrums, infrared, ground based air based, etc.

In addition, one of those sensors is human so essentially inadvertent humans who have mobile telephones, take photos and set them up on social media.

So there is a vast spectrum of ways that contribute to our adversaries understanding, and therefore to mislead is our first aim.

We need to have effects right across that spectrum of the mechanisms that they can detect, understand what we are doing.

Q: Do you want a set base (Dstl site, Army base) for all field trials or should bidders propose a local site?

A: It is a difficult question to answer as we do not know what proposals we will receive. For example, if we need to bring in specific sensors for validating, we do know where they will be located.

If there would be a need for a physical demonstration, we would seek to demonstrate them in Salisbury Plain and surrounding area. We have facilities available if needed.

I would consider proposals based on that assumption.

Q: There are so many different environments within Continental Europe. Does our proposal need to work for all these environments or just some of them?

A: Ideally your solution would have capabilities that work in all the environments. However, we are realistic in that it will not always be the case.

We would be interested providing they have utility in the types of environments that we are likely to operate in i.e. Continental Europe and at least one or more of the subcategories: urban, rural, forest etc.  

Q: You need one framework for new people to the sector who are creative; & another who are used to MoD speak, accreditations, procurement codes. Follow-on funds…

A: This is why we have Innovation Partners who are very well versed in supporting non-traditional suppliers. There is a plethora of information available online, including on developing capability for defence.

If you get in touch with your local innovation partner, they will be able to discuss those with you.

Q: We have not yet patented our invention and are hesitant to disclose details of how it works. Would the assessors need/want to understand how it works?

A: All intellectual property stays with the innovator. We recommend familiarising yourself with DEFCON 705 and the terms and conditions of all DASA competitions. All assessors are either government civil servants or military personnel.

The assessors, who are subject matter experts, need to have sufficient detail about your solution in order to make a fair assessment as to whether to recommend a fund. Without that level of detail, we will not be able to assess your proposal.

Q: Can suppliers collaborate on an innovation (e.g. one creates hardware/physical assets, the other helps with testing via performing field tests with sensors)?

A: Yes, you are welcome to collaborate with suppliers as long as the submission comes from a single entity.

You can subcontract and factor that into your submission and your costings accordingly.

Q: Can proposals aim to fulfil one part of the operating environment? E.g. urban and not forest.

A: We are interested in solutions that operate in one or more of those subcategories: urban, forest etc. However we do not recommend that you limit yourself to solutions that only operate in one of the subcategory environments.

Q: Are airborne/UAV related decoys adequate for Land Forces and your needs?

A: Yes. However for UAVs to be useful, they need to be able to operate in the contemporary operating environment and that operating environment is likely to be highly contested from an RF perspective. You should also note in the competition document that the land environment reaches up to 10,000 feet.

Q: Standard equipment (free issue encrypted hardened laptop, hardened handset, DSP portal, CP&F numbers) advise nominal prices in the call or accounting overhead?

A: Not sure I fully understand the question.

When a person or when an organisation bids into DASA, part of your submission is that you state your proposal costings. This information is factored into the assessment process to understand the value for money, etc.

If you require government furnished assets, these must be requested as part of your proposal. You should state that if you were not to receive these government furnished assets, what mitigating actions you have in place.

Q: What is the best way for an Australian SME to access and participate in this competition?

A: DASA works with many different countries. Australia can apply to us. We have an international Innovation Partner that you can get in contact with via the DASA gov.uk website, they can provide further advice and support.

Q: Can foreign companies (US or European NATO countries) take part in the current challenge, on their own or with a UK leader?

A: You do not need to have a UK collaborator. We have an international Innovation Partner who you can get in touch with to answer any specifics.

Q: Can you define ‘strategic level deception’?

A: Strategic level deception is deception on the geopolitical level.

Q: “If captured by an adversary” statement – is this ‘reasonably practicable’ legal spiel, or do you want us to price a defeat device on the equipment?

A: I think this question relates to the deniable piece.

We mentioned limiting the equity that gets passed to the adversary if they capture equipment. We would advise that unless it is inherent to the idea, focus on the solution at this stage and if it received funding, we can work through what we need to do to protect any equity which is at risk of capture.

Do not limit your ideas.

Q: Does the scope include providing undetected ground surveillance of adversaries?

A: If this refers to detecting our adversaries, that would not be in scope for this competition, unless it directly contributes to our deception.

We recommend that you get in touch with your local Innovation Partner and discuss submitting an expression of interest. We can share this amongst the team and provide an indication as to whether it is in scope.

Q: Is the exploitation of space-based assets (satellites) to assist with ground-based deception, in scope?

A: Yes, provided that you can reach the requisite TRLs for this competition within the funding limit and timelines of five months to demonstrate your exit TRL. You should also consider the security classification of your submission, which should be at Official only.

Q: As this is for the Army, are you only looking for land based solutions, or would solutions that can work on/under water or in air be of interest?

A: We are not just interested in land based solutions. We are interested in solutions that will help us achieve deception in the land environment so if there is an air, space or maritime based capability that will help us achieve deception in the land environments, we would be interested.

Q: Can you discuss the level of technical disclosure required? It was indicated that sensitive concept details should be limited.

A: In terms of the level of technical disclosure required for the submission, it must be at Official only. Sufficient technical detail must be provided to allow our assessors within government to make a fair assessment of your technical credibility as well as the feasibility, viability and desirability of your solution.

Another element of this, is our adversaries understanding the technical details of the technology, if exposed. If you have an idea to achieve deception, which if exposed will invalidate that idea, we recommend having a conversation with your Innovation Partner. We would recommend that you air on the side of caution and we can seek to utilise that idea in a way which prevents our adversaries from understanding it.

Q: Are physical decoys in scope for the competition? E.g visually observable structure/vehicles that act as a decoy that one is comfortable with being destroyed.

A: Yes, physical decoys are in scope. However, there are lots of decoys available on the market at the moment, so any ideas involving physical decoys need to be genuinely different and provide advantage over what is already available on the market at higher TRL.

This competition is limited to TRL 5, so we are not looking for mature products.

Section 5.4 of the competition document states that we are not interested in inflatable representations or those needing significant power support and repair costs.

Q: Challenge 1 states “we do not seek RF deception ideas, less to counter adversarial radar, including battlefield radars”. Is this correct?

A: There are two elements, ‘show the false’ and ‘hide the real’. In terms of ‘showing the false’, we are not interested in RF decoys as these are already well understood. However we are interested in spoofing or undermining adversary RF sensors, or other solutions which hide us from adversary RF sensors such as radars

Q: It was mentioned that RF based methods are not in scope. Is dispersal of RF signature using other means, in scope?

A: Yes, dispersal of RF signatures would be a part of ‘hiding the real’ meaning that it would be in scope.

Q: Colonel advised that spoofing RF sensors is in scope for ‘hiding the real’. Can we include RF based spoofing to spoof RF adversarial system?

A: RF decoys are not in scope. However if ‘hiding the real’ involved preventing our adversary RF sensors from seeing detecting, targeting us, that would be in scope.

Please get in touch with your local Innovation Partner and send a one pager of your innovation to them. Once they have made contact with you, we can look at the finer detail before you commit to submitting a full proposal.

Q: You mention UAVs are in scope, however RF systems are not. Would a UAV spoofing as a fighter jet be of interest?

A: UAV’s are not in scope. However a solution involving a UAV would not be excluded from the competition. Spoofing can mean different things to different people, but if it is having an RF effect which prevents an adversary detector or radio etc from seeing us, then that would be of interest.

If it is something you are simply emitting and trying to pretend it is something else, then we are not interested.

Q: You mention a wide range of different types of adversaries. Does our proposal need to deceive all of them or just some?

A: The competition is geographically limited to Europe and the Army’s focus is on preparing for warfighting.

Q: Please can you confirm if information, influence Deception is in scope?

A: This links to the question asked about digital communities and urban environments.

Yes it is in scope, where the land domain is operating in that digital online environment. Deception, whether it’s masking or dazzling or decoying or reinventing, can be done in that physical environment, the EW environment, cyber domain and the digital online.

Information influence perception of all are fundamentally linked, so if you have ideas which will allow us to contribute deception, they are in scope.

If you are unsure, please get in touch with your Innovation Partner, providing a one pager outlining your idea. We can then do a sense of check on it before you commit time and effort to do a full proposal.

Q: If our solution addresses creating multiple false targets for ground based adversarial RF systems, but solution is low SWaP-C RF, would this be in scope?

A: We would be interested in clever ways to spoof our adversaries’ sensors to create false tracks and prevent them from being able to find us but we are not interested in straightforward RF decoys.

Q: Is new tactical software in scope?

A: Yes software solutions are in scope as well as hardware solutions, as long as it can be developed within the timeframe between TRL 3 and 5.

If your idea is a better way of conducting that deception capability orchestra of different capabilities, we would be interested. Please note, we are not looking for mature products.

Q: Can you give a steer on SWaP-C preferences e.g. prototype systems could target low cost medium-capability masking vs higher cost high-capability masking?

A: We state in the competition document that we are looking at high profile targets versus low profile targets. So we are interested in both ends of that spectrum.

You could therefore submit two proposals or one. We recommend contacting your local Innovation Partner.