Notice

Competition document: Take Cover! Phase 2

Updated 8 October 2019

1. Introduction

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is seeking proposals for innovative technologies that provide improved methods to protect small groups (1 – 10 personnel) of dismounted troops in the field.

Within defence and security, protection of personnel is a priority area and deployment of rapid protection solutions for dismounted troops on the front-line is of high importance. This competition seeks to access recent developments in materials science and/or novel design technologies to provide advanced and readily deployable protection solutions for our troops.

In this phase of the competition, DASA is seeking proposals that can be developed and integrated into a viable field fortification solution during any potential later competition phase. While not a formal deliverable, there may also be an opportunity for successful proposals to be demonstrated or deployed at the Contested Urban Environment Strategic Challenge (CUE SC) 2020 Experiment in the UK. It will be held over a three week period during Jun/Jul 2020. Further details will be provided nearer the time to successful bidders.

Up to £550k is available to fund multiple proposals in this phase, which must start at a minimum of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3, in order to approach, if not achieve, TRL 5 by the end of Phase 2. Additional funding is anticipated to be available for a further phase to develop technologies to at least TRL 6 and into a deployable battlefield solution.

Phase 2 of this competition closes on Tuesday 29 October 2019 at midday (GMT).

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

2. Competition scope

2.1 Background

The current technologies for in-field temporary fortifications for dismounted soldiers are reaching the end of their natural life. Traditionally, they have consisted of corrugated iron, concrete bollards and sandbags, as depicted in Figure 1, to provide structural support and overhead protection in the 4-Man Battle Trench. Current dimensions for the 4-Man Battle Trench are 0.75 m wide x 1.5 m deep x 7.75 m long but given the additional equipment soldiers now carry, a 25% increase on width would be beneficial.

Figure 1 - 4-man battle trench

In addition to the 4-Man Battle Trench, other scenarios for field fortification currently include 2-person protection, where a shallow trench is excavated and protected using local materials (Figure 2a) or a Vehicle Check Point (VCP) where soldiers generally use large concrete structures to protect themselves, which is a significant logistical burden. If a hasty VCP is required soldiers will likely only have personal protective equipment (PPE), such as body armour and helmet, for protection (Figure 2b).

Figure 2a - Soldier in a shell scrape where soldier has minimal protection

Figure 2b - Soldier in a hasty VCP where soldier has minimal protection

This competition provides an opportunity to apply modern materials and/or structural design to achieve improved performance of in-field fortifications by developing lightweight, rapidly deployable protection for troops and other small military assets.

2.2 Scope

This competition focuses on novel materials, designs and deployment technologies for in-field fortifications that are easily stored, transported and rapidly deployed, using in-service ‘prime movers’, such as logistic vehicles and rotary/fixed-wing aircraft. It should be noted that this competition is not looking for PPE, such as is already provided by body armour and helmets.

Deployed fortifications should be able to protect troops from ballistic threats, blast/fragmentation and ground shock, however additional protection against directed energy threats is also of interest. Directed energy can include rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), high-energy lasers or other novel weapons.

Observability (in multiple environments) across the optical, infra-red (IR), ultra-violet (UV) and radio-frequency (RF) spectra will need to be considered, for this and potential future phases. Whilst this is not a call for camouflage technologies, innovative camouflage, concealment and deception (CCD) innovations that could form part of an overall solution are welcomed. The solution may also be utilised for discreet protection of cached equipment in addition to protection of troops.

Chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear (CBRN) threats are not the focus of this competition, but it is worth noting that in an operational situation, the solution may be deployed in a CBRN threat environment.

3. Competition challenges

Phase 2 is intended to fund different approaches that combine the 3 challenge areas stated in Phase 1 to work towards an integrated solution that can be developed through to a higher maturity level (TRL 5 - technology basic validation in a relevant environment). As such, the competition challenges for Phase 2 are scenario based. Collaboration will be encouraged to integrate promising solutions from Phase 2 in any potential future phases.

The overarching requirement here is for innovative structures that can be easily stored, transported and rapidly deployed by troops in forward operating environments with minimal burden, including the burden of tools required for construction. Examples could include novel self-erecting, inflatable or folding structures. Any solution should be simple to emplace and not require specialist training or high levels of qualifications (for example: can only be deployed by an engineer).

Size and mass of the protective materials is a consideration. Protection measures packaged for transport must be able to fit on a standard NATO pallet(s), which has dimensions 1 m x 1.2 m and a loading limit of 1 tonne.

At the end of Phase 2, all structural and deployment aspects of proposed field fortifications should be demonstrated through rigorous testing in representative environments. This may be at full, reduced scale or at a subassembly level. Where proposed field fortifications employ structure placed above ground, ballistic testing should be performed against representative ballistic and fragment simulating projectiles (FSP). It is not anticipated that experimental blast testing will be conducted during Phase 2. Your proposal should contain a credible test plans including ballistic and fragmentation testing where appropriate. Feedback and guidance will be provided to successful bidders regarding their test plans and classification of the effects of weapons on structures.

Proposals at Phase 2 may address one or more of the following 3 challenges/scenarios.

3.1 Challenge 1: 4-Man Trench

The protection solution proposed should be designed for 4 to 10 personnel (and their equipment). The proposed shelter should also be designed to allow personnel to operate for a number of days. The number of days will depend upon the nature of the operation. The current solution for this scenario is manpower intensive and is required to be emplaced within 36 hours, but may take longer depending on ground conditions.

Suppliers need to demonstrate, with evidence of performance, either of the following two protective measures from their proposed solution:

Above ground protective measures that protect against:

• blast and fragmentation effects of an artillery shell detonating nearby
• ballistic penetration by up to 14.5 mm Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) round fired at point blank range

Below ground protective measures that protect against:

• ground shock produced by an artillery shell detonating nearby, without collapse or deformation large enough to endanger occupants
• retaining walls able to withstand collapse as a result from inclement weather conditions

It would be desirable for the capability to withstand a single vehicle run-over, though this is not mandatory. For the purposes of this call we would be looking at an armoured military vehicle up to Main Battle Tank (MBT) weights. For reference, the weight of a UK Challenger 2 MBT is approximately 75 tonnes. Understanding of lower weight run-over would also be of benefit.

3.2 Challenge 2: Shell Scrape

Shell Scrapes are hastily emplaced semi below ground solutions used in the scenario where you need to protect a maximum of 1-2 personnel for a short period of time. The solution may also be utilised for discreet protection of cached equipment. The solutions should be light enough to be included in current combat fighting order (for example: does not require a separate transport vehicle), rapidly emplaced and dismantled.

Suppliers need to demonstrate protection from fragmentation of nearby artillery shells and cover from view for this challenge.

3.3 Challenge 3: Vehicle Check Point (VCP)

VCPs are required at entrances to facilities and area access control. There are currently no systems that have a low logistic burden that will allow the emplacement of a rapid VCP if required. Soldiers in these instances have little to no protection and generally it is only afforded by any vehicles they are in. If a hasty VCP is required they only have PPE for protection.

For this scenario we are interested in demonstration of above ground protective measures that protect against:

• blast and fragmentation effects of an artillery shell detonating nearby
• ballistic penetration by up to 14.5 mm API round fired at point blank range

3.4 Clarification of what we want

Solutions can be re-deployable or single use, depending on likely costs and use-case.

It is recognised that there may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to the challenges and so suites of technologies are viable. Potential for future modularity, flexibility and scalability should also be borne in mind, as well as operation in different environments (for example, mountain, desert, jungle, urban) and climates (for example, temperate, tropical, arid, polar). DEFSTAN 00-35 Environmental Handbook for Defence Materiel Part 4 Natural Environments may provide useful guidance regarding the effects of climate and weather on materials. It is accessible at this link.

Your proposal should include:

• innovation or a creative approach
• a materials and structures focussed approach to the problem (such as making use of a range of material characteristics to provide a holistic protection solution)
• clear demonstration of how the proposed work builds on Phase 1, existing published or open knowledge
• clarity on how the proposed solution offers an improvement on existing technologies
• a clear understanding of the pathway to future exploitation

3.5 Clarification of what we don’t want

For this competition we are not interested in proposals that:

• constitute consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation (which therefore cannot be extended into further phases)
• do not offer significant benefit to defence and security capability
• 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
• cannot demonstrate that the solution is feasible within the Phase 2 timescale
• minor improvements on existing high TRL technologies (unless it is being applied in a novel way to the challenge)

4. Exploitation

It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions and phases, 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.

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 possible collaborators/stakeholders to identify the innovative elements of your proposal in order to consider routes for exploitation. DASA Innovation Partners are available to support you with defence and security context.

You may wish to include some of the following information, where known, to help the assessors understand your exploitation plans:

• 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

5. How to apply

Proposals for funding to meet these challenges must be submitted by Tuesday 29 October 2019 at midday (GMT) via the DASA submission service for which you will be required to register.

The total funding available for Phase 2 of this competition is £550k, but individual proposals cannot exceed £200k (ex VAT). If successful, contracts will be awarded for a duration of 9 months.

Additional funding for further phases to increase TRL further may be available. Any further phases will be open to applications from all suppliers and not just those that submitted Phase 1 or Phase 2 successful bids.

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

5.1 What your proposal must include

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 £200k (ex VAT) per proposal. Proposals will be rejected if the financial cost exceeds this capped level. It is also helpful to include a list of other current or recent government funding you may have received in this area if appropriate, making it clear how this proposal differs from this work.

Your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all research and development activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (9 months). 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 and an end of project event at the end of Phase 2, as well as regular reviews with the appointed Technical Partner and Project Manager; all meetings will be in the UK. The proposal should focus on the Phase 2 requirements but must also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required for exploitation.

Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant.

A resourcing plan must also be provided that identifies, where possible, the nationalities of those proposed Research Workers that you intend working on this phase. In the event of proposals being recommended for funding, 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. 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) 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 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.

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

Mandatory Criteria

The proposal outlines how it meets the 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 contains a credible test plan including ballistic and fragmentation testing where appropriate.	Pass / Fail
The proposal identifies the need (or not) for MODREC approval.	Pass / Fail
The proposal identifies any GFA required for Phase 2.	Pass / Fail
Maximum value of proposal is £200k (ex VAT).	Pass / Fail
The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities/services (including delivery of the final report) will be completed within 9 months from award of contract (or less).	Pass / Fail
The bidder provides 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 front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to comment on assessors comments.

DASA reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from bidders during the procurement process (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.

5.4 Things you should know about DASA contracts

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

Funded projects will be allocated a Project Manager (to run the project) and a Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). In addition, the DASA team will work with you to support delivery and exploitation. We will use deliverables from DASA contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract terms and conditions.

For this phase, £550k 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

Dial-in	Tuesday 17 September 2019
Pre bookable 1-1 telecom sessions	Tuesday 17 September 2019
Competition closes	Tuesday 29 October 2019
Contracting	Aim to start January 2020 and end 9 months later

6.1 Supporting events

• Tuesday 17 September 2019 (morning) – A dial-in session providing further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions in an open forum. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite page.

• Tuesday 17 September (afternoon) – A series of 20 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.

7. Help

Competition queries including on process, application, technical, commercial and intellectual property aspects should be sent to accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title.

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 Clarification Questions

Common questions raised during the Take Cover! Phase 2 Dial in and 1-2-1 sessions are answered here.

8.1 What and how should we test performance against ballistic and fragmentation threats?

The competition document asks for protection measures against ballistic threats of up to 14.5 mm armour piercing incendiary (API). It is recognised that 14.5 mm is a stretch target based on requirement documents for current systems and may not be achievable with systems that are man-portable and rapidly deployable.

Therefore, from this testing we want to understand the actual performance of your system against either/both small arms and fragments rather than setting possibly unachievable targets. We require actual performance (V50 or residual velocity) rather than achieving a particular Vproof.

Test categories: For small arms pick one or more test category based on anticipated performance of your system:

• 7.62x51 mm NATO ball (STANAG 4569 Level 1), or
• 7.62x54R mm B32 API (STANAG 4569 Level 3), or
• 12.7x99 mm B32 API (Not in STANAG 4569).

For fragments we will use 20 mm Fragment Simulating Projectile (FSP) at up to 1250 m·s-1. Please note, velocities above ~1150 m·s-1, probably need to use a 30 mm barrel with saboted 20 mm FSP, so may be more difficult to test.

Test requirements:

• All testing should use the damage codes from Defence Standard 08-42 to describe the result.
• Pass/fail criteria should be as per AEP-55 Volume 1 (i.e. can light be seen through a witness plate of 0.5 mm thick 2024 T4 aluminium placed 150 mm behind the target rear face?).
• FAIR/UNFAIR impact criteria, particularly for yaw/pitch (<5º).
• There is no multi-hit requirement at this stage, but this may be required for a future phase.
• All testing will be conducted at ambient and NATO normal obliquity (perpendicular to target surface) in the first instance.
• V50, if provided, should be calculated as per Mil-Std 662F.

Test reports should include:

• Details of the threat used, including head stamp, etc., for bullets.
• Shot spacing and firing sequence.
• Results of every shot, including damage code, velocity and yaw.
• Labelled photos of the front and back of the system post-firing, with a scale.
• Record and explanation of any UNFAIR impacts (yaw too high, too close to another impact, etc.).
• Description of overmatch (use of overmatch plate or high speed video of rear face).
• Description of instrumentation calibration.
• Range setup, including muzzle-to-target distance and location of the projectile velocity system and photograph of setup.

Most reputable European ballistic test houses should be able to provide advice on how to test your systems based on this information. Standards will be provided as necessary to successful bidders.

8.2 What and how should we test against blast and ground shock threats?

Blast and ground shock is only applicable to Challenge 1: 4-Man Trench. In Phase 2 we are not looking for you to undertake any physical blast or ground shock tests; it is recognised that this is not possible within the funding and time constraints. Instead we would like to see an engineering calculation and/or simulation to show/predict how your structure will behave under such conditions. Physical tests may form part of a future phase.

8.3 What and how should we test against vehicle run over?

Vehicle run over is only applicable to Challenge 1: 4-Man Trench. In Phase 2 we are not looking for you to undertake any vehicle run over tests; it is recognised that this is not possible within the funding and time constraints. Instead we would like to see an engineering calculation and simulation to show/predict how your system will behave under such conditions. Physical tests may form part of a future phase.

8.4 What and how should we test deployment mechanisms?

The deployment of your system should be demonstrated within environments and conditions described within the competition document and above, commensurate with the funding and time constraints of the competition. Testing may be at full system, sub-component or sub-scale but must allow for an understanding of how and in what timescale the system could be deployed by the dismounted soldier under operational conditions.

8.5 Should we consider protection against Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs)?

Integration of measures to protect against RPGs may be considered within your proposal as an opportunity for future exploitation, but not as an integral part of the work undertaken in Phase 2.

8.6 What are the size constraints / requirements for Challenge 2: Shell Scrape?

Dismounted soldiers entrenched within a shell scrape place their Bergen in front of the shell scrape to provide cover from view and a level of protection against ballistic and fragmentation threats. Typically two dismounts occupy a single shell scrape and will place their Bergens side by side. When deployed, systems targeting Challenge 2 should be similar in size to a Bergen (30 cm height, 70 cm width, 50 cm depth) with the option of interlinking one or more systems together. When stowed, the system must be of a size and mass that it can be carried alongside the dismounted soldier’s current patrol equipment.

8.7 Should a hastily/rapidly emplaced Vehicle Check Point (VCP), Challenge 3, be designed to stop a vehicle?

No. A system designed to protect dismounted soldiers at a VCP is there only to protect against ballistic and fragmentation threats. It is likely only deployed for 30 minutes before the VCP is shut down and moved to another location.

8.8 Dropbox

Pictures and a video are available at the following link.