Questions & Answers

Below is a list of general questions and answers, listed in order received. If you do not find the information you are looking for here, you may submit a question or comment by clicking below.

This Collaborative Alliance is closed. We are no longer accepting questions.

Questions and Answers

  • Question: April 23, 2017

    Is there a page limit for references/bibliography in the white paper?

    Answer:

    No.

  • Question: April 21, 2017

    If ARL does not receive a sufficient number of white papers and/or no acceptable white papers, will you consider extending the deadline for submissions?

    Answer:

    No.

  • Question: April 21, 2017

    Will ARL be posting other IoBT efforts in the near future or will this one be the only one?

    Answer:

    We cannot forecast what, if any, additional investments will be made that relate to scientific IoBT research. Basic research related to IoBT is a broad area and this announcement has a specific focus as outlined in the PA.

  • Question: April 21, 2017

    In the whitepaper submission, you ask for a table of estimated costs beginning in FY17, however you state an assumed start date of 10/1/2017. Can you clarify if the table is intended to represent the entire first calendar year of work (12 months), the last 3 months of CY 17, or possibly preaward costs in FY17?

    Answer:

    The funding amount shown for FY17 is intended to cover the remainder of FY17 after award, notionally 9/1/17 - 9/30/17. The cost summary tables (PA section II.D.2, PA pgs 39-40) required for the Whitepaper ask for a Year 1 -5 budget estimate, where Year 1 is the first 12 months of the program, etc. The Cost Proposal section of the Proposal (for those teams invited to submit a Proposal) will assume a start date of 10/1/17 (PA Section 2.D.2, PA pg 43), and those teams invited to submit a Proposal will be provided with an updated estimated funding table (PA section II.A.7, PA pg 33) for the full 10 years of the program.

  • Question: April 19, 2017

    Is it possible to access video recordings of opportunity day presentations and discussions? If so, how?

    Answer:

    No, not at this time.

  • Question: April 17, 2017

    In the funding announcement on pg 33 there is a funding table that indicates that year one (FY17) is anticipated at $500K. Does this mean from 9/1/17-9/30/17 (one month) or from 9/1/17-8/30/18 (one year)?

    Answer:

    This funding amount is intended to cover the remainder of FY17 after award, notionally 9/1/17 - 9/30/17. The cost summary tables (PA section II.D.2, PA pgs 39-40) required for the Whitepaper ask for a Year 1 -5 budget estimate, where Year 1 is the first 12 months of the program, etc.

  • Question: April 11, 2017

    I understand that new research on computing hardware is not part of the scope of this CRA. However, distributed processing plays a significant role in the discussion of RA3. Will research on orchestrating this processing (e.g., assigning, scheduling, migrating, expressing, etc) on the underlying heterogeneous computing resources are within the scope of RA3?

    Answer:

    Distributed asynchronous processing is a complex problem and one that impacts not only RA3, but also RA2 and RA1. Research on orchestrating distributed processing and analytics is a necessary concern for IoBT discovery/composition/adaptation and autonomic service execution, thus characteristic elements of distributed processing can be considered within the scope of the PA.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    The question is whether an organization not proposing as LRO can be proposed as more than one LRAO in a Whitepaper/Proposal?

    Answer:

    Each Research Area will be led by a different Lead Research Area Organization (LRAO), one of which could also be the Lead Research Organization (LRO). Together the LRO and LRAOs make up the Consortium. The same entity cannot be the LRAO for more than one Research Area. Researchers from any Consortium Member may participate in the research undertaken within any of the three Research Area.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Will research in new hardware supporting new computing paradigms of interest?

    Answer:

    New hardware is not a focus. We have identified gaps and challenges in the PA, but we look forward to submissions that provide an innovative take on the gaps, challenges, priorities, and research plans within the scope of each research area and cross-cutting research issue.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    In a 5-10 year program, is there scope to research fundamental new computing architectures and technologies suitable for AI and ML?

    Answer:

    The broad scope won’t change, but the research tasks are expected to change over time. We look forward to your innovative take on gaps, challenges and priorities, and research plans.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Is industry a required participant?

    Answer:

    No.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    For each area, we will have an LRAO leading. Do all team members from that organization necessarily belong to that particular area? In other words, can we have organization X leading an area with a member as the lead, and have other members from X participating under other areas led by other institutions Y and Z? Or should each area be comprised primarily of members from the LRAO with additional subawardees?

    Answer:

    Researchers from any Consortium Member may participate in the research undertaken within any of the three Research Areas.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    How many teams will be awarded?

    Answer:

    One.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What does significant government involvement mean?

    Answer:

    This is a collaborative alliance between the academia-industry-government triad. Direct and continuing collaboration with government researchers will be ongoing for the life of the CRA. ARL researchers will collaborate in alignment with ARL mission activities.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What “battlefield” data will be available?

    Answer:

    Relevant data may be made available, as appropriate, for proposed research.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What sorts of activities are anticipated under 6.2 budget area 2? It was mentioned in the programmatic section, but not the technical one.

    Answer:

    6.2 should focus on applied research, relevant to the applicant’s proposed research, but only under the enhanced funding, should that funding become available. The enhanced funding should only be addressed in the Proposal (if invited), not the Whitepaper.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    The Chicago location was listed as a future site; what is the timeline on that?

    Answer:

    The ARL Central expansion is underway and will continue into the future.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Could you please explain the “hub-and-spoke” model? It was mentioned but not laid out in any detail.

    Answer:

    This is a model of ARL expansion for offices in other locations to enhance regional engagement with local organizations.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Does the CCRI focus area require an LRAO like the other RAs?

    Answer:

    The CCRI is not a RA and does not require a LRAO. It is embedded in and integrated throughout each RA.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Is it ok to list names of ARL researchers as part of joint papers listed in biography section or other citations?

    Answer:

    Yes, if relevant.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Will ARL people be separately funded?

    Answer:

    Yes, the government will fund their own researchers separately. ARL researchers will collaborate in alignment with ARL mission activities. Proposers should only describe their own research plans, as outlined in the PA.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Will an attendee list be provided?

    Answer:

    No. Opportunity Day attendees are encouraged to register as an interested vender on the website.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    You said meetings would be held once a year with awardees…where at?

    Answer:

    This is a collaborative engagement and collaboration may require more than one meeting. Program meetings may be held in various locations.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Should an interactive IoBT include offensive capability, not just security?

    Answer:

    From a basic research and technical perspective, it may be hard to differentiate offensive and defensive mechanisms, but this is a 6.1 basic research, unclassified, program and should focus on underlying theoretical, modelling, or algorithmic approaches.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Are there staff at ARL West who could be involved with IoBT? If so, who?

    Answer:

    We will not identify any ARL scientist and engineers who will potentially be involved.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What do you see as the key areas for collaboration between IoBT and DCIST?

    Answer:

    DCIST is under acquisition. Post award, we will look for opportunities to collaborate with other CRAs, including DCIST, as well as other ARL programs (internal and external).

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Does every RA need to address CCRI?

    Answer:

    Yes.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What are the time scales of interest for the analytics?

    Answer:

    They are varied. The analytics must cope with large variations in time scales.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What is the role foreseen for industry participants in a consortium? Handling of confidential/secret data or do they have to participate in basic research?

    Answer:

    Industry can be a Lead Research Area Organization (LRAO) or a subawardee. The Lead Research Organization (LRO) must be an institution of higher education. All researchers must be substantially engaged in 6.1 basic research. Research will all be unclassified.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Is there an emphasis on a certain type of Army campaign? Defense vs. offense vs. humanitarian?

    Answer:

    No, all are important. The Army is engaged in a diverse range of operations.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    How would you describe a successful program? What would be “ideal” outcomes? What are examples of successful transitions?

    Answer:

    Defining metrics of success is part of the management plan (see 6h of PA and page 42). The goal of the CRA is to advance the state-of-the-art in IoBT through academia-industry-government collaboration. Basic science that moves through applied research, to a fielded system, product, program of record or commercial products that meet Army needs are examples of successful transitions.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Does the PM have to be a U.S. citizen? Are there citizenship limitations on students supported by this program?

    Answer:

    No, the PM does not have to be a U.S. citizen. The PM role is described on page 29 (eminent stature experience & leadership skills). In general, there are no limitations on students that might be supported by this program, but there may be constraints on their access to some facilities or resources.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Understand that sensors are not a focus of the CRA. Could you comment on interest of remote powering of sensors via RF etc.?

    Answer:

    Fabrication of better/faster sensors is not a focus. Similarly, remote powering of sensors is not a sole focus.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What Army priorities have driven this CRA? That is, has there been a capability gap identified by the Army? If so, by who?

    Answer:

    The Army has identified IoBT as a capability gap, as described in the PA. We have identified gaps and challenges, examples of which are provided in the PA, but we look forward to submissions that provide an innovative take on the gaps, challenges, and priorities within the scope of each research area and cross-cutting research issue.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Is IoBT associated with the Army’s “multi domain” concept? If so, please elaborate so we can appreciate the “B” in IoBT?

    Answer:

    The Army has identified IoBT as a capability gap, as described in the PA. We have identified gaps and challenges, examples of which are provided in the PA, but we look forward to submissions that provide an innovative take on the gaps, challenges, and priorities within the scope of each research area and cross-cutting research issue.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Can the whitepaper and/or proposal have pages that do not count toward the page count such as: cover, table of contents/figures, acronym list?

    Answer:

    The cover does not count towards the page count, but the table of contents/figures and acronym list do count towards the page count and limits as specified in the PA.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Is the reference list/bibliography included in the page limit of the technical description of the whitepaper?

    Answer:

    No.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    I understand this is a basic research oriented program, but can we involve industry/non-profit subawardees that provide experimentation, prototyping and infrastructure support (instead of basic research capabilities)?

    Answer:

    The funding and scope of the program is limited to basic research with potentially some applied research should such (enhanced) funding become available.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Question on cost proposal. Since the cooperative agreement may change the scope from year to year, how specific can or should the cost proposal be?

    Answer:

    The scope won’t change, but the research tasks are expected to change over time. Only limited cost information is needed for the whitepaper, as described in the PA. A more detailed cost proposal is required (to include both the core and enhanced funding) if the Applicant is invited to submit a Proposal.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Global participation question. Other than designated state sponsors of terrorism, are collaborators from any other nations specifically encouraged or discouraged (e.g., NATO, EU, China, Russia, South Africa)?

    Answer:

    No, we seek the best research wherever it exists.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Can an organization participate in multiple proposals?

    Answer:

    Yes.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    This is regarding eligible institutions. Grants.gov indicates it as “private institutions of higher education”. PA notes that consortium members as “private sector and government researchers”. Are only private institutions of higher education allowed?

    Answer:

    The Lead Research Organization (LRO) must be an institution of higher education, per the PA. Other Consortium Members may be institutions of higher education, industrial, or non-profit organizations. The LRO must submit the Whitepaper and if invited, the Proposal, in grants.gov on behalf of the other members of the Consortium.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Can a team that was invited to submit a proposal add/delete team members?

    Answer:

    Yes, you may choose to do so and will have the benefit of feedback from the Whitepaper.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Can foreign institutions be involved as subawardees? If so, is there a preference for NATO countries?

    Answer:

    Yes, foreign institutions can be involved as subawardees. There is no preference for NATO countries; we seek the best research wherever it exists.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Will you keep the number of invitations for proposals to a small number like 3 or 4 or even better, maybe only 2?

    Answer:

    We will limit this to the most highly rated submissions with no specific number limit.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Should all subawardees be identified in the whitepaper or left as broad open areas where partners will be later identified?

    Answer:

    It is not necessary to identify all subawardees in the Whitepaper, however there needs to be enough information on the subawardees provided in the Whitepaper to evaluate it in accordance with the evaluation factors outlined in the PA (e.g., scientific merit, qualification of staff).

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    To what extent will the IPP be shaped by the specifics of the proposed research plan of the selected consortium?

    Answer:

    The IPP will be based substantially on the Proposal received from the Consortium selected for Award.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Will ARL make teaming suggestions after the white paper evaluation (e.g., Teams A & B merge, etc.)?

    Answer:

    No suggestions will be provided. Feedback, to those invited for a full proposal, will consist of detailed strengths and weaknesses of the Whitepaper, but no solutions will be recommended. Feedback will only be provided to those invited to submit a Proposal.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Who owns the intellectual property researched in the alliance? Are patents allowed or encouraged?

    Answer:

    The government gets license rights to all IP developed with government funding. Yes, again government will get the license and joint patents will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    What is the overlap of the IoBT CRA with CRA004 (DCIST)?

    Answer:

    Each CRA stands on its own.

  • Question: April 10, 2017

    Can an academic institution be on both IoBT CRA and CRA004 (DCIST)?

    Answer:

    Yes.

  • Question: April 04, 2017

    Must the white paper be submitted by an institutional representative or can the PI submit the white paper on his/her own? I do not see that institutional approval is required. Thank you.

    Answer:

    The LRO will be submitting the Whitepaper on behalf of the Consortium. This can be done by any appropriate designated representative of the LRO.

  • Question: April 03, 2017

    Can a researcher participate in multiple groups submitting a white paper? Is that discouraged?

    Answer:

    Yes. No.

  • Question: April 03, 2017

    Can a team of (academic) researchers submit a whitepaper without being part of a consortium, with the anticipation that this team will join or be placed in a consortium should the submitted whitepaper be view favorably?

    Answer:

    No. Each Whitepaper must be submitted from a team, consisting of Consortium Members (LRO and LRAOs) and any subawardees, as described in the PA.

  • Question: March 31, 2017

    While it is clear there must be an LRAO for each RA, should a white paper/proposal also include a "lead" for the CCRI? If so, what should the lead be called?

    Answer:

    The CCRI is not a RA and does not require a LRAO. It is embedded in and integrated throughout each RA.

  • Question: March 15, 2017

    Can the CCRI have a lead institution as part of the consortium (in addition to the three area leads and a potentially different overall lead)? This would make the total number of consortium institutions five. Or is it only the three areas plus possibly an overall lead?

    Answer:

    The CCRI is not considered a separate Research Area. The Consortium must be led by the Lead Research Organization (LRO). Each Research Area will be led by a different Lead Research Area Organization (LRAO), one of which could also be the LRO. Together the LRO and LRAOs make up the Consortium.

  • Question: March 14, 2017

    Is there guidance on approximate targets or best practices on the balance between the number of researchers in consortium organizations versus sub-awardees?

    Answer:

    The number of researchers, and balance between Consortium Members and sub-awardees, should be allocated to ensure adequate availability, qualifications, experience and critical mass to make fundamental progress in the proposed research, subject to the overall estimated funding available.

  • Question: March 14, 2017

    The solicitation specifies three research areas plus a CCRI. Could you please confirm that the CCRI is not considered a research area? In other words, only three research area lead institutions are part of the consortium?

    Answer:

    The CCRI is not considered a separate Research Area. The Consortium must be led by the Lead Research Organization (LRO). Each Research Area will be led by a different Lead Research Area Organization (LRAO), one of which could also be the LRO. Together the LRO and LRAOs make up the Consortium.

  • Question: March 10, 2017

    Is Registration on your website required to participate via the webcast only? Thank you.

    Answer:

    No, the website registration is required for folks who want to participate "in-person" in the IoBT Opportunity Day on 27 Mar 17.

Return to the Internet of Battlefield Things (IOBT) page.

 

Last Update / Reviewed: February 10, 2017