In Part I of this series we introduced readers to what Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is understood to consist of under the CUI Program at 32 CFR pt. 2002, differentiating and safeguarding CUI, CUI Program Authority and Control, and CUI policy as promulgated under the U.S. Department of Defense CUI Program. (See 66 GC ¶
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program will become operational at some point in fiscal year 2025. In October, the DOD issued a Final Rule to address evolving cybersecurity requirements and cyber threats while defining the security controls that DOD intends defense contractors and subcontractors to implement. The program will require
The arrival of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program will bring redefining changes to all companies selling to the DoD, suggest Alex Major and Cara Wulf in this Feature Comment for The Government Contractor.
Sequels are rarely better than the films that precede them, and yet, sometimes a story is just too compelling to be limited to just one film. At the tail end of a summer full of Hollywood sequels, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a long-gestating sequel of its own. On August 15, 2024, DoD published a Proposed Rule that would revise the DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 into DoD contracts in the near(ish) future. This follows a December 2023 Proposed Rule, discussed here, establishing the CMMC 2.0 requirements in broad strokes. In this latest Proposed Rule, DoD proposes several changes to the DFARS that would do the following:Continue Reading CMMC and DFARS 252.204-7021—Is the Sequel Better than the Original?
Johnny, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard
’Cause Hell’s broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win, you get this shiny fiddle made of gold
But if you lose the Devil gets your soul
~ The Charlie Daniels Band
Some might say there’s little difference between dealing with the devil and being a federal contractor. And for the unwary or unprepared, that may not be far off. Federal contracting comes with a litany of “fine print” that would make “Old Scratch” proud. However, as most savvy contractors recognize, it’s all hiding in plain sight, with the devil in the details. Take, for example, the cybersecurity requirements found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) at 52.204-21 and the Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement (DFARS) at 252.204-7012, -7019, and -7020. These requirements have been the topic of countless articles, trainings, webinars, whole conferences, etc., so it is surprising while simultaneously not surprising that they form the basis of a federal False Claims Act (FCA) claim the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed in its complaint in intervention.Continue Reading DOJ Went Down to Georgia: Lessons Learned from Recent Cybersecurity Enforcement Actions
On October 25, 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a Proposed Rule amending the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and permanently authorizing the DoD Mentor-Protégé Program (DoD MP Program). In addition, the Proposed Rule makes several changes to the program—the most prominent of which include (a) lowering barriers to entry and (b) adding additional benefits for prospective mentors and protégés. Before we dive in to the Proposed Rule, a brief history of the DoD MP Program is in order.Continue Reading DoD Mentor-Protégé Program Solidified under Proposed Rule
On May 12, 2021, the Biden administration unveiled a rather expansive executive order intent on “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity.” The lengthy and sweeping order is a comprehensive national cybersecurity overhaul. In addition to requiring significant improvements to the cybersecurity posture of the Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies, the order also prescribes:
The Department of Defense (DoD) has finalized regulations prohibiting the use of telecommunications equipment or services from Chinese entities or from entities that are owned or controlled by either the People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation. The Final Rule, which went into effect on Friday, January 15, 2021, prohibits the DoD from buying or using banned telecommunications equipment and services that are a “substantial or essential component of any system” or that constitute a “critical technology.”
Continue Reading Changes to DoD Regulations Banning Chinese Telecommunications Equipment and Services Offer Potential Opportunities for Contractors
When entering a casino, professional gamblers understand that “the house doesn’t beat the player. It just gives him the opportunity to beat himself.” This axiom is precisely why in the long run casinos make money, while gamblers see their bank accounts dwindle. The same holds true in the corporate world with respect to the creation, implementation, and maintenance of compliance programs. A company gambling on its compliance obligations does so at its own peril and must understand exactly what the “House” expects. If it doesn’t, then that company may join the unfortunate few that roll the dice or spin the wheel and come up with snake eyes or double zeros. That risk is multiplied if the company betting on sufficient compliance is receiving federal dollars, where failure can lead to catastrophic civil and criminal liability. Fortunately, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has published its version of “House Rules” that it is supposed to consult when examining whether to investigate, prosecute, or settle criminal charges against a company. In this respect, DOJ prosecutors are tasked with looking at specific factors outlined in the “Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations” (“Principles”) section of the Justice Manual. Among other factors, these Principles instruct DOJ prosecutors to consider “the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at the time of the offense, as well as at the time of a charging decision.” In furtherance of this mandate, the DOJ’s Criminal Division issued revised guidance on June 1, 2020, regarding the specific factors DOJ prosecutors should consider in making that evaluation. This updated version of the DOJ’s “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Guidance) clarifies and modifies certain areas of the version last updated in April 2019. Among other noteworthy revisions, the Guidance underscores the need for companies to ensure their corporate compliance program is:
Continue Reading Gambling on Compliance? DOJ Updates the House Rules on Corporate Compliance Program Expectations
Contracting with the Department of Defense (DoD) can provide healthy opportunities for businesses of all sizes. That said, it is no secret that contractors without the cash resources to finance their performance while awaiting payment from the Government may find themselves swallowed whole by their contractual obligations. Many defense contracts are long-term endeavors; consequently, a contractor’s sustainability and profitability can be impacted by the sapping of available manpower while also requiring significant capital investment to manage material, labor, overhead, and other expenses incurred when performing a contract. In many cases, the upfront financial investment required serves as a barrier to entry into the government marketplace for nontraditional defense contractors. However, the DoD has recently unearthed and reanimated one of the more impressive dinosaurs buried in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Welcome to the world of performance-based payments (PBPs).
Continue Reading The Evolution of Contract Financing: Resurrecting Performance-Based Payments Under Fixed-Price Contracts