DCMA Revises Cyber Supply Chain Review: Updated Guidebook Modifies Audit Standards
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.19
As anticipated, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) revised its Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) Guidebook as of June 14, 2019, with the most significant updates to Appendix 24, Supply Chain Management Process, to further address supply chain compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012. As we previously noted, the CPSR Guidebook was revised earlier this year to address DoD guidance related to management and oversight of the supply chain in connection with DFARS 252.204-7012.
While much of the CPSR review criteria remain the same, noteworthy revisions include:
- Asking contractors to “show how they have determined” that their subcontractors have an adequate information system that can handle Covered Defense Information, versus the prior guidance to ask contractors to “validate” the adequacy of subcontractor systems.
- Broadening supply chain requirements by applying the Guidebook’s language to “subcontractors,” rather than just “first tier suppliers” as in the prior version.
- Clarifying that the CPSR review is focused only on the protection of “Covered Defense Information” and not “Controlled Unclassified Information” more broadly.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
