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 and 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 | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
