DCMA’s Cybersecurity Oversight Takes Shape: Revised CPSR Guidebook Outlines DFARS Safeguarding Clause Audit Standards
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.06.19
Following guidance issued by Under Secretary of Defense Lord, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) has revised its Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) Guidebook to incorporate new standards DCMA auditors will use to assess contractor supply chain management under the DFARS Safeguarding Clause 252.204-7012. Notably, the new standards require contractors to “validate” that their subcontractors have information systems “that can receive and protect” Covered Defense Information (CDI) and to “determine” whether subcontractor systems are “acceptable.” Other new standards require contractors to demonstrate:
- How CDI is properly marked and securely transferred to subcontractors; and
- How subcontractor notifications regarding requests to vary from the NIST requirements and the submission of cyber incident reports are managed and documented.
The revisions also emphasize that 252.204-7012 is not an indiscriminate flowdown and applies only where the subcontractor will be utilized for operationally critical support or performing duties that involve CDI.
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
