1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Draft NIST Guidance Highlights Supply Chain Fundamentals as Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management

Draft NIST Guidance Highlights Supply Chain Fundamentals as Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.21.20

Last week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the draft NISTIR 8276 “Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management” providing Key Practices and related recommendations for monitoring, controlling, and understanding how to conduct cyber – supply chain risk management (C-SCRM). The Eight Key Practices are general and apply equally, in practice, to both traditional supply chain management and C-SCRM, including:

  • Integrating SCRM across the organization,
  • Understanding the organization’s supply chain, and
  • Assessing and monitoring SCRM throughout the supplier relationship. 

Specific guidance includes, among others:

  • Increasing Board involvement in C-SCRM;
  • Understanding the cyber relationship with suppliers, including whether they process critical data; and
  • Using third-party assessments to evaluate suppliers.

The guidance should serve to remind organizations of the need to know their supply chain well and to have a purposeful approach to its management. Organizations have an opportunity to comment on this draft guidance until March 4, 2020.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...

View All Insights