1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Uncontrolled Information: DoD Audit Finds Contractor Lapses in Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information

Uncontrolled Information: DoD Audit Finds Contractor Lapses in Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.02.19

The Department of Defense Inspector General has released a much-anticipated audit report regarding the protection of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on contractor networks.  Begun last summer at the Defense Secretary’s request, the audits found that contractors are not consistently implementing cybersecurity standard NIST SP 800-171, despite being required to do so under DFARS 252.204-7012.  The report calls particular attention to common shortcomings regarding multifactor authentication, strong passwords, vulnerability management, and removable media, among others.

The report recommends that DoD:

  • Verify that contractors are identifying, responding to, and reporting cyber incidents involving CUI;
  • Assess contractors’ ability to protect CUI as part of the solicitation process; and
  • Validate, at least annually, that contractors are complying with their contractual cybersecurity requirements.

These recommendations are consistent with recent DoD efforts to establish a “Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification” that would require contractors to be certified compliant with contractually-specified cybersecurity requirements to be eligible for award.

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