DoD and GSA Take Aim at Supply Chain Risks
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.21
The Department of Defense (DoD) recently implemented additional procedures for the mitigation of cybersecurity risks in its supply chain. Designed to identify and mitigate cybersecurity and related supply chain risks throughout a program’s lifecycle, DoD Instruction 5000.90, Cybersecurity Acquisition Decision Authorities and Program Managers, requires program managers to:
- Assess contractors’ cybersecurity posture, including, where applicable, verifying compliance with the DoD’s newly introduced Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC);
- Consider the extent to which contractors have experienced “significant” incidents resulting in network breaches or data loss;
- Avoid program requirements that may necessitate the use of contractors or suppliers that are owned or controlled by a foreign adversary government or are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary government;
- Manage any supply chain risks associated with foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI); and
- Mitigate supply chain risks using a framework that prescribes escalating risk management actions across four risk tolerance levels.
Alongside the DoD, the General Services Administration (GSA) recently introduced, as part of a draft solicitation for the Polaris small business government-wide IT contract, its own Vendor Risk Assessment Program (VRAP). According to the draft solicitation, the VRAP is designed to identify, assess, and monitor supply chain risks associated with FOCI, cybersecurity, and other factors, such as financial performance.
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 | 08.25.26
DOJ Signals Increased Antitrust Scrutiny of Algorithmic Pricing in Willow Bridge Decision
Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26
Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

