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 | 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

