“Miss Me with Rev. 3,” Says DoD: DoD Issues Class Deviation Linking DFARS 7012 to NIST SP 800-171, Rev. 2
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.24
On May 2, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a class deviation to DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DFARS 7012), specifying that contractors subject to the clause must comply with NIST SP 800-171, Revision 2. The deviation (labeled Deviation 2024-O0013) will delay the incorporation of NIST SP 800-171, Revision 3—which is set to be finalized in the next few weeks—into DFARS 7012.
The standard version of DFARS 7012 does not identify a specific NIST SP 800-171 Revision number, and has been interpreted by DoD as requiring compliance with NIST SP 800-171’s most current Revision. But with Revision 3’s final release looming, DoD has directed contracting officers to use Deviation 2024-O0013 in place of the standard clause moving forward, linking DFARS 7012 to Revision 2 for the time being.
In a press release announcing the deviation, DoD stated that the “intent of this class deviation is to provide industry time for a more deliberate transition upon the forthcoming release of [NIST SP 800-171, Revision 3].”
It is unclear when DoD plans to adopt Revision 3. However, contractors should take advantage of DoD’s reprieve to get familiar with Revision 3, as the DoD has previously indicated that it intends to incorporate NIST SP 800-171’s newest revision into both DFARS 7012 and its forthcoming Cyber Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
