1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |“Miss Me with Rev. 3,” Says DoD: DoD Issues Class Deviation Linking DFARS 7012 to NIST SP 800-171, Rev. 2

“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 | 3 min read | 10.07.25

Blocking the Blocked Income Rules? Loper Bright’s influence over the Eighth Circuit’s 3M decision.

On October 1, 2025, the Eighth Circuit decided 3M Co. v. Commissioner in the taxpayer’s favor, based on its application of Loper Bright. The question presented in the case was whether the IRS had the authority to reallocate royalty income to a U.S. parent company that its foreign subsidiary was prohibited from paying under foreign law. The court held that the best interpretation of the governing statute did not permit the IRS’s reallocation....

View All Insights