Navy Makes Waves By Increasing Cybersecurity Requirements for Select Defense Industrial Base Contractors
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.01.18
The Navy has recently issued a policy memorandum calling for heightened cybersecurity requirements and oversight for “critical” defense contractors handling covered defense information (CDI). The memo reflects a continued focus within the DoD on evaluating contractors’ compliance with the DFARS 252.204-7012 Clause, as well as a risk-based approach to going beyond it.
The memo expands the Clause requirements in several significant respects, including:
- Requiring fully implemented system security plans (SSPs) for government evaluation.
- Ensuring historically challenging cybersecurity requirements such as multifactor authentication are immediately met.
- Imposing new cybersecurity requirements such as encryption at rest.
- Requiring contractors to allow the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) to install “network sensors” on contractors’ information systems when NCIS intelligence detects a potential vulnerability.
Selected Navy contractors should receive notice of these new requirements before the end of the year and may begin considering potential cost recovery strategies, such as requests for equitable adjustments.
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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
