Upping the Cyber Oversight Ante: DoD Deploys DCMA to Audit Contractor Supply Chain Compliance
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.28.19
The Defense Department has unveiled plans to audit contractors’ supply chain compliance with the DFARS Safeguarding Clause 252.204-7012. Under the auspices of 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration, Under Secretary of Defense Ellen Lord has directed the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to review contractors’ purchasing systems with the intent of verifying compliance with the Safeguarding Clause’s flowdown requirements. Notably though, the scope of DCMA’s review appears broader than the Clause’s textual requirements. Specifically, DCMA will review contractor procedures to:
- Ensure that Tier 1 Level Suppliers are receiving properly marked Covered Defense Information (CDI), or instructions on how to do so; and
- “Assess compliance” of Tier 1 Level Suppliers with both the Clause and NIST SP 800-171.
The memorandum is the latest signal from the DoD that it views the Safeguarding Clause’s flowdown requirements as more than a check-the-box exercise and an increasingly important piece of its overall cybersecurity.
Contacts
Partner, 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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
