As described in an earlier blog post, the Department of Defense (DoD) released an Interim Rule on September 29, 2020 that address DoD’s increased requirements for assessing whether contractors are compliant with the 110 security controls in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 (NIST 800-171).[1]  Under this new Interim Rule, DoD offerors must have a current assessment on file with DoD to document their compliance with NIST 800-171 before they can be eligible to be considered for award.  The Interim Rule specifically requires contractors to ensure that a summary score from an assessment conducted under DoD’s NIST 800-171 Assessment Methodology is submitted into a DoD enterprise application called the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).[2]  We evaluate below how DoD may use the NIST 800-171 assessment scores in SPRS, as well as how updates to SPRS more generally are likely to impact contractors.

Recent DoD Actions

DoD has recently taken two little noticed actions that may provide some insight into how DoD plans to use the NIST 800-171 assessment scores that are entered into SPRS.  First, three months before the Interim Rule was published, DoD added a number of entries to its Frequently Asked Questions relating to contractor cybersecurity requirements.  The updated FAQs noted that scores under DoD’s Assessment Methodology were intended to be used to support “Basic,” “Medium,” and “High” NIST 800-171 assessments and to provide “an objective assessment of a contractor’s NIST 800-171 implementation status.”  DoD also clarified that it does not plan to establish a passing score threshold that contractors need to achieve in order to secure DoD contracts.  Rather, DoD indicated with respect to NIST 800-171 assessment scores that “this is essentially a risk decision,” and that “[a] decision to accept the risk should remain with the Requiring Activity.”[3]

Second, a Proposed Rule that DoD published on August 31, 2020 is consistent with these FAQs and provides additional insight into DoD’s plans for SPRS.  The Proposed Rule expands SPRS from its current limited use in simplified acquisitions to a required evaluation factor for all solicitations for supplies and services, including those for commercial items.  The Proposed Rule also amends the DFARS by requiring contracting officers to use the supplier risk assessments generated in SPRS as a factor in determining responsibility at DFARS 209.105–1 to “reduce[] supply chain risk.”  Under the Proposed Rule, SPRS would generate three types of risk assessments using SPRS Evaluation Criteria:

  • Item Risk. SPRS collects data to generate the probability that a product or service, based on intended use, will introduce counterfeit or nonconforming material entering the DoD supply chain.
  • Price Risk. SPRS collects historical pricing data from Government sources and applies a common statistical method to calculate the average price paid for a product or services, generating a price range that contracting officers can use in the evaluation of fair and reasonable pricing to determine whether a price is high, low or “within range.”
  • Supplier Risk. SPRS calculates a supplier risk score, for contracting officers to compare competing suppliers.  This score includes three years of relevant supplier performance information from existing Government data sources.

In addition to these risk assessment scores, the Proposed Rule states that COs “may consider any other available and relevant information when evaluating a quotation or an offer.”  Taken together, it is possible that the Basic NIST 800-171 Assessment scores that contractors will enter into SPRS and the Medium and High NIST 800-171 Assessment scores entered by DoD could factor into the types of calculated risk analyses described in the Proposed Rule that are generated by SPRS.  It is also possible that DoD could create new criteria or simply let the assessment scores stand alone in the SPRS.  How much of a factor the assessment scores will be in the SPRS analyses remains unclear.

Relationship to Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC)

On September 1, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget issued an interim final rule implementing the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act.  Our client alert addressing this interim rule can be found here.  This Rule authorizes the Executive Branch to issue exclusion and removal orders for products and sources that it determines represent a security risk.  Overseeing this process is the new Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC), which will be charged with the evaluation process.  The review process can be triggered from a referral of the FASC or any member of the FASC; upon the written request of any U.S. Government body; or based on information submitted to the FASC by any individual or non-federal entity that the FASC determines to be credible.  Presumably information in the SPRS could provide a basis for a review.  Indeed, the Rule mandates that “Executive agencies must expeditiously submit supply chain risk information to the [FASC’s Information Sharing Agency]… when… [a]n executive agency has determined there is a reasonable basis to conclude a substantial supply chain risk associated with a source, covered procurement, or covered article exists.”[4]  However, the precise interaction between the FASC and SPRS remains unclear.

Impact on Contractors 

Although there are numerous clues as to how SPRS may impact future procurements, much remains to be clarified.  Supply chain issues are clearly top of mind for the Government and oversight of these risks is tightening in response to the evolving threat.  Further, the type of risk data that SPRS is compiling, as well as the generated risk assessments that it creates, indicate that the DoD is increasingly focused on collecting and using data to make decisions about its supply chain.  Accordingly, contractors should continue to follow the development of the SPRS Interim Rule and the actions of the FASC to ensure that they are aware of all of the information that the Government may use to make a procurement decision.

 

 

[1] The Interim Rule modifies the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and becomes effective on November 30, 2020.

[2] Prior to this rule, SPRS was used only to provide quality and delivery data to calculate “on time” delivery scores and quality classifications for simplified acquisitions.

[3] Question and Answer No. 126.

[4] 41 CFR § 201.202(b).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Susan B. Cassidy Susan B. Cassidy

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors…

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors on compliance with FAR and DFARS requirements, with a special expertise in supply chain, cybersecurity and FedRAMP requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information, as well as representing contractors facing allegations of cyber fraud under the False Claims Act. Susan relies on her expertise and experience with the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to help her clients navigate the complex regulatory intersection of cybersecurity, national security, and government contracts. She is Chambers rated in both Government Contracts and Government Contracts Cybersecurity. In 2023, Chambers USA quoted sources stating that “Susan’s in-house experience coupled with her deep understanding of the regulatory requirements is the perfect balance to navigate legal and commercial matters.”

Her clients range from new entrants into the federal procurement market to well established defense contractors and she provides compliance advices across a broad spectrum of procurement issues. Susan consistently remains at the forefront of legislative and regulatory changes in the procurement area, and in 2018, the National Law Review selected her as a “Go-to Thought Leader” on the topic of Cybersecurity for Government Contractors.

In her work with global, national, and start-up contractors, Susan advises companies on all aspects of government supply chain issues including:

  • Government cybersecurity requirements, including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements,
  • Evolving sourcing issues such as Section 889, counterfeit part requirements, Section 5949 and limitations on sourcing from China
  • Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) regulations and product exclusions,
  • Controlled unclassified information (CUI) obligations, and
  • M&A government cybersecurity due diligence.

Susan has an active internal investigations practice that assists clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

  • Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements,
  • Cyber incidents and data spills involving sensitive government information,
  • Allegations of violations of national security requirements, and
  • Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.

In addition to her counseling and investigatory practice, Susan has considerable litigation experience and has represented clients in bid protests, prime-subcontractor disputes, Administrative Procedure Act cases, and product liability litigation before federal courts, state courts, and administrative agencies.

Susan is a former Public Contract Law Procurement Division Co-Chair, former Co-Chair and current Vice-Chair of the ABA PCL Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Covington, Susan served as in-house senior counsel at Northrop Grumman Corporation and Motorola Incorporated.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain, artificial intelligence, and software development requirements.

Ryan also advises on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting, drawing on his prior experience in providing overall direction for the federal contracting system to offer insight on the practical implications of regulations. He has assisted industry clients with the resolution of complex civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, and he regularly speaks and writes on government contracts, cybersecurity, national security, and emerging technology topics.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

  • Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7020, and other agency cybersecurity requirements; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Software and artificial intelligence (AI) requirements, including federal secure software development frameworks and software security attestations; software bill of materials requirements; and current and forthcoming AI data disclosure, validation, and configuration requirements, including unique requirements that are applicable to the use of large language models (LLMs) and dual use foundation models.
  • Supply chain requirements, including Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act; restrictions on covered semiconductors and printed circuit boards; Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) restrictions; and federal exclusionary authorities, such as matters relating to the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC).
  • Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
  • Federal Cost Accounting Standards and FAR Part 31 allocation and reimbursement requirements.

Prior to joining Covington, Ryan served in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, where he focused on the development and implementation of government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year.  While in government, Ryan helped develop several contracting-related Executive Orders, and worked with White House and agency officials on regulatory and policy matters affecting contractor disclosure and agency responsibility determinations, labor and employment issues, IT contracting, commercial item acquisitions, performance contracting, schedule contracting and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.  Additionally, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared federal employees and contractors in the wake of significant issues affecting the program.  These efforts resulted in the establishment of a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency to conduct and manage background investigations.

Photo of Darby Rourick Darby Rourick

Darby Rourick advises defense and civilian contractors on a range of issues related to government contracting and has particular experience in federal cybersecurity and information technology supply chain issues. She has an active investigations practice and has experience representing clients in internal and…

Darby Rourick advises defense and civilian contractors on a range of issues related to government contracting and has particular experience in federal cybersecurity and information technology supply chain issues. She has an active investigations practice and has experience representing clients in internal and government investigations, including conducting witness interviews and managing government subpoena and CID responses. She also counsels clients on cybersecurity incident response; compliance with federal cybersecurity laws, regulations, and standards; supplier and subcontractor security issues; and cybersecurity related investigations.