On June 21, 2023, DHS published a final rule that amends the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) both by modifying the existing regulations through removing and updating existing clauses and by adding new contract clauses to include certain requirements for the safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).  The final rule, first released in proposed form by DHS in January 2017, implements security and privacy measures to safeguard CUI and facilitates improved incident reporting to DHS .  DHS has said the new measures are “necessary because of the urgent need to protect CUI and respond appropriately when DHS contractors experience incidents with DHS information,” in light of “[p]ersistent and pervasive high-profile breaches of Federal information” in government contracts.

Below we summarize certain key requirements from the rule, consider how the new DHS rule may impact government contractors, and discuss best practices for contractors impacted by the rule.

Department of Homeland Security Final Rule on Safeguarding CUI

At a high level, the rule “strengthens and expands existing HSAR language to ensure adequate security when: (1) contractor and/or subcontractor employees will have access to CUI; (2) CUI will be collected or maintained on behalf of the agency; or (3) Federal information systems, which include contractor information systems operated on behalf of the agency, are used to collect, process, store, or transmit CUI.”  Government contractors should take particular note of the three DHS contract clauses covered by the rule and discussed in more detail below.

3052.204–71 Contractor Employee Access Clause

The first contract clause in the DHS rule concerns contractor employee access to CUI.  The clause is required in DHS contracts when contractor and/or subcontractor personnel require “recurring access to government facilities or access to CUI.”  In particular, “Contractor employees” working on contracts that incorporate the clause will be required to “complete such forms as may be necessary for security or other reasons, including the conduct of background investigations to determine suitability” and to submit such forms as directed by the contracting officer.  The contracting officer will have the authority to require to the contractor to prohibit individuals from working on the contract if determined to be contrary to the public interest for any reason, including carelessness and incompetence.  Additionally, “[a]ll Contractor employees requiring recurring access to government facilities or access to CUI or information resources are required to have a favorably adjudicated background investigation prior to commencing work [on their respective contracts] unless this requirement is waived under departmental procedures.”  Additional security requirements apply where contractor employees need access to Federal information systems during contract performance.

 The clause also contains a very broad non-disclosure prohibition stating that contractors  “shall not disclose, orally or in writing, CUI for any other purpose to any person unless authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.”  Given the continuing challenge that contractors (and the government) face with regard to identifying which data relating to a contract qualifies as CUI, many contractors may default to taking an expansive view of what qualifies as CUI.  Moreover, this provision imposes training requirements addressing the protection and disclosure of CUI on contractor employees who will access CUI under the contract.  This training must take place no later than 60 days after contract award, with refresher training every two years.  Finally, this clause must be flowed down to all subcontractors “at any tier where the subcontractor may have access to government facilities, CUI, or information resources.”  

3052.204–72 and ALT.1 Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information Clause

The second contract clause imposes precautions that contractors must take to safeguard and properly handle CUI, incident reporting and response requirements, and a requirement to sanitize government and government-activity related files and information upon conclusion of the contract.  The base clause applies when contractor and/or subcontractor employees will have access to CUI; or CUI will be collected or maintained on behalf of DHS.  The ALT 1 version of the clause applies to information system that a contractor is operating on behalf of DHS, which is used to collect, process, store, or transmit CUI. Under the ALT 1 version of the clause, contractors cannot operate a system on behalf of DHS until they receive an authority to operation (ATO).

Regarding the handling of CUI, “Contractors and subcontractors must provide adequate security to protect CUI from unauthorized access and disclosure.”  In turn, the regulations define “Adequate security” to mean compliance with “DHS policies and procedures in effect at the time of contract award.”  Additionally, the clause prohibits contractors from maintaining Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (SPII) in their invoicing, billing, or other recordkeeping systems.  The clause requires contractors to report known or suspected incidents involving Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or SPII within 1 hour of discovery, and other incidents within 8 hours of discovery.  It further specifies that CUI must only be transmitted via email through encrypted means or within secure communications systems.  The safeguarding requirements include a link to DHS policies and procedures in place at the time of award, which include numerous directives, handbooks, guidelines, and templates.  

Although HSAR 3052.204–72 addresses obligations of contractors employees who access CUI, it specifically reserves any statement as to  security safeguards on nonfederal  information systems that store, process, or transmit CUI, indicating that “[t]he rule is intentionally silent on the security requirements applicable to nonfederal information systems because NARA is working with the FAR Councils, in which DHS is a participant, to develop a FAR CUI rule that addresses the requirements nonfederal information systems must meet before processing, storing, or transmitting CUI.”  Instead, the clause formalizes certain processes where a contract operates an information system on behalf of a federal agency that is used to store, process, or transmit CUI (i.e., federal information systems), including ATO procedures and continuous monitoring obligations.

3052.204–73 Notification and Credit Monitoring Requirements for Personally Identifiable Information Incidents Clause

The third, and final, contract clause relates to notification and credit monitoring requirements for PII.  After an incident involving PII or SPII occurs, the clause requires contractors to “notify any individual whose PII or SPII was either under the control of the Contractor or resided in an information system under control of the Contractor at the time the incident occurred” within 5 business days of being directed to do so by their Contracting Officer.  The rule presumably is targeting DHS employee PII or SPII that is “under the control of the Contractor” or “resid[es] in an information system under control of the Contractor”, rather than contractor employee information. 

The final rule will take effect thirty days after its publication in the Federal Register, on July 21, 2023.

Takeaways for Government Contractors

DHS’s new final rule is the most recent cybersecurity regulation at the federal level, and it explicitly recognizes that additional FAR rules are expected.  Its publication, however, highlights several important takeaways for those in the contractor community.

Employee Vetting Requirements.

The rule imposes stringent vetting requirements where contractor employees require access to CUI in performance of a DHS contract.  This is a broad requirement that could potentially impact a large portion of a contractor’s workforce where those employees perform work for DHS.  Additionally, the rule leaves open the possibility that vetting requirements may vary by contract.  Contractors should ensure that the costs of these efforts are appropriately built into their cost or pricing proposal.  Contractors should also develop a clear understanding of who within their workforce could potentially access CUI relating to a DHS contract (including third parties), and take steps to ensure that access is appropriately restricted to those employees unless they are read on to the contract.

Reporting Requirements.

The rule significantly shortens applicable incident reporting timelines as compared to other agencies.  For example, the Department of Defense requires contractors to report cybersecurity incidents within 72 hours of discovery.  As noted above, the DHS rule requires incidents to be reported within 8 hours of discovery, and incidents involving PII or SPII within 1 hour of discovery.  Contractors should accordingly take steps to revise their incident reporting policies appropriately to ensure that these timeframes are met.

Identification of CUI.

The significant safeguarding, incident reporting, training, and background investigation requirements imposed by this rule are all premised on contractors being able to determine which employees are accessing CUI, including which data the contractor generates during performance of a contract qualifies as CUI.  Effective communication both with the government and contractor employees will be necessary to ensure that contractors and the government are aligned on which data are CUI, thereby triggering some of these requirements.

Forthcoming FAR Rules.

This rule foreshadows the publication of three long-awaited FAR rules.  The first is a rule (FAR Case 2017-016) that would provide implementing regulations to address agency policies for “designating, safeguarding, disseminating, marking, decontrolling and disposing of CUI.”  As noted above, a common understanding of what data qualifies as CUI is the cornerstone to safeguarding the data and to recognizing when an incident occurs.  In addition, two other related FAR rules are expected to “standardiz[e]common cybersecurity contractual requirements across Federal agencies (FAR Case 2021-019),” and impose Executive Branch-wide requirements for reporting cyber incidents and sharing information about cyber threats (FAR Case 2021-017).  As of June 23, 2023, drafts of all three proposed rules had been sent to OIRA for final review before publication.  Contractors should continue to track the progress of these three key proposed rules, as they will supplement DHS’s new final rule and also impose common baseline cybersecurity requirements for all federal agencies.

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 and cybersecurity requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information. 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 Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the proposed Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under the October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises defense and civilian contractors on federal contracting compliance and on civil and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with clients that hold defense and intelligence community contracts…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises defense and civilian contractors on federal contracting compliance and on civil and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with clients that hold defense and intelligence community contracts and subcontracts, and has recognized expertise in national security related matters, including those matters that relate to federal cybersecurity and supply chain security. Ryan also advises on FAR and DFARS compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting.  He speaks and writes regularly on government contracts and cybersecurity topics, drawing significantly on his prior experience in government to provide insight on the practical implications of regulations.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

  • Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012 and 252.204-7020; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; software and artificial intelligence security, attestations, and bill of materials requirements; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • 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 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 developed and implemented government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year. While in government, Ryan worked on 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, GSA Schedules and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.

Additionally, in the wake of significant incidents affecting the program, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared employees and contractors. These efforts resulted in the establishment of a new federal bureau to conduct and manage background investigations.

Photo of Emma Merrill-Grubb Emma Merrill-Grubb

Emma Merrill-Grubb is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and member of the Government Contracts practice group. Emma advises clients on a broad range of issues related to government contracting, including regulatory advising, bid protests, transactional matters. She maintains an active…

Emma Merrill-Grubb is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and member of the Government Contracts practice group. Emma advises clients on a broad range of issues related to government contracting, including regulatory advising, bid protests, transactional matters. She maintains an active pro bono practice.