DCMA Revises Cyber Supply Chain Review: Updated Guidebook Modifies Audit Standards
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.19
As anticipated, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) revised its Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) Guidebook as of June 14, 2019, with the most significant updates to Appendix 24, Supply Chain Management Process, to further address supply chain compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012. As we previously noted, the CPSR Guidebook was revised earlier this year to address DoD guidance related to management and oversight of the supply chain in connection with DFARS 252.204-7012.
While much of the CPSR review criteria remain the same, noteworthy revisions include:
- Asking contractors to “show how they have determined” that their subcontractors have an adequate information system that can handle Covered Defense Information, versus the prior guidance to ask contractors to “validate” the adequacy of subcontractor systems.
- Broadening supply chain requirements by applying the Guidebook’s language to “subcontractors,” rather than just “first tier suppliers” as in the prior version.
- Clarifying that the CPSR review is focused only on the protection of “Covered Defense Information” and not “Controlled Unclassified Information” more broadly.
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
