1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DoD Previews New Third-Party Cyber Certification Requirements

DoD Previews New Third-Party Cyber Certification Requirements

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.17.19

The Department of Defense is moving closer to a third-party certification to ensure compliance with its standard cybersecurity requirements – what is being called the “Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification” (CMMC). While still in the early stages of development, the CMMC would likely require all contractors subject to DFARS 252.204-7012 to obtain a certification issued by an independent third party stating that the contractor has sufficiently implemented its required cybersecurity controls. Holding this certification would be a “go/no-go” condition to compete for relevant DoD work. Although NIST SP 800-171 is the default cybersecurity standard currently required under -7012, DoD is also exploring the creation of a new standard that would govern the certification. DoD is projecting that the CMMC will start appearing in solicitations as early as Fall 2020, but much work remains to be done – including potential revisions to -7012 – and will no doubt be informed by extensive industry engagement. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights