1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Upping the Cyber Oversight Ante: DoD Deploys DCMA to Audit Contractor Supply Chain Compliance

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

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