Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Some FAQs answered about DoD’s new cybersecurity rule

By

The majority of Defense Department contractors no doubt by now have drafted and populated a system security plan in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement cybersecurity provisions, which require implementation of the security controls in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171.

The Defense Department clarified last year that the requirement to implement the security controls by the Dec. 31 deadline was satisfied by the creation of a system security plan with plans of action for controls not yet met.

While establishing a system security plan means the contractor is initially compliant, understanding the contractor’s remaining obligations under the defense cybersecurity provisions will help ensure the contractor avoids potentially unforeseen pitfalls and liability.

The “frequently asked questions” updated on April 2 by the Defense Department regarding the provisions, discussed below, provide helpful insight into contractor obligations as well as best practices.

For example, when does a company need to update its system security plan?

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/7/3/viewpoint-some-faqs-answered-about-the-new-cybersecurity-rule

See GTPAC’s video, template and other resources designed to help contractors comply with the DoD/NIST cybersecurity rules at: http://gtpac.org/cybersecurity-training-video/

Facing Chinese cyberthreat, Pentagon to bake better contractor security into buying decisions

By

In the wake of reports China hacked a Navy contractor for sensitive data on submarine warfare, Pentagon officials said they want to build better security into the military’s acquisitions process to better protect the defense industry from Beijing’s tampering.

But it’s unclear whether the defense industry has bought into the nascent effort.

“It is no longer sufficient to only consider cost, schedule and performance when acquiring defense capabilities,” Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Kari Bingen told lawmakers on June 21st.

“We must establish security as a fourth pillar in defense acquisition and also create incentives for industry to embrace security, not as a cost burden, but as a major factor in their competitiveness for U.S. government business.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.fifthdomain.com/congress/2018/06/21/pentagon-to-bake-better-contractor-security-into-buying-decisions/

Can a small business take over DISA’s $1 billion perimeter security contract?

By

The Defense Information Systems Agency’s perimeter cybersecurity has been managed by a large contractor for almost 10 years and now the agency wants to know if a small or underutilized business can take over.

The agency released two requests for information June 20 for its Gateway Security Engineering program: one looking for responses from small businesses, including 8(a), service-disabled veteran-owned and women-owned; and another soliciting information from vendors in historically underutilized business zones, or HUBZones.

The Gateway Security program manages security at the intersection of the Defense Department’s non-classified network, known as NIPRNet, and the public internet. “It provides support by developing, testing, implementing, and maintaining secure interoperable solutions at the Gateways,” according to the RFIs.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2018/06/can-small-business-take-over-disas-1b-perimeter-security-contract/149152/

Military bought thousands of boots labeled ‘Made In the USA’ — but they were from China

By

Five executives with a former leading manufacturer of U.S. military boots have been sentenced in federal court for saying the boots were made in Tennessee when they were actually produced in China.

According to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court, the actual Chinese manufacturer of the boots was told to include “USA” on the label of Wellco boot uppers that were then shipped to the U.S. The “Made in China” tags were removed, the indictment says. Soles were affixed to the boots at Wellco’s plant in Morristown, Tennessee, and elsewhere, according to the document.

From 2006 through 2012, the U.S. Department of Defense paid at least $138 million to Wellco for military footwear, according to the indictment.

Keep reading this article at: https://taskandpurpose.com/wellco-execs-military-boots-china/

See earlier articles at:

 

Software review provisions proposed by Senate Armed Services Committee could have significant impact on DoD contractors

By

As the Senate approaches the end of its debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, provisions of the bill regarding access to and review of information technology code deserve close attention.  These sections, if enacted, would significantly impact Department of Defense contractors and also would affect matters associated with investments subject to review by U.S. national security agencies.

As drafted, the provisions could expose current and prospective contractors to intrusive scrutiny and significant risks.  They lack clarity on key definitions, leaving the precise scope of those risks unclear.  We summarize major issues and concerns below.  We expect these provisions to receive scrutiny during the House-Senate conference on the NDAA over the summer.

Synopsis of the Proposed Legislation

Three sections of the Senate’s version of the NDAA, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, would establish new rules designed to mitigate “risks posed by providers of information technology with obligations to foreign governments.”  Those risks involve the access that foreign governments may have to code in products or services that are offered to the Department of Defense.  The provisions also impose new disclosure requirements on the efforts of a prospective vendor to obtain a license under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”).

The pending legislation would require proactive disclosure of those matters, and would impose an ongoing duty to supplement those disclosures during the period of performance on the contract.  The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to assess and mitigate any resulting national security risks through contractual provisions or other performance requirements.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/06/senate-armed-services-committee-proposes-expansive-unclear-software-review-provisions/

What GAO said and did not say about soliciting data rights in recent protest ruling

By

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a decision on May 22, denying in part and dismissing in part Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation’s much-watched protest of the Air Force’s solicitation to replace the UH-1N helicopter.  The decison deals an early (if light) blow to contractors in their fight against the Air Force’s recent data rights grab.

The GAO, in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., B-416027; B-416027.2, May 22, 2018, ultimately endorsed one provision requiring broad delivery of both technical data and software necessary for operations, maintenance, installation, and training activities (defined in the solicitation as “OMIT Data”), but Sikorsky’s protest did not go down without first getting an important concession from the Air Force. This concession, and the GAO’s discussion of whether OMIT Data includes source code, are the key takeaways from Sikorsky, and we will discuss them in some length here. Before we do, some stage-setting is appropriate, in particular because the clauses at issue are confusing.

For more than 20 years, contractors and government personnel have used “OMIT data” as a familiar shorthand for the data called out in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1)(v) as “Necessary for installation, operation, maintenance, or training purposes (other than detailed manufacturing or process data),” and, importantly, in which the Government is entitled to unlimited rights. In this parlance, OMIT data by definition include neither “detailed manufacturing or process data” (DMPD) nor computer software. Unsurprisingly, the Air Force caused some consternation recently when it bucked this convention and began including in its solicitations for major weapons systems a provision defining “OMIT Data” to include all types of computer software and, in some cases, DMPD. (We distinguish this OMIT Data, specially defined by the Air Force, and the colloquial OMIT data.) Sikorsky was the first to file a formal challenge.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=706316

Robins Air Force Base lands new mission

By

Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Ga., is getting a new mission that could help protect it the next time the Pentagon launches a round a base closings.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson announced Wednesday that Robins will host the Advanced Battle Management System, which will take on a global air space intelligence and reconnaissance mission. As the service transitions to the new mission, the Air Force will continue to fly the existing E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), based at Robins, into the mid- to late-2020s.

“This additional new mission at Robins will be critical to fulfilling President Trump’s National Defense Strategy,” said U.S. Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I’m excited to see this take shape in my hometown.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2018/06/07/robins-air-force-base-lands-new-mission.html

Advancing threats necessitate new approach to DoD technology acquisition

By

The global ubiquity of technology means that U.S. military superiority is becoming more challenging to maintain. Players large and small have access to sophisticated technology that can quickly match the United States’ capabilities in many areas.

Remote monitoring technologies, battlefield communications hardware, network infiltration devices and tactical weaponry are among the groups of unprecedented tools that will continue to advance adversarial threats if the process for more rapidly identifying and implementing new capabilities does not change. Although adversarial warfighting innovations are becoming more commonplace in defense forces around the world, the Defense Department is expanding the use of highly effective collaborative methods to help bridge its technological gaps and advance its mission.

The Time Lag of Traditional Acquisition

The old way of doing business for the Pentagon—with large companies bidding on contracts that can take years to complete—simply cannot move quickly enough to meet the threats that the U.S. is facing today and will face into the future. Whereas many private-sector enterprises can simply vet and purchase tools as soon as they become available on the market, federal government agencies like Defense are not afforded the same luxury.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2018/06/advancing-threats-necessitate-new-approach-defense-technology-acquisition/148699/

DoD must work harder to include small business contractors, audit says

By

An audit of two Army Contracting Command centers in Redstone, Alabama and Warren, Michigan, revealed The Department of Defense (DoD) must increase its efforts in order to meet small business subcontracting goals.

The DoD Inspector General Audit was carried out in three different branches. One audit was performed on the Army, and two each on the Marine Corps and the Air Force. According to the audit, small businesses may have lost opportunities because protocols were not followed which could have encouraged more small businesses to be part of the federal marketplace.

Small businesses have been specifically included in the federal contract bidding process to both support and encourage growth in communities across the country. Head of the House Small Business Committee U.S. Rep. Sam Graves (R-Missouri) announced in Nov. 2017 his desire to raise the federal government’s contracting goal for small businesses to 25 percent, a two percent increase from the current 23 percent target for contracts to be awarded to small businesses today.

Keep reading this article at: https://smallbiztrends.com/2018/05/defense-contracts-for-small-businesses.html

Contractors oppose proposed limit on federal bid protests

By

As the Senate Armed Services Committee last week began its markup of the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, a contractors group was pushing committee leaders to reject a Pentagon proposal to curb time-consuming bid protests.

Seeking to eliminate what some senators call “frivolous” protests and what acquisition officials call “forum shopping,” the Defense Department this spring pressed for limiting the ability of contractors who unsuccessfully sought an award and are rejected by the Government Accountability Office to then continue their protest at the Court of Federal Claims. The plan would limit the so-called “second bite at the apple” in the court to within 10 days of knowing (or when they should have known) they had the basis for a protest.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/contracting/2018/05/contractors-oppose-proposed-limit-federal-bid-protests/148368/ 

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More