On September 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) published its final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to incorporate contractual requirements related to the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) program (the “CMMC DFARS Rule”).
The CMMC program is a DoD initiative that establishes tiered, enforceable cybersecurity requirements for contractors handling Federal Contract Information (“FCI”) and Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”), making verified protection of sensitive information a prerequisite for performing DoD contracts.
The CMMC DFARS Rule marks the next critical step in the rollout of the program. This rule follows the CMMC Policy Rule, published in October 2024, which established the program’s structure, assessment methodology, and governance framework. While the CMMC Policy Rule defined the program in principle, the CMMC DFARS Final Rule makes compliance with CMMC an enforceable condition of contract eligibility.
Overview of CMMC Levels and Certification Requirements
The CMMC framework includes three levels of cybersecurity maturity, each corresponding to different types of information and varying degrees of required protections:
- Level 1 focuses on basic cyber hygiene practices primarily aimed at protecting FCI. Contractors handling Level 1 information can perform a self-assessment to demonstrate compliance, rather than undergoing a formal third-party evaluation.
- Level 2 is an intermediate level intended to protect CUI. Level 2 incorporates a broader set of security practices and processes. Contractors are generally required to complete a self-assessment, although certain programs may require a third-party certification depending on the risk profile of the information or contracting officer direction.
- Level 3 represents a proactive and robust cybersecurity posture, with enhanced practices for sensitive CUI and other mission-critical data. Contractors seeking Level 3 certification must undergo a third-party assessment, which provides independent validation of cybersecurity controls and processes.
Under the CMMC DFARS Rule, contractors that process, store or transmit FCI or CUI must obtain and maintain a “current” CMMC level. Each covered information system will receive a unique identifier (“UID”) in the Supplier Performance Risk System (“SPRS”) or the Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (“eMASS”), which contractors must submit with proposals and maintain throughout contract performance. Contracting officers will verify CMMC status in SPRS before awarding contracts, task orders, or delivery orders.
A notable flexibility from its proposed version, the CMMC DFARS Rule distinguishes between conditional and final CMMC status. Conditional status may be granted for Level 2 and Level 3 certifications based on approved Plans of Action and Milestones (“POA&Ms”) allowing contractors to apply for covered contracts for up to 180 days, with final status contingent upon successful closeout of the POA&Ms.
Potential Concerns and Scope Issues
The CMMC DFARS Rule does not fully resolve concerns, particularly for entities outside the traditional defense industrial base, that the CMMC program’s systems-based approach may lead to over-implementation of security controls for information misidentified as CUI, because CUI designations are inherently data-specific.
Notably, the proposed rule establishing CUI safeguarding requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)—applicable across the executive branch—would require agencies to list the specific information designated as CUI in the solicitation. While agencies could incorrectly categorize information as CUI under the FAR proposal, contractors can challenge errors directly. Under the CMMC DFARS Final Rule, contractors simply receive notice that DoD has determined that CUI is present and that all relevant systems must implement the required safeguards, creating uncertainty about the scope of compliance obligations.
DoD could have addressed these concerns through programmatic guidance clarifying what should be in scope for organizations implementing CMMC. It could have revised the definition of CUI to limit it to information for which a law explicitly imposes a duty on the private sector to safeguard the designated information. However, DoD rejected requests to revise the definition of CUI, noting that it falls under the National Archives and Records Administration and is therefore outside the scope of the CMMC DFARS Rule.
DoD could have also clarified that only information directly related to the performance of a DoD contract qualifies as CUI subject to CMMC—for example, excluding Proprietary Postal Information unrelated to DoD stored on a system supporting a DoD contract from triggering CMMC requirements. While the preamble suggests CMMC only covers DoD-funded acquisitions, the CMMC DFARS Rule’s regulatory requirements apply to “information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract.” Because the qualifier “used in the performance of the contract” applies to systems, rather than the FCI or CUI itself, it remains unclear whether non-DoD CUI could fall under CMMC requirements.
Phased Implementation
While the CMMC DFARS Final Rule is effective November 10, 2025, DoD has announced a phased schedule to incorporate its provisions into contracts over the next three years. During the initial phase-in period, the new contract clause will only be used in solicitations where program managers or requiring activities specifically require CMMC, and it will not apply to contracts solely for commercially available off-the-shelf items. After the three-year phase-in, the clause will be applied more broadly to all contracts involving systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI.
Conclusion
The CMMC DFARS Final Rule cements cybersecurity as a core contractual requirement for DoD contractors, reinforcing the importance of protecting FCI and CUI across the supply chain. While the tiered framework and assessment processes provide structure, uncertainties around scope and applicability—particularly for information not directly tied to DoD contracts—highlight the need for careful planning and proactive compliance. Contractors should use the phased implementation period to align their systems and processes with the CMMC requirements, address potential gaps, and understand the scope of their CUI to fully comply with requirements while seeking to avoid over-implementation or unnecessary controls.
Search
Recent Posts
- Department of Defense Issues Final Rule Implementing Contractor Requirements to Safeguard Sensitive Information
- California Privacy Protection Agency Defends Broad Authority to Investigate Potential CCPA Violations
- Qantas Airways Cuts Executive Pay After Cyber Incident: A Governance Signal for the Industry
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Protection Officer
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Large Language Model
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk Assessment
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Salesforce
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- States Attorney General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code