On January 15, 2025, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Council proposed a new FAR Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) rule (“proposed rule”) to establish uniform requirements for handling CUI with broad applicability to solicitations and contracts across the federal government.

The proposed rule, in development for roughly a decade, represents a significant step in the government’s long running trend towards increasing the required protections around sensitive information that contractors receive or generate during performance of their contracts.  If finalized, the rule would help standardize the patchwork of cybersecurity requirements that contractors currently face across the Executive Branch and expand the scope of contracts, and companies, that have obligations to protect CUI in accordance with these requirements.  As a consequence, some companies that previously were not subject to significant cybersecurity obligations could soon have to make the same types of investments that defense contractors have been required to make to perform work on certain contracts. 

Likewise, although the rule could cause some uncertainty in terms of the precise scope of information that companies may be required to protect, the rule will likely bring greater certainty around the contracts where CUI – and the accompanying protection obligations – will be present.  Specifically, the new requirement for a standard form, Standard Form (“SF”) XXX, CUI Requirements, that will identify the categories of CUI that require protections under any particular contract, and the use of a clause that is to be included only in those contracts where CUI is expected means that companies would have a clearer view in advance of entering into an agreement as to whether the requirements will apply to the particular contract.  As discussed below, that clarity will depend in part on the government doing its part to clearly identify the information that is CUI, which has been challenging up until now.


Key Takeaways

At a high level, the proposed rule would add three new FAR clauses and a new FAR provision establishing contractor requirements for handling CUI in federal solicitations and contracts.  As noted, the proposed rule would also create a new standard form, SF XXX, that requires the acquiring agency to identify whether the contractor is expected to collect, develop, receive, transmit, use, handle, or store CUI under the contract, the categories of CUI that will be involved in the performance of the contract, the contractor information systems on which such CUI will reside, and the requirements for collecting, developing, receiving, transmitting, using, handling, or storing such CUI, as well as for reporting incidents involving CUI.  The proposed rule also includes definitions of critical terms such as “CUI”, “CUI incident”, and “covered federal information” (“FCI”).[1] 

We outline four key takeaways of the rule below:

Broad Applicability

The purpose of the rule is to implement uniform, governmentwide policies and procedures for federal agencies and contractors to handle CUI.  Accordingly, the proposed rule has broad applicability to all federal procurement solicitations and contracts subject to the FAR, with a limited exception for solicitations or contracts solely for the acquisition of Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (“COTS”) items.  Thus, if finalized, the proposed rule would apply to contracts for commercial products and commercial services as well as contracts at or below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.

The proposed rule would impose two different sets of information security requirements depending upon whether the CUI is located within a federally controlled facility or a non-federally controlled facility.  For CUI located within a federally controlled facility, the proposed rule would require the contractor to follow agency policies and to ensure that any contractor employees handling CUI within the facility meet the training and access requirements identified in the proposed SF XXX.  For CUI located within a non-federally controlled facility (except for “Federal information systems” identified on the SF XXX, which are subject to NIST SP 800-53 and other requirements specified on the SF XXX), the proposed rule would require the contractor to comply with the requirements of NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 and any additional controls that the SF XXX specifies, and also to implement additional security requirements that the contractor “reasonably determines [are] necessary to provide adequate security in a dynamic environment.”  The NIST 800-171 requirements for CUI located within non-federally controlled facilities and within non-Federal information systems closely track the existing Department of Defense (“DoD”) requirements for safeguarding covered defense information and cyber incident reporting under DFARS 252.204-7012 (e.g., NIST SP 800-171 security controls for contractor information systems that contain CUI and FedRAMP Moderate or equivalent requirements for the contractor’s cloud service providers that have CUI on their systems).  However, the proposed rule would not replace these existing DFARS 7012 requirements.

Identifying CUI

The proposed rule would create a new form, SF XXX, to promote uniform implementation of CUI requirements.  SF XXX would establish a standard means for agencies to identify the CUI categories that require safeguarding, the applicable safeguarding and marking requirements, and the contractor’s reporting obligations in the event of a CUI incident.  If the contractor’s performance of the contract will involve CUI, the agency requiring activity would have to identify the CUI categories that will be involved and prepare and include the SF XXX in federal government solicitations and contracts that may result in handling of CUI under FAR 52.204-XX.  Prime contractors would also be responsible for flowing down CUI requirements to subcontractors by including their own SF XXX in subcontracts.  Contractors are only required to safeguard the CUI identified in the new SF XXX, except for certain categories of unmarked or mismarked CUI (see discussion below).

If the contract does not involve CUI, the agency would incorporate FAR 52.204-YY, Identifying and Reporting Information That is Potentially CUI, in the solicitation or contract.  Under this clause, if the contractor identifies unmarked or mismarked CUI or CUI not included in the SF XXX, contractors must notify the contracting agency within 8 hours of identification.  These requirements are discussed further below in the section on Unmarked, Mismarked, or Misidentified CUI below.

CUI Incidents

The proposed rule also provides new guidance on how to handle CUI incidents.  For incidents involving CUI located at federally controlled facilities, agency guidance on incident reporting would apply.  For incidents involving CUI located at non-federally controlled facilities (other than on Federal information systems), the contractor must report the incident or suspected incident within 8 hours of discovery in accordance with the proposed rule.  The proposed rule defines incidents broadly to include any form of “improper access, use, disclosure, modification or destruction of CUI.”  After reporting an incident or suspected incident, the contractor would have to preserve and protect images of all known affected information systems and all relevant monitoring and packet capture data.  The preserved information should be retained for 90 days from the submission of the CUI incident report unless the government provides otherwise.  FAR 52.204(g)(4).  These requirements would need to be flowed down to subcontractors, who must notify the entity under which they directly contract within 8 hours of discovery.  Other applicable reporting requirements specific to a particular contract (e.g., additional provisions specified in the contract, FedRAMP reporting requirements) continue to apply.

Unmarked, Mismarked, or Misidentified CUI

The proposed rule provides guidance on unmarked, mismarked, or misidentified CUI not included in the SF XXX.  The proposed rule clarifies that the presence or disclosure of unmarked, mismarked, or misidentified CUI is not considered a CUI incident, unless a lack of marking has resulted in the mishandling or improper dissemination of information.  FAR 4.403-6(d)(3).  During the solicitation phase or performance of the contract, the prospective offeror or contractor would be requested (if a solicitation) or required (during performance) to notify the contracting agency within 8 hours if it discovers unmarked or mismarked CUI or CUI that is not listed on the SF XXX.  The proposed rule states that contractors are responsible for safeguarding CUI that is unmarked, mismarked, or misidentified until the Contracting Officer makes a determination as to its status.  FAR 4.303-4.  However, the proposed rule states that contractors are not required to mark or identify unmarked, mismarked, or misidentified CUI unless doing so is specifically required by the SF XXX, such as when the contractor generates or develops the CUI.

After the contractor has identified mismarked or unmarked CUI, the proposed rule outlines specific actions that the agency must take to remedy the mistake.  If the agency decides it would prefer the contractor to handle this kind of CUI during the performance of the contract, the contracting officer can update the SF XXX, create a new SF XXX, if needed, and/or consider any request for equitable adjustment submitted by the contractor.  

Request for Comments

In its request for comments by March 17, the FAR Council indicated a particular interest in the proposed rule’s reporting requirements related to other federal government reporting requirements and how contractors would handle disparate incident reporting timelines, particularly given the iterative nature of investigating and reporting on incidents.  In addition, the FAR Council requested comment on concerns related to “CUI specified,” i.e., CUI that is subject to reporting requirements under the proposed rule as well as additional, more specific requirements based on other laws, regulations, and policies, and potentially disparate handling requirements.


[1] The proposed rule would define CUI consistent with 32 C.F.R § 2002.4 as “information that the government creates or possesses, or that an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the government, that a law, regulation, or Governmentwide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls.”

Photo of Susan B. Cassidy Susan B. Cassidy

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors…

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors on compliance with FAR and DFARS requirements, with a special expertise in supply chain, cybersecurity and FedRAMP requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information, as well as representing contractors facing allegations of cyber fraud under the False Claims Act. Susan relies on her expertise and experience with the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to help her clients navigate the complex regulatory intersection of cybersecurity, national security, and government contracts. She is Chambers rated in both Government Contracts and Government Contracts Cybersecurity. In 2023, Chambers USA quoted sources stating that “Susan’s in-house experience coupled with her deep understanding of the regulatory requirements is the perfect balance to navigate legal and commercial matters.”

Her clients range from new entrants into the federal procurement market to well established defense contractors and she provides compliance advices across a broad spectrum of procurement issues. Susan consistently remains at the forefront of legislative and regulatory changes in the procurement area, and in 2018, the National Law Review selected her as a “Go-to Thought Leader” on the topic of Cybersecurity for Government Contractors.

In her work with global, national, and start-up contractors, Susan advises companies on all aspects of government supply chain issues including:

Government cybersecurity requirements, including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements,
Evolving sourcing issues such as Section 889, counterfeit part requirements, Section 5949 and limitations on sourcing from China
Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) regulations and product exclusions,
Controlled unclassified information (CUI) obligations, and
M&A government cybersecurity due diligence.

Susan has an active internal investigations practice that assists clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements,
Cyber incidents and data spills involving sensitive government information,
Allegations of violations of national security requirements, and
Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.

In addition to her counseling and investigatory practice, Susan has considerable litigation experience and has represented clients in bid protests, prime-subcontractor disputes, Administrative Procedure Act cases, and product liability litigation before federal courts, state courts, and administrative agencies.

Susan is a former Public Contract Law Procurement Division Co-Chair, former Co-Chair and current Vice-Chair of the ABA PCL Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Covington, Susan served as in-house senior counsel at Northrop Grumman Corporation and Motorola Incorporated.

Photo of Ashden Fein Ashden Fein

Ashden Fein is a vice chair of the firm’s global Cybersecurity practice. He advises clients on cybersecurity and national security matters, including crisis management and incident response, risk management and governance, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.

For cybersecurity matters, Ashden counsels…

Ashden Fein is a vice chair of the firm’s global Cybersecurity practice. He advises clients on cybersecurity and national security matters, including crisis management and incident response, risk management and governance, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.

For cybersecurity matters, Ashden counsels clients on preparing for and responding to cyber-based attacks, assessing security controls and practices for the protection of data and systems, developing and implementing cybersecurity risk management and governance programs, and complying with federal and state regulatory requirements. Ashden frequently supports clients as the lead investigator and crisis manager for global cyber and data security incidents, including data breaches involving personal data, advanced persistent threats targeting intellectual property across industries, state-sponsored theft of sensitive U.S. government information, extortion and ransomware, and destructive attacks.

Additionally, Ashden assists clients from across industries with leading internal investigations and responding to government inquiries related to the U.S. national security and insider risks. He also advises aerospace, defense, and intelligence contractors on security compliance under U.S. national security laws and regulations including, among others, the National Industrial Security Program (NISPOM), U.S. government cybersecurity regulations, FedRAMP, and requirements related to supply chain security.

Before joining Covington, Ashden served on active duty in the U.S. Army as a Military Intelligence officer and prosecutor specializing in cybercrime and national security investigations and prosecutions — to include serving as the lead trial lawyer in the prosecution of Private Chelsea (Bradley) Manning for the unlawful disclosure of classified information to Wikileaks.

Ashden currently serves as a Judge Advocate in the
U.S. Army Reserve.

Photo of Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under the October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob is ranked by Chambers USA for his work in government contracts and he writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain, artificial intelligence, and software development requirements.

Ryan also advises on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting, drawing on his prior experience in providing overall direction for the federal contracting system to offer insight on the practical implications of regulations. He has assisted industry clients with the resolution of complex civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, and he regularly speaks and writes on government contracts, cybersecurity, national security, and emerging technology topics.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7020, and other agency cybersecurity requirements; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
Software and artificial intelligence (AI) requirements, including federal secure software development frameworks and software security attestations; software bill of materials requirements; and current and forthcoming AI data disclosure, validation, and configuration requirements, including unique requirements that are applicable to the use of large language models (LLMs) and dual use foundation models.
Supply chain requirements, including Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act; restrictions on covered semiconductors and printed circuit boards; Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) restrictions; and federal exclusionary authorities, such as matters relating to the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC).
Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
Federal Cost Accounting Standards and FAR Part 31 allocation and reimbursement requirements.

Prior to joining Covington, Ryan served in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, where he focused on the development and implementation of government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year.  While in government, Ryan helped develop several contracting-related Executive Orders, and worked with White House and agency officials on regulatory and policy matters affecting contractor disclosure and agency responsibility determinations, labor and employment issues, IT contracting, commercial item acquisitions, performance contracting, schedule contracting and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.  Additionally, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared federal employees and contractors in the wake of significant issues affecting the program.  These efforts resulted in the establishment of a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency to conduct and manage background investigations.

Photo of Kristen Chapman Kristen Chapman

Krissy Chapman is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She represents and advises clients on a range of cybersecurity, data privacy, and government contracts issues, including cyber and data security incident response and preparedness, cross-border privacy law, government and internal investigations…

Krissy Chapman is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She represents and advises clients on a range of cybersecurity, data privacy, and government contracts issues, including cyber and data security incident response and preparedness, cross-border privacy law, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining the firm, Krissy served as a consultant in both the private and public sectors, advising clients across a range of industries, including transportation and infrastructure, life sciences and healthcare, and national security.