The public comment period for the CMMC program has ushered in a wave of inquiries from the defense community, particularly from service providers seeking clarity on their roles within the framework. Questions range from the applicability of CMMC to various service models to specific concerns about handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and the potential impact on commercial services. These discussions are pivotal, as they not only illuminate the community’s need for clear guidance but also highlight the collaborative effort to refine and enhance the CMMC program’s effectiveness for all stakeholders involved. Some of the major question categories include:
- Applicability of CMMC to External Service Providers (ESPs)
- Internet of Things/Operation Technology
- Marking and Identifying CUI
- Considerations for Small Businesses
- Concerns on Costs
Highlighting Some Key Comments and Responses
Commenters inquired about the CMMC Program’s applicability to various service providers, questioning how it applies to Internet Service Providers, telecommunications, and external commercial service providers in relation to CUI controls and foreign dissemination restrictions. They suggested certain services be treated as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) to exempt them from CMMC certification. The response highlighted that CMMC requirements target defense contractors or subcontractors managing FCI or CUI. It specified that internet and telecommunication service providers are generally not subject to CMMC levels, except when they are actively seeking to engage in DoD contract work directly.
The clarity of CMMC requirements for Internet of Things (IoT) and Operational Technology (OT) systems has been questioned, with concerns about their impact on operational environments. The CMMC framework specifies that security requirements cover systems processing or protecting FCI or CUI. For Level 2, IoT and OT systems within the assessment scope must be documented, though not assessed, in the System Security Plan. Level 3 assessments require IoT and OT systems to meet all security requirements, potentially through intermediary devices, unless they are isolated from assessed systems.
Commenters sought clarification on how CUI is defined, marked, and identified within CMMC and DFARS contexts, particularly regarding responsibility for protecting marked CUI. The response clarified that under CMMC, contractors are obliged to protect FCI and CUI according to the specific security requirements of their contract’s CMMC level, without altering existing DoD protocols for CUI definition, marking, or protection.
Commenters emphasized the need for DoD support to implement CMMC, suggesting pre-implementation analysis, tech support, and more guidance, especially for small businesses. Ideas included relaxing affiliation rules for cost-sharing and expanding mentor-protégé programs. Concerns were raised about compliance for innovative and non-traditional companies, particularly in relation to SBIR and STTR programs. The DoD’s Office of Small Business and Technology Partnerships is providing support for CMMC through Technical and Business Assistance. Changes to SBA’s affiliation rules and additional contractor assistance can be found on relevant official websites.
Concerns were raised about the financial burden of CMMC on small businesses, highlighting potential competitive disadvantages and implications for the defense supply chain. The response clarified that costs related to existing cybersecurity requirements are distinct and should have been anticipated. It also noted that CMMC introduces no new requirements for Levels 1 and 2, offers self-assessment options, and mentioned support from the DoD Office of Small Business Programs and partnerships with NIST to assist with cybersecurity costs, without plans for separate reimbursement for cybersecurity certification costs.
Implications for Government Contractors
The dialogue around the CMMC program underscores the defense community’s quest for clarity, support, and equitable implementation across all business sizes. The Department of Defense’s responses to public comments reflect a commitment to addressing these concerns, with particular emphasis on facilitating compliance for small businesses through guidance, self-assessment options, and resources to manage cybersecurity costs. This ongoing conversation is crucial for refining the CMMC framework, ensuring it strengthens cybersecurity while remaining accessible and practical for the diverse ecosystem of defense contractors.
Navigating CMMC Complexity with Collaborative Expertise
In navigating the complexities of CMMC, the proactive engagement of the defense community underscores the importance of clear guidance and equitable support. This collaborative effort toward refining cybersecurity standards highlights the dynamic nature of securing the nation’s defense infrastructure. For government contractors, especially small businesses, leveraging specialized guidance from experts like Mission Compliant is invaluable. Their expertise can demystify compliance processes, ensuring that businesses of all sizes have the tools and knowledge to enhance their cybersecurity posture effectively and protect national security interests.
