Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

DOJ Looks To Sting Georgia Tech Under the False Claims Act: The Perils of Cybersecurity Non-Compliance

By Stephen D. Tobin on August 29, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Computer laptop online protection shield on internet browser web site or pc with secure connection website vector flat cartoon illustration, security or privacy data access modern design image

On August 22, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint-in-intervention in a previously filed whistleblower suit under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) against the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC), an affiliate of Georgie Tech, for falsely representing its compliance with Department of Defense (DoD) cybersecurity requirements. Former and current Georgia Tech cybersecurity team employees brought the initial whistleblower lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Georgia Tech violated DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (clause 7012) and DFARS 252.204-7019 NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements (clause 7019). Clause 7012 requires contractors to provide “adequate security” for “covered contractor information systems”—unclassified information systems that process, store, or transmit controlled unclassified information or controlled technical information. At a minimum, this means complying with the 110 security controls laid out in NIST SP 800-171. For any security control not yet implemented, the contractor must have a plan of action, including an identified date, to have those controls in place. Clause 7019 requires contractors to have a current (no more than three years old) NIST 800-171 assessment score entered into the DoD’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for each covered information system (CUI) relevant to an offer, contract, task order or delivery order. In short, the assessment is intended to reflect the state of the contractor’s compliance with all 110 security controls in NIST SP 800-171. Importantly, if implementation of NIST SP 800-171 is required, the contracting officer cannot award a contract to an offeror that has not provided a summary-level score for its relevant covered contractor information system.

DOJ’s complaint alleges that the Astrolavos research lab at Georgia Tech, which possessed nonpublic sensitive DoD information, including CUI, “failed to: (1) develop or implement a system security plan outlining how it would protect from unauthorized disclosure covered defense information in its possession; and (2) install, update, and run antivirus software on servers, desktops, and laptops in the lab which had access to nonpublic DoD information.” Additionally, the government alleges that Georgia Tech and GTRC failed to assess the covered information system that the Astrolavos lab used to process, store, or transmit CUI using DoD’s prescribed assessment methodology. The government also maintains that Georgia Tech and GTRC failed to provide an accurate summary level score for the Astrolavos lab. The score is intended to demonstrate the lab’s compliance with applicable cybersecurity regulations. Instead, Georgia Tech and GTRC gave the DoD a score for a “campus-wide” IT system; however, no such system existed. According to former employees, the score was for a “fictitious” or “virtual” environment and did not describe something that actually existed. In fact, the government alleges that the Astrolavos lab never actually calculated any score for its IT system; Georgia Tech and GTRC reported this supposed “campus-wide” score that they knew to be false even though employees had warned them that providing that score would be false and misleading.

This latest action by the government in its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is yet another signal to contractors that cybersecurity is a top priority for the nation’s security. As the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia stated in the press release announcing the DOJ’s intervention in the case, “Cybersecurity compliance by government contractors is critical in safeguarding U.S. information and systems against threats posed by malicious actors… For this reason, we expect contractors to abide by cybersecurity requirements in their contracts and grants, regardless of the size or type of the organization or the number of contracts involved. Our office will hold accountable those contractors who ignore cybersecurity rules.”

The message to contractors could not be clearer—ensure you are in compliance with applicable cybersecurity requirements; if not yet compliant, get compliant ASAP.

If you have any questions regarding CMMC, cybersecurity requirements, or the False Claims Act, our Government Contracting Group is available to assist you on these or any other government contracting matters.

Photo of Stephen D. Tobin Stephen D. Tobin

Steve brings considerable government experience to the firm’s clients, having served as an associate counsel for litigation and senior trial attorney in the Department of the Navy’s Office of General Counsel. As a result of his work with the Navy, Steve helps clients…

Steve brings considerable government experience to the firm’s clients, having served as an associate counsel for litigation and senior trial attorney in the Department of the Navy’s Office of General Counsel. As a result of his work with the Navy, Steve helps clients strategize the best approaches for negotiation and litigation involving complex federal contracts. He also advises companies and individuals facing government investigations under the False Claims Act.

Continue Reading

Read more about Stephen D. TobinEmailStephen D.'s Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    Federal Construction Contracting Blog
  • Organization:
    Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status

New to the Network

  • Agha Law blog
  • Woven Legal Blog
  • Bid Protests
  • Contract Claims
  • Federal Procurement
Copyright © 2024, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo