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, 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.

Contact:Read more about Ryan BurnetteEmail

This is part of a series of Covington blogs on the implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken by various government agencies to implement the Cyber EO from June 2021 through October 2024.  This blog describes key actions taken to implement the Cyber EO, the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy, and other actions taken that support their general principles during November 2024. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Publishes Draft “Enhanced Security Requirements for Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information”

On November 13, 2024, NIST published a draft of Special Publication (“SP”) 800-172 Rev. 3 that “provides recommended security requirements to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of [Controlled Unclassified Information] when it is resident in a nonfederal system and organization and is associated with a high value asset or critical program.”  In particular, the draft requirements “give organizations the capability to achieve a multidimensional, defense-in-depth protection strategy against advanced persistent threats . . . and help to ensure the resiliency of systems and organizations.”  The draft requirements “are intended for use by federal agencies in contractual vehicles or other agreements between those agencies and nonfederal organizations.”  In the publication, NIST stated that it does not expect that all requirements are needed “universally.”  Instead, the draft requirements are intended to be “selected by federal agencies based on specific mission needs and risks.”

These requirements serve as a supplement to NIST SP 800-171, and apply to particular high-risk entities.  To that end, the current version of this NIST SP 800-172 (i.e., Rev. 2) is used by the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) for its forthcoming Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) program, which we discussed in more detail here.  Specifically, contractors must implement twenty-four controls that DoD selected from SP 800-172 Rev. 2 in order to obtain the highest level of certification – Level 3.  Just as the CMMC Final Rule incorporated Rev. 2 of SP 800-171 (rather than Rev. 3), the CMMC program will not immediately incorporate SP 800-172 Rev. 3 requirements.  However, the draft requirements provide insight into how CMMC could evolve.Continue Reading November 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy

On November 15, 2024, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Disclosure of Information Regarding Foreign Obligations.”  The Proposed Rule would impose new disclosure obligations on “Offeror[s]” (pre-award) and “Contractor[s]” (post-award) that are triggered in certain circumstances by review or by an obligation to allow review of their source or computer code either by a foreign government or a foreign person.  If the Proposed Rule takes effect, the obligations would apply to any “prospective contractor” or any existing contractor.  The Proposed Rule also does not distinguish between companies based in or outside the United States.

The Proposed Rule would implement the requirement of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (“NDAA”) section 1655 which states that “[DoD] may not use a product, service, or system procured or acquired after the date of the enactment of this Act relating to information or operational technology, cybersecurity, an industrial control system, or weapons system provided by a person unless that person” makes certain disclosures related to: (1) foreign government or foreign person access to computer or source code, and (2) the person’s Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) or International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) applications or licenses.  Importantly, per the NDAA, these disclosure obligations include activities dating back to August 13, 2013.

A summary of the obligations and key definitions as described by the Proposed Rule are below.

Disclosure Obligations

Disclosure of Source or Computer Code

The Proposed Rule would require any “Offeror” or “Contractor” for defense contracts to disclose in the Catalog Data Standard in the Electronic Data Access (“EDA”) system (https://piee.eb.mil) “[w]hether, and if so, when, at any time after August 12, 2013,” they (1) “allowed a foreign person or foreign government to review” or (2) “[are] under any obligation to allow a foreign person or foreign government to review, as a condition of entering into an agreement for sale or other transaction with a foreign government or with a foreign person on behalf of such a government”:

  • “The source code for any product, system, or service that DoD is using or intends to use; or
  • The computer code for any other than commercial product, system, or service developed for DoD.”

When this clause is included in a solicitation, by submitting its offer to the government or higher tier contractor, an “Offeror” is representing that it “has completed the foreign obligation disclosures in EDA and the disclosures are current, accurate, and complete.”  For post-award disclosures, the requirements would most likely first be added in new task orders, delivery orders, and options. Continue Reading Department of Defense Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Disclosure of Computer and Source Code to Foreign Entities

On Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (“DoJ”), agreeing to pay the US Government (“USG”) $1.25M for alleged cybersecurity compliance violations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  This settlement follows a qui tam action filed by a whistleblower and former employee of Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory.  The settlement agreement provides some additional insight into the priorities of DoJ’s Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (“CFI”) and the types of cybersecurity issues of interest to the Department.  It also highlights the extent to which DoJ is focusing on the full range of cybersecurity compliance obligations that exist in a company’s contract in enforcement actions.

DoJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative

On October 6, 2021, following a series of ransomware and other cyberattacks on government contractors and other public and private entities, DoJ announced the CFI.  We covered the CFI as it was first announced in more detail here, and in a comprehensive separately published article here.  As explained by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and other DoJ officials, DoJ is using the civil FCA to pursue government contractors and grantees that fail to comply with mandatory cyber incident reporting requirements and other regulatory or contractual cybersecurity requirements.  Moreover, depending on the facts, DoJ Criminal likely will be interested in some of these cases.

About the Settlement

On October 5, 2022, a relator – the former chief information officer for Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory – filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The relator alleged in an amended complaint from 2023 that he discovered and raised non-compliance issues, which Penn State management did not address, and that Penn State falsified compliance documentation.  On October 23, 2024, DoJ formally intervened and notified the court that it reached a settlement agreement with Penn State.  The settlement agreement alleges that Penn State violated the FCA by failing to implement adequate safeguards and to meet cybersecurity requirements set forth under National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”  As set forth in the settlement agreement, these issues related to fifteen contracts and subcontracts involving the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) between January 2018 and November 2023. Continue Reading Penn State Agrees to Pay $1.25M in Settlement for Cybersecurity Non-Compliance False Claims Act Allegations

This is part of a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs  described the actions taken by…

Continue Reading March 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order, National Cybersecurity Strategy, and AI Executive Order

This is the thirty-fourth in a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs describes described the actions taken by various government agencies to implement the Cyber EO from June 2021through January 2024.  This blog describes key actions taken to implement the Cyber EO, as well as the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy, during February 2024.  It also describes key actions taken during February 2024 to implement President Biden’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence (the “AI EO”), particularly its provisions that impact cybersecurity, secure software, and federal government contractors. 

NIST Publishes Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

            On February 26, 2024, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published version 2.0 of its Cybersecurity Framework.  The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (“CSF” or “Framework”) provides a taxonomy of high-level cybersecurity outcomes that can be used by any organization, regardless of its size, sector, or relative maturity, to better understand, assess, prioritize, and communicate its cybersecurity efforts.  CSF 2.0 makes some significant changes to the Framework, particularly in the areas of Governance and Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management (“C-SCRM”).  Covington’s Privacy and Cybersecurity group has posted a blog that discusses CSF 2.0 and those changes in greater detail.

NTIA Requests Comment Regarding “Open Weight”

Dual-Use Foundation AI Models

            Also on February 26, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) published a request for comments on the risks, benefits, and possible regulation of “dual-use foundation models for which the model weights are widely available.”  Among other questions raised by NTIA in the document are whether the availability of public model weights could pose risks to infrastructure or the defense sector.  NTIA is seeking comments in order to prepare a report that the AI EO requires by July 26, 2024 on the risks and benefits of private companies making the weights of their foundational AI models publicly available.  NTIA’s request for comments notes that “openness” or “wide availability” are terms without clear definition, and that “more information [is] needed to detail the relationship between openness and the wide availability of both model weights and open foundation models more generally.”  NTIA also requests comments on potential regulatory regimes for dual-use foundation models with widely available model weights, as well as the kinds of regulatory structures “that could deal with not only the large scale of these foundation models, but also the declining level of computing resources needed to fine-tune and retrain them.”Continue Reading February 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order, National Cybersecurity Strategy, and AI Executive Order

On March 28, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released guidance on governance and risk management for federal agency use of artificial intelligence (AI).  The guidance was issued in furtherance of last fall’s White House AI Executive Order, which established goals to promote the safe, secure, and…

Continue Reading OMB Issues First Governmentwide AI Policy for Federal Agencies

This is the twenty-sixth in a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken…

Continue Reading June 2023 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy

This is the twenty-fourth in a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken by various government agencies to implement the Cyber EO from June 2021 through March 2023.  This blog describes key actions taken to implement the Cyber EO, as well as the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy, during April 2023. 

CISA Requests Comment on Secure Software Self-Attestation Common Form

On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) released a 60-day Request for Comment on a draft secure software self-attestation common form.  Comments will be accepted through June 26, 2023 and may be submitted through Regulations.gov.  The draft common form, developed in close consultation with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), is a key step in implementation of OMB Memorandum M-22-18, which was issued pursuant to Section 4 of the Cyber EO and directs agencies to only use software that complies with Government-specified secure software development practices (the “OMB Memorandum”).  Specifically, and among other requirements, the OMB Memorandum directs that software providers self-attest that the software developer follows the secure development processes described by NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SP 800-218) and the NIST Software Supply Chain Security Guidance.  The key provisions of the OMB Memorandum are discussed in more detail in our prior blog. 

Scope.  The OMB Memorandum applies to all software (other than agency-developed software) developed or experiencing major version changes to be operated “on the agency’s information systems or otherwise affecting the agency’s information.”  CISA’s draft common form further specifies that the “following software requires self-attestation:

  1. Software developed after September 14, 2022;
  2. Existing software that is modified by major version changes […] after September 14, 2022; and
  3. Software to which the producer delivers continuous changes to the software code (such as software-as-a-service products or other products using continuous delivery/continuous deployment).”

Continue Reading April 2023 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy

This is the twenty-first in a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken by various Government agencies to implement the Cyber EO from June 2021 through December 2022.  This blog describes key actions taken to implement the Cyber EO during January 2023.

GSA Announces That It Will Require Software Vendors to Submit Letters of Attestation Beginning in June 2023.

            On January 11, 2023, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) Senior Procurement Executive and Chief Information Officer jointly issued Acquisition letter MV-23-02, “Ensuring Only Approved Software Is Acquired and Used at GSA” (the “GSA letter”).  The GSA letter establishes a June 12, 2023 effective date for implementing the secure software acquisition requirements of Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Memorandum M-22-18, issued pursuant to Section 4 of the Cyber EO.  That OMB memorandum directs that agencies must only use software that complies with Government-specified secure software development practices.  These practices include obtaining self-attestations of conformity with secure software development practices and in certain cases as determined by agencies, artifacts such as Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) from software vendors to verify that the acquired software[1] was developed and produced according to NIST security guidelines and best practices.

            The GSA letter directs GSA’s IT officials to update GSA’s policies by June 12, 2023 to reflect the process for collecting, renewing, retaining, and monitoring the self-attestation information mandated by OMB M-22-18.  For existing contracts that include the use of software, the GSA letter directs GSA IT to provide an internally accessible list of the software used for each contract and to collect vendor attestations by June 12, 2023.  For new contracts that include the use of software, the GSA letter directs the relevant acquisition teams to modify the acquisition planning process to ensure that performance of such contracts begins only after the requisite attestations have been collected and considered.  Finally, with respect to GSA-administered Government-wide indefinite delivery vehicles (e.g., Federal Supply Schedule contracts, Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts, and Multi-Agency Contracts), the GSA letter directs GSA contracting activities to allow, but not require, contractors to provide attestations at the base contract level rather than the task or delivery order level, and to make those attestations available to ordering activities to the extent possible.  With this said, the GSA letter specifies that ordering agencies will ultimately be responsible for complying with OMB M-22-18.Continue Reading January 2023 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order

Section 5949 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (“FY2023 NDAA”) contains two significant prohibitions regarding the procurement and use of semiconductor products and services from specific Chinese companies and other foreign countries of concern (the “Semiconductor Prohibitions”). Although many aspects of the prohibitions remain unclear, the legislation portends noteworthy obligations in the coming years for government contractors, their suppliers, and those who may be interested in entering into agreements with the United States.

A timeline of noteworthy events and requirements associated with the Semiconductor Prohibitions is available here.

I. The Prohibitions

A. Prohibition Text

The Semiconductor Prohibitions are divided into two subsections:

  1. Section 5949(a)(1)(A) (“Part A”) provides that the head of an executive agency may not “procure or obtain, or extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, any electronic parts, products, or services that include covered semiconductor products or services.”
  2. Section 5949(a)(1)(B) (“Part B”) provides that the head of an executive agency may not “enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) with an entity to procure or obtain electronic parts or products that use any electronic parts or products that include covered semiconductor products or services.”

Continue Reading NDAA Prohibits Government Purchase and Use of Certain Semiconductors