As CMMC Phase 1 begins on November 10, the False Claims Act (FCA) takes on new relevance for defense contractors. For the first time, contracting officers will include CMMC language in solicitations, and statements of cybersecurity compliance will carry legal weight equal to any other claim made to the U.S. government.
The Department of Justice has already made its position clear. Over the past two years, the Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative has used the FCA to pursue contractors that overstated or misrepresented compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012 and NIST SP 800-171. With CMMC now shifting from voluntary to enforceable, the standard is no longer “good faith effort.” It is provable accuracy.
Until now, most contractors operated in a self-attestation model. They entered SPRS scores based on internal evidence and interpretation. After November 10, the government will begin to see a second dataset: results from independent C3PAO assessments. The ability to compare those two records introduces a new form of visibility — and potential liability.
If the scores or control implementations recorded in SPRS differ significantly from what a C3PAO later verifies, that discrepancy itself becomes evidence. It does not matter whether the inconsistency stems from misunderstanding, mismanagement, or intent. In the eyes of the DOJ, accuracy and honesty in reporting are as critical as implementation itself.
MORSECORP, Inc. Settlement (March 2025)
MORSECORP paid $4.6 million to resolve allegations that it falsely represented compliance with cybersecurity clauses under Department of Defense contracts. The company allegedly claimed full implementation of NIST 800-171 controls and used an unapproved email hosting provider without disclosure. The DOJ determined that those statements were material to contract eligibility and payment.
Raytheon (RTX) Settlement (May 2025)
Raytheon and its affiliates agreed to pay $8.4 million for allegedly failing to meet required cybersecurity obligations while certifying compliance. The settlement established a clear precedent: certification claims tied to cybersecurity are subject to the same FCA scrutiny as cost or performance claims.
Both cases underscore that enforcement is not triggered by a breach but by the accuracy of the compliance claim itself.
CMMC has elevated the concept of “compliance evidence” from a documentation exercise to a verifiable proof requirement. The new enforcement focus will center on evidence integrity — whether an organization can prove that each control remains implemented and effective over time.
Common pitfalls include:
CMMC introduces transparency between two systems: SPRS self-scores and C3PAO assessment results. The government will now have both records. When discrepancies emerge, the DOJ will have a measurable trigger for investigation.
Contractors should expect the next wave of enforcement to come from those comparisons. The greatest exposure may not come from companies that fail an assessment, but from those whose recorded claims and actual results do not align.
To reduce risk and protect eligibility for future contracts, organizations should:
The start of CMMC Phase 1 marks the end of the “self-assured” compliance era. Every claim of cybersecurity maturity now carries legal consequence under the False Claims Act. The contractors that maintain integrity in both implementation and evidence will move forward confidently. Those that rely on outdated or inflated self-attestations may find themselves facing questions that go beyond an audit.
In a market defined by accountability, accuracy is the new advantage. If you need guidance on your compliance journey to CMMC, reach out to us today.
The FCA allows the Department of Justice to pursue contractors that make false statements to the U.S. government. Under CMMC, any inaccurate or misleading claims of cybersecurity compliance can now be treated as false claims, carrying significant legal and financial penalties.
Starting November 10, 2025, CMMC language will appear in federal solicitations. That means cybersecurity compliance claims will hold the same legal weight as cost or performance claims, giving the DOJ a clear basis for enforcement.
Submitting SPRS scores or compliance attestations that overstate control implementation, omit system details, or rely on unverified evidence can all constitute false claims, even if no breach has occurred.
Settlements like MORSECORP ($4.6M) and Raytheon ($8.4M) confirm that contractors are being held accountable not for breaches, but for the accuracy of their compliance statements and evidence.
With C3PAO results and SPRS scores both available, the government will be able to identify discrepancies. Significant gaps between self-attested and independently verified results may trigger DOJ review.
Maintain dated, traceable evidence for every control, verify SPRS scores against assessment-ready documentation, and ensure inherited and outsourced controls are clearly defined and documented.
No. Whether discrepancies arise from misunderstanding, neglect, or intent, the DOJ treats all inaccurate statements as potentially material to contract eligibility and payment.
It refers to maintaining verifiable proof that each control is implemented and effective over time, not just documented once. Evidence integrity ensures alignment between operational reality and compliance claims.
Yes. If earlier self-attestations or SPRS entries don’t match verified assessment results, that inconsistency alone can form the basis for FCA action.
CMMC has shifted the compliance standard from good faith effort to provable accuracy. Maintaining honest, consistent, and evidence-backed compliance claims is now essential to avoid FCA liability.