What has DHS learned from phases 1 and 2 of CDM?

data scan (Titima Ongkantong/ 

Halfway through a four-phase implementation, feds running the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program want to retool the process to ensure the back half runs smoother than the front half did.

Kevin Cox, program manager for CDM at the Department of Homeland Security, detailed at a May 22 cybersecurity event how the department has taken lessons learned from phases 1 and 2, making changes to the surrounding task order contracting process, the structuring of deadlines around critical milestones and overhauling the way program officials communicate with public and private stakeholders.

In the procurement space, task order contracts under CDM DEFEND, the acquisition strategy that will guide procurement around phases 3 and 4, will be longer and have less rigid requirements built in compared to the task orders crafted for phases 1 and 2. The original orders "were defined very specifically [and] the requirements were set from year one," Cox said at the Washington event, hosted by McAfee and Scoop News Group.

The end result is that DHS had to manage against those requirements throughout the course of the task order, leaving little room to pivot or incorporate new ideas. The new task orders are also longer, spanning five to six years as opposed to the two- or three-year timespan given to contractors under phases 1 and 2. Cox said he hoped that change will allow DHS and other agencies to incorporate new requirements or capabilities when necessary.

"With DEFEND, we've built in a lot more flexibility based on lessons learned we've had working with the vendor community, the agencies and integrators to be able to define requirements throughout the life of the CDM task order," said Cox.

Program managers have also overhauled their communications strategy, setting up more outreach events with industry, putting together a coordinated media and social media strategy to communicate the latest guidance and establishing a customer advisory forum that allows agencies to have a vote on certain aspects of how the program is run.

"We're really working to follow the principle that if you want to get your message out, you need to communicate it seven times, seven different ways," said Cox.

While Congress has generally been supportive of the way DHS has overseen implementation, some members -- including Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) -- have pressed department officials in oversight hearings to look for ways to combine phases 3 and 4, which focus on network activity and data protection respectively, as a means of speeding up the process. Cox seemed to endorse some form of that strategy, saying "we want all these activities to run parallel."

However, he warned that doing so will come with tradeoffs.

I will say with having this greater flexibility [and] the ability to use new innovative technology, it does introduce more complexity than we had before," Cox said. "Because with phases 1 and 2 we had defined requirements. Everyone knew what those requirements were, we had a schedule for that. Now, it's wide open."

About the Author

Derek B. Johnson is a former senior staff writer at FCW.


  • FCW Perspectives
    zero trust network

    Why zero trust is having a moment

    Improved technologies and growing threats have agencies actively pursuing dynamic and context-driven security.

  • Workforce
    online collaboration (elenabsl/

    Federal employee job satisfaction climbed during pandemic

    The survey documents the rapid change to teleworking postures in government under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stay Connected