Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
DFARS 252.204-7012 requires subcontractors handling CUI (like DelTech testing software with CUI) to meet CMMC requirements via flowdown clauses. The CCA must confirm these clauses exist and that DelTech's certification matches the risk level (likely Level 2 for CUI), per CAP. Option A is incorrect- subcontracting is allowed with compliance. Option B exceeds the CCA's scope. Option C ignores subcontractor requirements. Option D is the correct answer.
Reference Extract:
* DFARS 252.204-7012(b)(2):"Flow down CMMC requirements to subcontractors handling CUI."
* CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 3.2:"Verify subcontractor certification aligns with information risk."Resources:https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.204-7012;https://cyberab.org
/Portals/0/Documents/Process-Documents/CMMC-Assessment-Process-CAP-v1.0.pdf

The assessor must first confirm facts with the OSC before making a determination. It is possible the technician has been granted temporary authorized access, in which case the situation may not be a violation.
Therefore, the correct next step is to ask the OSC about the technician's authorization.
Exact Extracts:
* PE.L2-3.10.3: "Escort visitors and monitor visitor activity."
* Assessment Guide: "Assessors should confirm with the OSC whether individuals observed are classified as visitors or authorized personnel before determining compliance."
* "Findings must be validated with OSC-provided evidence or clarification." Why other options are not correct:
* A: Cannot mark as MET without verifying the technician's status.
* B: Inappropriate - assessors do not direct OSC personnel or vendors.
* C: Cannot mark as NOT MET without first confirming authorization.
References:
CMMC Assessment Guide - Level 2, Version 2.13: PE.L2-3.10.3 (pp. 154-156).
NIST SP 800-171A: Visitor escort and monitoring objectives.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:
Security tools are Security Protection Assets (SPAs) per the CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2, as they provide security functions (e.g., monitoring, logging) to the CUI/FCI environment. They must be included in the scope, regardless of specific type (contrary to Option A). Option B contradicts the guidance, and Option C misplaces responsibility. D is correct.
Reference:
CMMC Assessment Scope - Level 2, Section 2.3.3 (SPAs), p. 6: "Security tools are SPAsand part of the assessment scope."

Acceptable physical safeguards in lieu of encryption (in limited cases) include trusted couriers, locked containers, and monitored physical transport. "Tamper protection technologies" are not recognized as an acceptable alternative safeguard for protecting CUI in transit.
Extract:
"Physical safeguards such as trusted couriers, locked containers, and controlled site monitoring may substitute for cryptographic protections when encryption is not feasible. Other measures not defined (e.g., tamper protection) do not satisfy the requirement." Thus, D is NOT an acceptable safeguard.
Reference: CMMC Assessment Guide - Level 2, SC.L2-3.13.8.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
MP.L2-3.8.8 - Shared Media requires organizations to "prohibit the use of portable storage devices containing CUI when such devices have no identifiable owner." Options B, C, and D enforce ownership and control (labeling, registration, policy), aligning with the practice. Permitting unrestricted use after training (A) fails to ensure ownership, violating the practice's intent, even with awareness training. The CMMC guide mandates identifiable ownership, not just training.
Extract from Official CMMC Documentation:
* CMMC Assessment Guide Level 2 (v2.0), MP.L2-3.8.8: "Prohibit use of portable devices without identifiable owners; training alone insufficient."
* NIST SP 800-171A, 3.8.8: "Examine controls ensuring device ownership." Resources:
* https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/CMMC/AG_Level2_MasterV2.
0_FINAL_202112016_508.pdf