Is the language of 48 CFR 7.503(d)(13) vague and untenable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Is the language of 48 CFR 7.503(d)(13), which is inconsistent with relevant Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement provisions (DFARS) concerning contractor-employee supervision by governmental employees, vague and untenable juxtaposed with those on point DFARS? Il. Is an inherently governmental function of supervising a United States Department of Defense (DOD) employee by a superior government functionary distinct from the not inherently governmental function of supervising a DOD contractor-employee by such government functionary? III. As Executive Order 12829 (National Industrial Security Program) [NISP] has been codified in the Federal Register and has the force of law, is a private right of action against the contractor-employer for concealment and misrepresentation of the correct security clearance level maintainable? IV. Does the lack of debriefing when a DOD contractor-employee is terminated from his or her position violate NISP and create a private right of action to vindicate injuries from such omission?