Businesses believe they’re secure. They have antivirus; they have firewalls; they’ve (hopefully) gone through a SOC 2 audit and implemented whatever applicable findings they had on hand. They prepare to take on government contracts, and they’re thrown for a loop over compliance and security regulations they never knew to exist.
The gap between what’s required in commercial security versus what’s required in government security isn’t a few extra boxes to check. It’s an entirely different mindset with different stakes, different governance and enforcement measures, and consequences that can completely decimate your government stream of business.
The Comfort of Commercial Compliance
Business compliance is transactional. Businesses are responsible for protecting customer data – which means processing credit card payments requires PCI DSS; providing medical advice requires HIPAA compliance. These are serious frameworks with serious financial penalties for those out of compliance – structured to protect industry and customer integrity.
However, commercial compliance allows businesses a bit of breathing room in how they implement controls. They can use alternate tech solutions; they can accept risks based on their risk appetite, provided they document their rationale. Auditors want to see effort and movement toward improvement over time.
Not for government security requirements. When there are federal contracts on the line – especially anything remotely related to defense or anything deemed classified – requirements are prescriptive. You don’t get to choose how you will protect your data; instead, the government dictates the controls you need in place, how you must roll them out, and for what duration must you keep documentation.
Where Requirements Differ
The immediacy of access controls sets the tone. Commercial access requirements might say that you need multi-factor authentication for sensitive systems. Government access requirements dictate allowable access means, frequency at which credentials must rotate, and how you’ll log every single instance of access.
Take the Department of Defense, for example; DoD contractors are now CMMC certifiable. This isn’t self-audit and check-the-box. This requires third-party assessors to assess security posture; assessments are deep dives into every part of the IT environment. No wonder so many contractors look for cmmc compliance support just to know what’s needed before the assessment starts.
The documentation requirements do most companies in; where it’s enough documentation per audit just to show compliance with the company’s policies on paper, government assessments require proof of everything ever done under any security rubric. Each configuration change. Each access granted. Each decision made – and timestamped and approved – for good measure. If you don’t have documentation showing it happened, it didn’t happen.
The Financial Implications Nobody Talks About
Sure, commercial compliance costs a lot to implement. However, government security requirements require infrastructure investments that make commercial compliance seem like chump change. You may need entirely separate infrastructure with which to work with controlled unclassified information; your cloud solutions may not meet government standards – meaning you’d need to build out completely familiar environments.
Ongoing costs are more devastating than anything else. Commercial compliance translates to annual audits but limited intervention otherwise. Government compliance means constant monitoring, reporting, and readiness for assessment at a moment’s notice at any point in time. You’re not just paying for your annual recertification – you’re funding a compliance effort that takes place year-round.
The People Problem
This is where costs get problematic in ways businesses don’t expect. Commercial compliance means someone on your IT team will take it upon themselves to add duties onto their already-stuffed plate. Government requirements mean you’ll need a dedicated resource who understands the specific frameworks, can decipher guidance documents – and believes it to be legalese – and is abreast of new developments coming down the pike day by day.
Good luck finding these people; the marketplace for individuals with government compliance framework knowledge is small, and they are paid well because their understanding is specialized. Often, businesses compete against larger defense contractors and even government agencies for top talent at higher salaries.
When Failing Means More Than Findings
Commercial compliance fails mean fines, remediation requirements, or in extreme cases – loss of certain certifications. The business can still operate while fixing these issues.
Failing at government security requirements could result in immediate suspension of all federal contracts in hand; if you’ve already been doing a job under a federal contract and fail compliance – in times of actual failure – you could lose that contract, be debared from ever working with federal entities again – and in cases where actual security events occurred – face criminal liability.
The chain reaction affects more than just your business; within the DoD supply chain, now prime contractors must substantiate their subcontractors’ compliance; if you can’t show compliance – it doesn’t only mean you’re losing out on government contracts; it also means you’re losing commercial contracts with any business requiring compliant subcontractors for their government work.
The Differences in Verification
Commercial audits are annual. The auditor comes on-site (hopefully), reviews appropriate controls, takes samples and tests low-hanging fruit, and submits a report thereafter. As long as you’re legitimate during that time period between audits, the auditor should have no reason to fail you.
Government assessments take a more skeptical approach. Beyond the assessment alone, you can have verification visits, contractor assurance reviews, and the need to report negative security incidents within 24 hours of discovering them in-house. The government operates on a “trust but verify” basis – where the verification gets emphasized.
Why Companies Underestimate the Change
The biggest mistake businesses make is assuming that once they go through commercial assessments that they’re moving to a new level of requirements that extend beyond typical resource expectations – assuming if they got through SOC 2 that this was merely a step more demanding.
It’s not that easy; government compliance is not making a reasonable argument for well-founded security – it’s about substantiating you’d meet a myriad dictated approach regardless if your business model makes sense of such tactics. If you can’t justify exceeding requirements in one area only to make up for deficiencies in another area? Too bad – you still fail.
Timing is also assessed incorrectly as commercial effort timelines typically render incremental developments over months without batting an eye of business operations in between. Government intentions often need the compliant solution set already implemented before bidding opportunities commence. Companies lose valuable time trying to catch up to competitors who’ve been working on these requirements longer – and now expedited security change measures – to get their bidding costs down when possible.
Making It Worth It
Despite these challenges, thousands of businesses operate with government security requirements without batting an eye because the opportunities presented by such contracts render this effort worthwhile. Government contracts provide longevity, stability of partnerships – and higher margin opportunities than commercial efforts could serve.
As long as it’s understood from day one that this isn’t just a new layer added to your compliant responsibilities – but an entirely new compliant effort built alongside with separately allocated resources – this effort should be championed over time as a separate line of business instead of an afterthought relegated to whoever has time left over at the end of their day.
