FedRAMP authorization
The package is the product. Most FedRAMP delays are documentation delays.
FedRAMP asks a cloud service provider to describe its offering in extraordinary detail, implement a substantial control baseline, prove that implementation to an independent assessor, and then keep proving it every month. Providers rarely fail on security. They stall because the boundary is ambiguous, the control narratives don't match the architecture, or the customer responsibility matrix leaves questions open.
DASATECH builds the authorization package, runs a readiness review that surfaces those problems while they are still cheap to fix, and supports you through third-party assessment and into continuous monitoring.
We have supported FedRAMP High assessment, advisory and authorization for more than a decade, across Low, Moderate and High baselines.
Where DASATECH prepares your package, DASATECH does not also assess it. We maintain that separation deliberately. The party preparing a package should not be the party attesting to it. Our independent assessment practice is described separately.
- Authorization boundary drawn around the product, not around the data
- Control narratives copied from a template rather than written to the architecture
- Inherited controls claimed without a current CRM from the underlying platform
- Supporting plans (ISCP, CMP, IRP) that were never exercised
- No monthly ConMon rhythm in place before the ATO is granted
- Agency sponsorship pursued before the package can survive review
Every satellite document must be consistent with the SSP. Most review cycles are spent reconciling them.
How it runs
Engagement sequence
Readiness and gap assessment
We assess the offering against the applicable baseline and produce a prioritized gap list with effort estimates, so you can decide the pursuit on real information.
Boundary and architecture definition
The authorization boundary, data flows and inherited services are documented precisely . This is the decision everything downstream depends on.
Package development
SSP and all supporting plans are written against your actual implementation, with control owners interviewed rather than surveyed.
Assessment support
We manage the evidence pipeline, respond to 3PAO requests, and triage findings as they are raised rather than at the end.
Continuous monitoring
Monthly scan review, POA&M maintenance, significant change requests and annual assessment support to keep the authorization current.
Deliverables
The authorization package
Every document is produced in the template the receiving party expects, and is written to be read by an assessor rather than filed.
- FIPS 199Security categorization and information type analysis
- SSPSystem Security Plan with full control implementation detail
- CIS/CRMControl implementation summary and customer responsibility matrix
- POLICYInformation security policies and procedures across all families
- ISCPInformation System Contingency Plan, with test support
- CMPConfiguration Management Plan
- IRPIncident Response Plan, with tabletop facilitation
- ROBRules of Behavior and end-user guidance
- PTA/PIAPrivacy threshold analysis and privacy impact assessment
- ARCHSystem description, data flow and network architecture documentation
- CONMONContinuous monitoring plan, scan cadence and monthly reporting model
Outcome
What a completed package buys you
- A cloud offering that can be listed and reused by federal customers
- Fewer false starts, especially the expensive kind discovered mid-audit
- An evidence pipeline that makes monthly ConMon routine instead of a scramble
- Test results that carry over to FISMA, HIPAA and SOC 2 work
- A package your sponsoring agency can review without a dozen clarification cycles
Tell us what the contract requires. We’ll tell you what it takes.
A 30-minute scoping call is usually enough to size the gap, name the deliverables and give you a realistic date for authorization.