A focused control and evidence review for commercial audits and agency or prime-contractor requirements, mapping gaps to owners, proof, and practical next steps without promising certification.
Commercial fintech and business teams facing an audit or customer review, and agencies or prime contractors organizing scoped control evidence and gaps.
2 weeks
$3,500
Published price is a commercial starting estimate, not a Schedule rate. Government work requires a separately negotiated SOW or task-order scope and price.
Government or federal contracting work is scoped and priced separately through a negotiated statement of work or task order; published prices are not Schedule rates.
This sprint is for a fintech or mid-market team that has a customer security questionnaire, a failed control review, or an enterprise contract waiting on evidence. It is also useful before an acquisition or regulator inquiry, when leadership needs to know which gaps could delay the next decision.
The work fits teams that have people doing security work but no agreed inventory of controls, owners, and proof. A short, bounded review creates a common starting point without pretending that a report alone completes a SOC 2, ISO 27001, or HIPAA program.
We start with the target framework, the systems in scope, and the review date that matters. Existing policies, architecture diagrams, access exports, incident records, vendor material, and prior findings are sampled for coverage and usable evidence rather than merely counted.
Controls are mapped to observable practices: who approves access, where logs are retained, how changes are reviewed, how suppliers are assessed, and what happens when an incident occurs. Missing evidence is separated from a missing control so the team does not spend engineering time recreating work it already performs.
The result is a prioritized gap view that connects each issue to business consequence, evidence needed, an accountable owner, and a practical next action. Dependencies such as identity, logging, policy approval, and vendor review are called out so a backlog can be sequenced instead of tackled randomly.
The sprint is deliberately an assessment and planning engagement. It can prepare a team for an auditor or customer conversation, but it does not issue an attestation, provide legal advice, or substitute for the independent audit or certification decision.
For agency or prime-contractor requirements, a scoped SOW can map contract-specific controls to evidence, responsible roles, access boundaries, and acceptance checks. NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-171, or RMF is considered only when specified by contract and included in scope; this is not a compliance determination.
The two-week schedule normally includes intake, scope confirmation, evidence review, working sessions, gap calibration, and readout. Government SOWs additionally define contract-specific requirements, system boundary, roles and access, acceptance criteria, and evidence handoff.
You receive working documents that can be carried into the next review, not a framework name with no operating instructions.
Readiness findings often become a sequence of focused improvements. These related capabilities help turn the initial gap view into owned work:
The sprint can cover SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, or a customer-specific control set. Agency requirements, including NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-171, or RMF, are reviewed only when contract-specific and included in a negotiated SOW; this work does not certify compliance.
No. It identifies gaps, evidence needs, and an owned path toward readiness. Compliance, certification, attestation, and legal interpretations remain decisions for the organization and its independent assessors.
Useful starting material includes the target questionnaire or framework, an in-scope system list, current policies, architecture diagrams, prior findings, and read-only evidence exports where available. A short intake identifies what is missing.
Yes. A customer questionnaire can be used as the control baseline when it is more urgent than a formal framework. The work still groups requests into owners, evidence, and repeatable practices so answers are defensible.