Risk Management Framework & Compliance

Grid Square Holdings delivers authorization and compliance support at the program office level. We accelerate authorization timelines, execute POA&M remediation within fiscal constraints, deliver inspection-ready packages that eliminate repeat findings, and prevent authorization work from requiring contract modifications. 

Grid Square unsticks authorization packages that previous efforts stalled. We identify which POA&M items are blocking ATO decisions versus which are post-authorization findings, assess what evidence satisfies the actual Authorizing Official versus what satisfies the assessment team, and determine which controls can be satisfied through compensating measures when full implementation isn't achievable within timeline. Our analysis focuses on getting to "authorize to operate" rather than perfect compliance.

The result: Authorization packages move from assessment to ATO decision without multi-year delays. Programs achieve operational authorization on timelines that align with mission needs and budget availability. Authorizing Officials receive risk briefings that support authorization decisions rather than documentation of why authorization isn't possible.

Expert Tip: Most stalled authorization packages are waiting for 3-5 specific POA&M items while 90% of controls are already satisfied. Identify which findings are actually blocking the ATO decision versus which are being treated as blockers by assessment teams who don't distinguish between pre-authorization and post-authorization remediation. Get the ATO, then address remaining items through the POA&M process.

Grid Square executes POA&M remediation within available funding and fiscal year constraints. We prioritize which findings must close before authorization renewal versus which can extend into future fiscal years, identify low-cost remediation approaches for findings where full compliance requires budget not currently available, and translate technical POA&M language into budget justification that supports funding requests for items requiring investment.

The result: POA&M remediation aligns with budget reality rather than compliance ideals. Programs close critical findings within current fiscal year funding. Authorization packages demonstrate progress toward full compliance without requiring budget commitments that don't exist.

Expert Tip: POA&M items don't have to close simultaneously. Prioritize findings that affect the ATO decision or create operational risk, and extend timelines for findings that are compliance gaps without security impact. Authorizing Officials accept POA&M plans that show realistic remediation timelines aligned with budget availability - they reject plans that promise everything will close in 90 days when the organization clearly can't deliver.

Grid Square delivers authorization packages that pass inspection on first submission rather than generating repeat findings across multiple assessment cycles. We document controls in the format and detail level inspectors actually require, provide evidence that satisfies inspection criteria rather than what the organization thinks should be sufficient, and identify gaps between current documentation and inspection standards before the assessment team arrives.

The result: Authorization packages pass inspection without repeat findings that trigger contract modification cycles. Programs avoid the cost and timeline impact of failed assessments requiring remediation and re-inspection. Assessment teams find evidence that satisfies their requirements in the format they expect.

Expert Tip: Review previous inspection findings from similar systems in your organization before starting a new authorization package. Inspectors from the same assessment organization use consistent evaluation criteria - if they found a specific documentation gap in your last three authorizations, they'll find it again unless you address it proactively. Pattern recognition across previous assessments predicts 70% of findings before the inspection begins.

Grid Square implements continuous monitoring programs that maintain authorization posture between assessment cycles rather than treating authorization as a point-in-time event. We establish evidence collection procedures that support ongoing authorization rather than requiring full re-assessment every three years, identify which security controls require continuous validation versus which can be assessed periodically, and document control effectiveness in formats that support both authorization maintenance and budget justification.

The result: Programs maintain authorization through continuous monitoring rather than full re-assessment cycles. Authorization officials receive ongoing assurance rather than point-in-time snapshots. Continuous monitoring evidence supports both authorization decisions and budget requests for security investments.

Expert Tip: Continuous monitoring programs fail when they require manual evidence collection that nobody has time to complete. Automate evidence collection for technical controls - vulnerability scan results, patch compliance, configuration baselines - and reserve manual assessment for controls that genuinely require human validation. If your continuous monitoring program requires more staff than you have, it will become another unfunded requirement rather than an authorization tool.