SECURITY ASSESSMENT

Grid Square Holdings delivers independent security assessment support at the program office level. We validate vendor proposals before contract award to eliminate post-award disputes, deliver inspection readiness that reduces repeat findings, bridge gaps between compliance documentation and auditor expectations, and provide third-party validation that supports authorization and oversight reporting. 

Grid Square validates vendor security claims before contract award. We assess whether proposed solutions actually meet technical requirements versus marketing descriptions, evaluate vendor staffing plans against actual skill requirements for the work, and identify gaps between vendor proposals and implementation reality that trigger change orders post-award. Our analysis examines vendor claims before financial commitment.

The result: Programs award contracts based on validated technical capability rather than vendor promises. Post-award disputes are minimized because gaps were identified during source selection. Budget planning accounts for actual implementation requirements rather than idealized vendor proposals.

Expert Tip: Vendors proposing "senior cybersecurity engineers" often deliver mid-level staff who need supervision. Request resume redactions (names removed, experience retained) during proposal evaluation and validate that proposed personnel actually have the certifications and experience levels claimed. The difference between proposed and actual staff quality is where performance issues begin.

Grid Square assesses program readiness before scheduled inspections and identifies gaps between current security posture and inspector expectations. We review previous inspection findings to predict likely assessment focus areas, validate that evidence packages contain what inspectors actually require versus what programs think should be sufficient, and identify quick-win remediations that address high-probability findings before assessment teams arrive.

The result: Programs enter inspections with documented evidence that satisfies inspector requirements. Repeat findings are eliminated through proactive gap remediation. Assessment cycles don't trigger surprise findings that require contract modifications to address.

Expert Tip: Inspector focus areas follow patterns based on recent high-profile incidents and compliance priorities. If ransomware attacks dominated headlines in the past six months, expect detailed scrutiny of backup procedures and incident response capabilities regardless of your system's risk profile. Align inspection preparation with current threat landscape - not just your authorization package controls.

Grid Square bridges the gap between technical security implementations and compliance documentation that auditors accept. We translate security controls into evidence formats that satisfy audit requirements, identify where technical capability exists but documentation doesn't meet auditor standards, and determine what evidence auditors will accept versus what security teams assume demonstrates compliance.

The result: Security implementations are documented in formats that survive audit scrutiny. Auditors find evidence that answers their questions without requiring explanatory meetings. Compliance gaps are documentation issues rather than security capability failures.

Expert Tip: Auditors from different organizations interpret the same compliance framework differently. Before generating compliance documentation, identify which auditor organization will assess your system and review their previous assessment reports. A DCSA auditor and a third-party assessor will evaluate identical controls using different evidence standards - know which standard applies before you start documenting.

Grid Square provides independent security assessments that support authorization decisions and oversight reporting. We validate security control effectiveness through testing rather than documentation review alone, identify control weaknesses before they become inspection findings, and deliver assessment results in formats that support both authorization packages and budget justification.

The result: Authorizing Officials receive independent validation of security posture rather than relying solely on self-assessment. Oversight bodies get third-party confirmation of security capability. Assessment findings support budget requests for remediation rather than just documenting gaps.

Expert Tip: Self-assessment and independent validation serve different purposes in authorization packages. Self-assessment demonstrates you understand your security posture. Independent validation proves it to someone who doesn't trust self-reporting. Budget both - because Authorizing Officials and oversight bodies weigh independent findings more heavily than internal assessments, regardless of your organization's credibility.