Is Your MSP Actually Ready to Support Your CMMC Certification?

Many MSPs describe themselves as "CMMC ready"—they have controls deployed and documentation prepared. But the real test comes during assessment, when C3PAOs validate implementation details, evidence quality, and control ownership.

The difference between "CMMC ready" and assessment-ready is expertise in what assessors actually validate.

I've achieved a perfect CMMC Level 2 assessment with zero POA&Ms through hands-on implementation of every required control. I know exactly what C3PAOs look for because I've been through the process—and I can help you verify your MSP is truly prepared.

Schedule Free Consultation

The Problem

Most MSPs haven't been through an actual CMMC assessment—they don't know what C3PAOs look for, what "implemented" really means, or how to document evidence that satisfies auditors.

And when it's time for your assessment, the gaps become your problem:

Shared responsibility matrices that leave critical controls unassigned

Documentation that doesn't meet evidence standards

Technical controls that aren't properly implemented

Policies that sound good but aren't actually enforced

Evidence gaps that require expensive remediation

Assessment delays that cost you contracts

The stakes are too high to trust assurances without verification.

Trust, But Verify

Your MSP may be competent and well-intentioned—but CMMC assessment is unforgiving. Small gaps in implementation, incomplete documentation, or misunderstood requirements can derail your certification.

Independent verification ensures you go into assessment with confidence, not hope.

How I Can Help

Independent MSP Readiness Verification

Your MSP says they're CMMC ready. I verify it—using the same lens a C3PAO assessor will use during your official assessment.

Drawing from hands-on experience leading a 200-employee organization to a perfect CMMC Level 2 assessment with zero POA&Ms, I assess whether your MSP's implementation will actually satisfy assessors.

What I Evaluate:

Control Implementation Validation

Technical verification that required controls are properly deployed, configured, and operating as intended—not just documented on paper.

Documentation & Evidence Review

Assessment of policies, procedures, SSPs, and POA&Ms against C3PAO expectations. I identify gaps in completeness, technical accuracy, and traceability before an assessor does.

Assessment Readiness Analysis

Evaluation of your organization's readiness for the assessment process itself—interview preparation, evidence presentation, and control demonstration capabilities.

Independent Gap Analysis & Remediation Roadmap

Objective findings with no vendor bias, including prioritized remediation steps, timeline estimates, and specific technical guidance to close gaps.

This isn't theoretical gap analysis—it's assessment-level scrutiny before the official assessment.

Two Engagement Options:

Option 1: One-Time CMMC Readiness Assessment (2–3 weeks)

Independent verification that your MSP can support your certification—before you schedule your assessment.

What's Included:

Custom CMMC Shared Responsibility Matrix mapping all 110 NIST 800-171 controls to MSP vs. client responsibility
MSP documentation review (SSP, policies, procedures, network diagrams, evidence packages)
Technical controls verification (access control, audit logging, encryption, backup/recovery, patch management)
MSP CMMC knowledge assessment through interviews
Gap analysis with specific findings mapped to NIST controls
Ready/Not Ready determination with confidence level
Prioritized remediation roadmap with timeline and cost estimates

Final Deliverables:

Written gap assessment report (typically 20–30 pages)
Shared responsibility matrix you can use during your actual assessment
Prioritized action plan with implementation guidance
1.5-hour presentation to review findings with your team
30 days of email support for follow-up questions

Typical timeline: 2–3 weeks from kickoff to final report delivery

Option 2: Ongoing CMMC Implementation Support

Hands-on guidance to implement controls, build documentation, and prepare for assessment. Timeline: 6-9 months for organizations building from NIST 800-171 baseline, faster for those with mature security programs already in place.

What's Included:

Everything from Option 1 (initial gap assessment)
Monthly check-ins to track remediation progress
Technical implementation guidance for specific NIST controls
Documentation template development and review
Evidence collection strategy and validation
Mock assessment preparation and practice sessions
C3PAO readiness review before scheduling your official assessment

Typical engagement: 6–9 months depending on current state and remediation scope

Both options include: unlimited email support during the engagement, review of MSP responses to findings, and guidance on what assessors will actually verify during your audit.

Can't AI Help Me With CMMC Compliance?

AI provides powerful tools, humans provide essential validation - combining AI efficiency with human experience

AI can read NIST 800-171, explain what each control requires, and generate documentation templates that look official.

But here's what AI can't do:

AI doesn't know what C3PAO assessors actually verify. It can tell you what the framework says, but it can't tell you what questions the assessor will ask, what evidence they'll want to see, or what explanations will satisfy them during the interview.

AI can't evaluate your MSP's actual readiness. It can review your shared responsibility matrix, but it can't tell you if your MSP is bluffing about their capabilities or if their documentation will hold up under scrutiny.

AI doesn't understand the difference between "technically compliant" and "will pass the audit." There are hundreds of ways to implement each control. AI generates generic solutions. Assessors want to see controls that make sense for your environment with evidence that proves they're working.

AI can't judge risk. When you have 15 gaps and limited budget, AI can't tell you which 5 will definitely get flagged by the assessor versus which ones you might get away with deferring.

I use AI to accelerate research—reviewing NIST guidance, generating documentation drafts, and mapping controls to technical implementations faster than manual work. But compliance judgment comes from real world experience, working directly with assessors.

I just led a 200+ user organization to a perfect CMMC Level 2 assessment in October 2025. Zero findings. Zero remediation items. I know what assessors actually look for because I watched them evaluate every control, review every piece of evidence, and ask every follow-up question.

When I assess your MSP's readiness, I'm not comparing against the framework—I'm comparing against what I know will pass a real audit:

Documentation that meets C3PAO evidence standards (not just templates)
Technical controls that assessors will actually validate (not checkbox compliance)
Shared responsibility matrices that eliminate gray areas (not vague assignments)
Evidence packages structured the way assessors expect to see them
Answers to the specific questions assessors ask during interviews

AI reads the requirements. I know what satisfies the assessor. There's a big difference.

AI accelerates my analysis. Recent assessment experience gives me credibility. You need both.

Why Trust Me

Recent CMMC Level 2 Success:

Led 200-person organization to perfect assessment score (October 2025)
Zero remediation items—passed on first attempt
Hands-on implementation of all 110 NIST 800-171 controls
Complete documentation and evidence package that satisfied C3PAO assessors

I Know What Assessors Look For:

Not from just reading the framework, but from working with assessors as they asked the questions, reviewed the evidence, and validated the controls.

17+ Years MSP Experience:

I understand both the technical implementation AND the business reality of what MSPs can (and can't) realistically deliver.

Ready to Know If You're Actually Ready for Assessment?

Contact Me

Ryan russey

Report abuse