Blog
The Compliance Traps That Delay Federal Programs and How to Avoid Them
Federal programs frequently run into compliance issues that stall schedules and increase costs. Learn the most common pitfalls and preemptive ways to avoid them.
Federal programs operate within a demanding environment shaped by standards, accreditations, and regulatory requirements. Compliance is often treated as a documentation exercise, but in fact its real influence shows up in readiness, system approvals, and deployment timelines.
Across DoD, DHS, and other federal technology programs, the same compliance issues or traps appear year after year. Many of these issues are preventable when addressed early. The following points highlight the most common pitfalls along with practical ways program teams and vendors can avoid them. Throughout this process, organizations often benefit from working with hardware partners that already design around federal requirements and maintain strong configuration control, as this reduces the likelihood of unexpected friction later.
Cybersecurity requirements including RMF, ATO, CNSSI, and CMMC cannot simply be added at the end of development. When security is delayed, teams often encounter architectural conflicts that force redesigns or last-minute adjustments.
Teams that use hardware platforms with built-in security capabilities and predictable configuration baselines often progress through cybersecurity reviews more efficiently. Core Systems designs equipment with these considerations in mind, which helps reduce cybersecurity surprises downstream.
Many programs run into trouble because of incorrect assumptions about rugged, industrial, and military grade specifications. Not all rugged equipment is tested to MIL-STD-810H or MIL-STD-461G, and marketing claims often fail to match real test results.
Choosing systems that are purpose built for harsh conditions keeps programs aligned with mission expectations. Core Systems always provides this type of test transparency and validation, which supports smoother accreditation and field readiness.
Export controls often become a delaying factor when overlooked during sourcing. Components with restricted origin or sensitive classification can affect shipping timelines, production schedules, and program approvals.
Working with hardware designed for international program compatibility or clearly documented for domestic-only use helps minimize export control uncertainty.
A system may meet functional requirements yet still fail accreditation when its architecture does not align with the frameworks used for approval. This often results in delays while teams attempt to retrofit controls that were not part of the original design.
Core Systems maintains configuration stability and documentation practices that support accreditation, which helps reduce friction during RMF and ATO reviews.
Lack of documentation is one of the most common causes of ATO and procurement delays. Missing test reports, incomplete bills of materials, outdated configuration management records, and insufficient software baselines can slow progress significantly.
Vendors who provide complete, traceable documentation help programs maintain a consistent audit trail throughout the system life cycle. Core Systems supports this approach by maintaining detailed test records, BOM traceability, and long-term configuration support.
Most compliance traps are not difficult to overcome but they often surface when teams begin addressing requirements too late. By integrating compliance planning at the start, maintaining clear documentation, and selecting hardware that supports accreditation and ruggedization from the beginning, programs can reduce delays and move toward deployment with greater confidence.
