Quick Answer: CMMC can be expensive, but not every dollar spent preparing for certification is truly a "CMMC cost." Some expenses come directly from assessments, evidence collection, and ongoing compliance. Others reveal IT, security, and staffing gaps that organizations should already have addressed. In this episode of Trust Issues, Bruno Lecoq and Jeremy Patterson break down the economics of CMMC and explain why contractors should separate certification costs from the cost of building and maintaining a secure IT environment.
🎙️ Apple Podcasts: Listen on Apple Podcasts
🎙️ Spotify: Listen on Spotify
🎙️ YouTube: Watch on YouTube
A large CMMC quote tends to trigger the same reaction:
Why does this cost so much?
Bruno argues that contractors should break that number apart before answering.
CMMC does come with legitimate expenses. Contractors may need to pay for third-party assessment work, readiness preparation, evidence management, documentation, ongoing compliance activities, and the technology required to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
But CMMC preparation can also uncover security and IT investments a company should already have been making.
Understanding the difference leads to a much more useful question:
What are we actually paying for?
Some costs can clearly be attributed to CMMC.
Bruno points to formal third-party assessment work as one example, with assessment costs potentially reaching tens of thousands of dollars. Organizations also need to account for preparation, documentation, evidence collection, and ongoing compliance management.
But consider what happens when CMMC preparation reveals that a contractor needs a dedicated IT professional and separate compliance oversight.
Should that entire investment be considered a CMMC expense?
Bruno argues that it should not.
An organization claiming to have a mature security posture should already have the people and resources necessary to operate, maintain, and validate that environment.
CMMC may expose the gap, but it did not necessarily create it.
This distinction is crucial when contractors evaluate the true cost of compliance.
CMMC does not simply ask organizations whether security controls exist.
It asks them to prove it.
Bruno characterizes CMMC as significantly more "show me" than other frameworks. Implementing the control is only one part of the process. Contractors also need evidence demonstrating that the control operates as expected.
Jeremy captures the difference with an education analogy:
The analogy highlights the difference in rigor and workload.
As expectations increase, the resources required to demonstrate compliance increase as well.
That is why organizations should plan for evidence management as an ongoing compliance function rather than something assembled immediately before an assessment.
Another important part of CMMC economics is the environment required to protect defense information.
Handling CUI and ITAR-controlled information can affect which people, vendors, technologies, and cloud environments an organization can use.
During the conversation, Bruno discusses considerations such as U.S.-based support requirements, Microsoft GCC and GCC High environments, and FedRAMP-aligned software.
These requirements can narrow the available options.
And when the pool of qualified vendors, technologies, and personnel gets smaller, costs can increase.
For contractors, those expenses are part of operating in an environment with more demanding data-protection requirements.
Understanding those constraints early helps organizations create more realistic compliance budgets and avoid unexpected technology changes later.
One number gets Jeremy's attention during the conversation: roughly 700 pieces of evidence per month.
Bruno explains that this is approximately what BEMO collects when managing compliance for customers.
The important lesson is not necessarily the exact number.
It is the cadence.
Evidence is gathered month after month so that organizations can demonstrate their security practices when needed.
Waiting until a few months before an assessment to reconstruct an entire year of evidence can create unnecessary pressure, missing documentation, and questions about whether controls were consistently performed.
Continuous evidence collection turns compliance from an annual scramble into an operational process.
Complexity has a cost.
Every additional server, application, platform, integration, and customized process can create another system that needs to be secured, managed, documented, monitored, and potentially included in compliance evidence.
That is why Bruno advocates simplifying and standardizing infrastructure where practical.
A more consolidated cloud environment can mean:
Simplification does not eliminate compliance requirements.
It can, however, make those requirements easier to manage.
A more intentional technology stack can help contractors reduce the operational burden of maintaining compliance over time.
CMMC costs money.
But labeling every security or technology expense a "CMMC tax" can distort the real budget conversation.
Instead, Bruno and Jeremy's discussion suggests separating expenses into three categories:
Separating those areas gives leadership a clearer picture of where the money is going and why.
More importantly, it shifts the conversation away from simply asking, "How much does CMMC cost?"
The better question becomes:
What does it cost to operate securely, prove it consistently, and remain eligible to handle sensitive defense information?
A successful CMMC strategy starts with understanding what you're actually paying for. That means separating assessment expenses from ongoing compliance requirements and the IT or cybersecurity investments necessary to operate securely.
👉 Book a meeting with BEMO's CMMC and cybersecurity experts to identify your readiness gaps and build a more realistic compliance roadmap.
Want more practical conversations about CMMC and cybersecurity? Subscribe to the Trust Issues podcast for discussions on compliance costs, assessment readiness, security operations, and protecting the defense industrial base.
CMMC can require a significant amount of evidence, third-party assessment work, and additional safeguards for organizations handling sensitive defense information. Those requirements can increase both preparation and ongoing compliance costs.
No. Some investments attributed to CMMC may actually address IT, cybersecurity, staffing, or compliance gaps that already existed. CMMC may reveal those weaknesses without being the underlying reason they need to be fixed.
Organizations protecting CUI may have stricter requirements for cloud services, software, support, and data handling. These constraints can reduce the number of available options and increase operating costs.
Continuous evidence collection helps organizations demonstrate that controls operate consistently. It also reduces the burden and risk of trying to reconstruct months of compliance activity immediately before an assessment.
Bruno's position in the episode is that organizations need sufficient IT capacity to operate their security environment effectively, along with appropriate compliance oversight to validate and document the work.
Break the budget into separate categories: certification and assessment expenses, ongoing compliance costs, and IT or security investments the business needs regardless of CMMC. This provides leadership with a clearer picture of the true economics of readiness.