Benefits
Own your implementation
Put a program leader in place who drives decisions, governs scope, and keeps vendors aligned, without tech bias or compliance surprises.
- Program management (PMO)
- Vendor coordination & management
- Governance & decision cadence
- Solution & architecture alignment
Build it right the first time
Translate business and compliance requirements into design, configuration, and code so what you need is what you get at go-live.
- Process design & build oversight
- Embedded compliance controls
- Security & reporting design
- Testing strategy & execution support
De-risk go-live
Set yourself up for the smoothest transition to your new operating environment with system validation, training, and cutover.
- Go‑live readiness & validation
- ERP training & change management
- Cutover planning & execution support
Make your system stick
Stabilize fast, drive usage, and measure value — so the system becomes the way work gets done, not another tool people work around.
- Hypercare & stabilization
- Value realization metrics
Related
success stories
Take a deeper dive and discover how we’ve helped clients with Enterprise Systems Implementation.
International Offshore Engineering Services Provider
Modernized enterprise operations through an ERP overhaul, expanding capacity to deliver national security priorities
Read moreFAQs
Can’t find what you’re looking for?
Why do government contractors need independent oversight during an ERP implementation?
System integrators are commercially incentivized to deliver scope on time and on budget as defined in their contract, not necessarily to protect your compliance posture or long-term operational interests. Without an independent owner’s representative, contractors routinely discover post-go-live that indirect rate structures, labor charging controls, project accounting configurations, and cost pool definitions were implemented in ways that satisfy the integrator’s delivery milestones but fail DCAA accounting system adequacy standards. An owner’s rep operates with undivided loyalty to the contractor’s requirements, maintaining authority over scope decisions, vendor coordination, and architecture alignment throughout the full implementation lifecycle.
How do compliance requirements get embedded into system design and configuration?
Compliance requirements must be translated into specific system design decisions before configuration begins, not retrofitted after testing reveals gaps. For government contractors, this means building FAR Part 31 cost principle logic into your chart of accounts, configuring project hierarchy to support contract-level cost segregation, and ensuring timekeeping and labor distribution modules enforce the controls required under DCAA’s internal control standards. CAS-covered contractors must additionally verify that cost accounting practices are consistently applied across all contracts and that the system produces the data necessary to support a CAS disclosure statement audit. Each of these is a design decision, not a configuration setting.
What are the most common compliance failures introduced during ERP implementation?
The most consequential implementation failures in government contracting environments share a common origin: compliance requirements that were documented during planning but not carried through into configuration, testing, and cutover. Specific failure patterns include unallowable cost pools that are not properly segregated, billing system outputs that cannot be reconciled to job cost ledgers, timekeeping controls that allow retroactive edits without audit trails, and reporting structures that cannot produce the data required for an incurred cost submission. Each of these failures is detectable during system testing if compliance scenarios are included in the test plan, which is precisely why independent compliance oversight during the build phase is operationally necessary rather than advisory.
How should we be thinking about go-live risk in a government contracting environment?
Go-live risk in a government contracting environment carries consequences that commercial implementations do not face. A failed or poorly managed cutover can disrupt contract billing, delay provisional billing rate submissions, and create gaps in labor charging records that become audit findings. System validation must include scenario-based testing against active contract structures, not just functional unit testing. Cutover planning must account for the parallel processing period required to ensure your accounting system produces compliant outputs before legacy systems are decommissioned. Contractors with active DCAA relationships should also assess whether a system change notification is warranted under applicable contract requirements prior to go-live.
What role does cybersecurity play in an ERP implementation for defense contractors?
For defense contractors, ERP implementation is increasingly inseparable from CMMC 2.0 compliance obligations. Systems that handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), including contract data, pricing information, and personnel records, must be configured with access controls, audit logging, and data handling practices that satisfy CMMC Level 2 requirements under DFARS 252.204-7012 and NIST SP 800-171. Implementation decisions around data security architecture, user provisioning, and third-party integrations all carry cybersecurity implications that must be evaluated against these standards before go-live. Contractors who treat cybersecurity as a post-implementation compliance checkbox rather than a design input risk both contract eligibility and program continuity.
How do we ensure our organization actually adopts the new system and realizes its intended value?
System adoption is the most frequently underinvested phase of an ERP transformation and the one most directly responsible for the gap between projected and realized return on investment. Effective adoption requires structured ERP training calibrated to role-specific workflows, a hypercare support model that resolves issues in real time during the critical post-go-live stabilization window, and a transformation measurement framework that tracks whether compliance outputs, operational efficiency, and cost recovery outcomes are performing against pre-implementation baselines. For government contractors, adoption failure carries a specific risk: teams that revert to manual workarounds outside the system create internal control gaps that surface as findings during the next DCAA or DCMA business system review.
Make your ERP work the way your business does
Implement with an owner’s rep who aligns government requirements with your risk tolerance and real-world operations.