Benefits
Build the foundation that determines success
Create the blueprint behind a successful ERP transformation by defining governance, requirements, and system architecture before implementation begins.
- Governance structure
- System requirements & architecture
- Change management & communications plan
- Program budget & cost model
- Current & future state process mapping
- Risk management approach
- End-to-end process mapping
Define what the system must do
Translate cost accounting, labor distribution, indirect rates, and billing into a system blueprint before vendors enter the conversation to account for the fundamental design differences of government contracting ERPs.
- Government contracts functional & technical requirements
- Compliance-driven system design (e.g., FAR, CAS, DCAA/DCMA)
- Data model & reporting architecture
- Integration requirements
- Requirements traceability
Choose what fits you — not your vendors
Select the right ERP and implementation partner through an independent process built around your operating model, compliance requirements, and long-term success — not vendor incentives.
- RFP strategy, development & support
- Evaluation model aligned to business
- Vendor and SI proposal evaluation
- Structured system demonstrations
- Vendor selection
See around missed corners
Build a multi-year transformation roadmap that aligns operational, technical, and compliance dependencies from the start — avoiding rework, contract risk, and downstream disruption.
- Multi-year transformation roadmap
- Phase sequencing
- Dependency mapping
- Implementation readiness criteria & gating strategy
Related
success stories
Take a deeper dive and discover how we’ve helped clients with Enterprise Systems Planning & Selection.
Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated Facility
Completed 120-day IT transition for newly formed business entity and implemented new ERP system with DOE integration
Read moreFAQs
Can’t find what you’re looking for?
Why do ERP transformations in government contracting environments fail at a higher rate than commercial ones?
Government contracting ERP failures are rarely caused by technology alone. They stem from underestimating the compliance architecture required before a single module goes live. Systems must be configured to support FAR Part 31 cost principles, indirect rate structures, project accounting, labor distribution, and CAS-compliant cost allocation from day one. When these requirements are treated as post-implementation adjustments rather than design inputs, contractors face costly rework, DCAA-identified accounting system deficiencies, and potential billing system failures. The planning and selection phase is where these outcomes are determined, not the implementation phase, making upfront investment in requirements definition the highest-leverage decision in the transformation lifecycle.
What governance structure should be in place before we begin selecting a system?
Effective transformation governance begins with establishing clear decision rights, an executive sponsor with sufficient authority, and a cross-functional steering committee that includes finance, operations, contracts, and IT leadership. Without this structure, vendor demonstrations drive decisions rather than documented system requirements and business process analysis. Governance also defines how your organization will manage scope creep, budget variances, and vendor escalations throughout the lifecycle. For government contractors specifically, governance must account for compliance dependencies, including DCAA accounting system adequacy criteria and DCMA business system requirements, ensuring that regulatory obligations are represented in every major architectural decision from the outset.
How do we ensure our vendor selection process is objective and aligned to our actual needs?
Objective vendor selection requires separating vendor relationship incentives from evaluation criteria before any demonstrations begin. A structured RFP development process defines your functional, technical, and compliance requirements independently of any vendor’s capabilities, creating a scoring baseline that vendor proposals are measured against rather than shaped by. For government contractors, evaluation criteria must include the vendor’s demonstrated ability to configure project-based cost accounting, indirect rate calculations, labor charging controls, and integrations with government billing systems such as WAWF or IPP. Assessing system integrator qualifications alongside the software platform is equally critical, as implementation risk is as consequential as product fit.
How do compliance requirements factor into our system architecture decisions?
Compliance requirements are not configuration options to be added after go-live. They are architectural inputs that determine how your chart of accounts, cost pool structure, project hierarchy, and timekeeping system must be designed. Contractors subject to CAS 401 through CAS 420 must ensure their system supports consistent cost accounting practices across all contracts, with sufficient granularity to demonstrate compliance during a DCAA floor check or incurred cost audit. For contractors pursuing or holding CMMC 2.0 certification, system architecture decisions also carry cybersecurity implications that affect data handling, access controls, and audit trail integrity across the enterprise.
What does a realistic multi-year transformation roadmap need to account for?
A credible transformation roadmap must sequence decisions across three interdependent dimensions: business readiness, technical dependencies, and compliance milestones. For government contractors, compliance milestones include accounting system approval, CAS disclosure statement submission if required, and alignment with active contract performance timelines that cannot absorb system disruptions. Budget development must account for implementation costs, change management, parallel processing periods, and post-go-live stabilization, all of which are routinely underestimated. Roadmaps that fail to model these dependencies create downstream team frustration, contract risk, and budget overruns that are entirely avoidable when the planning phase is executed with the right expertise.
At what point in our organization’s growth should we be evaluating a new or upgraded system?
The most common trigger points are contract award growth that increases CAS coverage thresholds, transition from commercial to cost-reimbursable contract vehicles, preparation for a DCAA accounting system pre-award survey, and M&A activity that requires integrating disparate systems under a unified compliance posture. Each of these events compresses the available time for thoughtful system selection, making proactive planning a strategic advantage rather than a reactive necessity. Organizations that evaluate their system landscape before these triggers arrive have the runway to define requirements properly, run a structured vendor process, and avoid the compounding costs of implementing under pressure with compliance deadlines already active.
Take control of your transformation from day one
Avoid common ERP failures in government environments by embedding cost accounting, indirect rates, and compliance into your system design from the start.