In defense manufacturing, a target’s compliance posture is a valuation input.
Who this is for
Acquirers evaluating defense or manufacturing targets, sellers preparing for diligence, and private equity firms with portfolio companies carrying CUI or DFARS obligations.
Problems we address
- Compliance posture unassessed until after the deal closes
- Integration cost and timeline underestimated in the model
- Undisclosed incidents or unremediated findings inherited at close
- Two incompatible security architectures requiring reconciliation
- Contract security obligations that may not survive a change of ownership
Scope and approach
We assess the target’s real security and compliance position: implemented controls versus documented claims, open findings, incident history, contract obligations, and the condition of the environment someone will have to integrate.
Findings are quantified where possible — remediation and integration cost, not just risk language — so they can inform valuation, escrow, or representations rather than sitting in an appendix.
For sellers, we run the same assessment early, so issues get remediated before a buyer prices them in.
Typical deliverables
- Technical and compliance due diligence report
- Control implementation validation against documented claims
- Quantified remediation and integration cost estimate
- Contract and flow-down obligation review
- Integration architecture and sequencing plan
- Post-close remediation roadmap with priorities
Framework and technology context
CMMC and DFARS obligations under change of ownership, NIST SP 800-171, Microsoft tenant consolidation, OT and manufacturing systems integration, and foreign ownership and control considerations.
If a deal is moving and nobody has looked at the target’s compliance posture, there is still time.
OSC provides technical and compliance due diligence. We do not provide legal, financial, accounting, or investment advice, and our findings should be considered alongside counsel and financial advisors rather than in place of them.