Digital Services

Release cycles keep getting shorter, but certification requirements are not getting lighter. The final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement took effect November 10, 2025, adding clause 252.204-7021 and requiring contractors to hold a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) status for the life of the contract. The Department of Defense’s suspension of Phase 2 on July 13, 2026, paused the third-party assessment mandate during a 60-day review.

However, the Phase 1 self-assessment and SPRS affirmation obligations that took effect in November 2025 remain unchanged; 252.204-7021 still requires an annual affirmation signed by a named official, and the Department will enforce all 110 NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 requirements through self-assessments and selected government-led reviews. 

Most of that lands on development teams, since the build pipeline is where controlled unclassified information (CUI) handling, access decisions, and audit evidence happen. Development, security, and operations (DevSecOps) move that work into the build. Done well, the automation you added to ship faster produces the evidence your affirmation depends on.

In this article: We discuss a practical breakdown of DevSecOps integration for existing development workflows, including security baselines across the software lifecycle, DevSecOps security automation in CI/CD pipelines, compliance mapping to CMMC and NIST SP 800-171, and post-deployment monitoring.

Why DevSecOps Integration Matters for Your Workflow

A build pipeline holds code signing material, deployment credentials, and write access to production. Attackers know this. In June, 2023, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) identified three primary attack scenarios against continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) environments: 

• Stolen developer credentials
• Compromised supply chain components
• Pipeline poisoning through modified configurations or injected dependencies

Contractors handling CUI have a second problem. When security review happens at the end of a sprint, the record of what was tested lives in an engineer’s memory or a folder of screenshots. Screenshots serve as evidence but aren’t sufficient on their own. They show a setting was correct the moment someone captured it, not that the control ran on every build for the relevant timeframe. 

Assessors want consistent operation over time, and an end-of-sprint review cannot produce that. Integration solves both problems at once, since the control and the log go to the same system.

Strengthening DevSecOps Security Across Your Organization

“All code must be secure” isn’t something software can check. “No build may pull a dependency from outside the approved registry” is. A security standard an automated check can’t evaluate is a standard nothing enforces, however well it reads in a policy document. Write the rules stage by stage, each one attached to a point in the pipeline where a machine can test it and stop the work when it fails.

Order the rules by how the code moves. A commit needs review by a second engineer and a cryptographic signature. A build resolves dependencies only from an approved registry. Deployment pulls secrets from a managed vault, never environment files or repository variables. Promotion between environments requires a passing scan and a recorded approval.

Access is usually where things have quietly gone wrong. Service accounts pick up permissions across projects and never give them back. Personal tokens outlast the engineer who created them. One credential is used in staging and production. 

Third-party components deserve the same discipline. Generate a software bill of materials (SBOM) for every release, and a newly disclosed vulnerability becomes a query against your own inventory.

Advancing Security Automation in Your Pipeline

Manual review doesn’t survive a daily release cadence. Engineers route around bottlenecks, so automated security testing has to run inside the pipeline itself. DoD Enterprise DevSecOps guidance puts static application security testing in continuous integration, dependency checking and dynamic analysis in test environments, and control gates on artifacts before promotion to production.

Tuning matters more than which scanner you buy. A gate that fails the build on every medium-severity finding gets switched off within two sprints, and then you have a policy on paper and nothing in the pipeline. 

A version that survives blocks on new high-severity findings and anything in the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, warns on everything else, and files each result in the ticket queue developers already watch. 

Remediation gets faster when the finding arrives with the commit that caused it, the file, the line, and a suggested fix, before the merge goes through.

Meeting DevSecOps Compliance Requirements for Government Contracts

CMMC Level 2 security requirements are identical to the requirements in NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2. That is 110 requirements across 14 families, not a separate control set to learn from scratch. Pipeline automation maps onto several of those families directly:

• Repository and environment permissions support Access Control
• Pipeline logs support Audit and Accountability
• Infrastructure as code with signed configurations supports Configuration Management
• Scan results and dependency inventories support Risk Assessment as well as System and Information Integrity

The mapping is only worth something if the output is still retrievable months later. Assessors ask what was in place on a specific date. A pipeline that retains scan results, approval records, and promotion decisions per release can answer that.

A gap analysis of the current toolchain against NIST SP 800-171 often turns up the same shortfalls. These include logs that expire at 30 days, gates a developer can bypass through a repository setting, and CUI that reaches build agents never scoped into the assessment boundary.

Aligning Development Security and Operations Teams

Shared responsibility only means something once it is written down as specific assignments. The pipeline definition should name who owns a failed gate, who can grant an exception, how long that exception lasts, and who reviews the exception log each month. Leave any of those open, and the decision gets made informally, usually by whoever pushes hardest in the moment.

Day-to-day, alignment looks pretty ordinary. Confirm that people are kept aware of updates and changes. Design reviews for anything touching a CUI boundary should include a threat modeling step. And findings should have a triage target and be tracked the same way defects are. 

Monitoring Security After Deployment

Scanning during the build proves the code was clean on the day you shipped it. But vulnerabilities are constantly discovered and published; software that passed every gate in March can be exposed in July. Watching for that after release is the job of continuous monitoring (ConMon).

This is where the SBOM pays for itself. Pair it with a current list of what you have running and where, and a new disclosure becomes a lookup instead of an investigation. You can name the affected services in an afternoon rather than spending a week asking teams what they installed. 

Two things round out the cycle. Production alerts should reach the team that owns and can fix the code. And scheduled penetration testing will allow a human tester to find what scanners miss. 

Programs running all of this continuously are positioned for continuous authorization, where the government accepts ongoing evidence that risk is managed instead of a document review on a fixed schedule.

Integrate DevSecOps Services With Vaultes

A few numbers tell you whether the integration is working. Raw finding counts are not among them, since counting findings rewards doing nothing. Watch remediation time by severity, the escape rate comparing vulnerabilities first caught in production against those caught in the pipeline, and the age of your open exceptions. 

Contractors who spend the suspension of Phase 2 (effective July 13, 2026) building evidence into the pipeline will be better prepared for next year’s affirmation and third-party assessments, when they return.

At Vaultes, we are an accredited FedRAMP 3PAO and an authorized CMMC C3PAO. We know what an assessor looks for and how to build DevSecOps into your systems before anyone asks. Request a consultation to talk through where your pipeline stands.

Defense contractors and federal suppliers have to ship quickly and prove compliance at the same time. The final rule revising DFARS clause 252.204-7021 took effect November 10, 2025, and solicitations began naming the CMMC level a company had to hold to be eligible for award.

In July 2026, the Department suspended Phase 2 and paused third-party certification as a condition of award while a reform task force reviews the program. However, the obligations underneath it, the self-assessment, annual affirmation, and NIST SP 800-171 controls, are still in effect.

A formal assessment captures one moment of the development cycle, but every merge, container image, and infrastructure change can alter the environment an assessor reviewed.

Automating compliance inside DevSecOps moves control validation and evidence collection into the pipeline, where the changes originate. Evidence then accumulates across the full period of performance instead of being reconstructed the week an assessor asks for it.

In this article: Learn how DevSecOps automation supports continuous compliance under CMMC, NIST SP 800-171, and FedRAMP, and what it takes to keep secure software development aligned with federal requirements.

Why Continuous Compliance Matters for DevSecOps

Point-in-time assessment was designed for infrastructure that changed quarterly. A modern pipeline can rebuild an entire application environment in minutes, which is why the system an assessor sampled in March may bear little resemblance to the one running in June.

Manual evidence collection takes engineering hours that are hard to budget for. Worse, weaknesses introduced between assessment cycles stay invisible until someone thinks to look.

Unknown weaknesses get expensive. The global average cost of a data breach hit a record $4.99 million between March 2025 and February 2026. For companies handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), a breach also brings contractual and reporting consequences that outlast the technical cleanup.

Automation changes what the work actually is. Teams stop assembling evidence for an assessment and start producing it continuously, as a byproduct of shipping software.

Integrating DevSecOps Automation Into Software Development

Security and architectural requirements belong in the same backlog. Threat modeling during design surfaces the data flows that touch CUI before anyone writes code, and those flows drive boundary decisions that determine assessment scope and cost. A readiness gap analysis before a build-out costs far less than re-architecting a production environment somebody scoped too broadly.

In the pipeline, that means static analysis, software composition analysis, secret scanning, and infrastructure-as-code policy checks running as pull request gates rather than advisory reports nobody opens. Branch protection rules, signed commits, and documented approval paths cover NIST SP 800-171 requirement 3.4.3, which calls for tracking, reviewing, approving, and logging changes to organizational systems. 

Engineers get a workflow they already use every day. Container images are built from hardened, approved base layers. Software bills of materials generate at build time, and artifact signing establishes provenance for anything promoted toward production.

The payoff shows up late in the cycle. Fixing a misconfigured storage bucket during design costs a conversation. Fixing the same bucket after an assessor writes it up costs a corrective action plan, a retest, and a slice of somebody’s program management time.

How Automated Validation Generates Audit Evidence

Assessors separate evidence that a control exists from evidence that it operates. A timestamped configuration screenshot can establish the control’s existence. Requirements with periodicity elements such as audit log reviews, scanning cadence, and change approvals need records that span time, and objectives that require exercising the mechanism, not examining an artifact, need a live demonstration.

Pipelines produce both kinds as a byproduct. They tie timestamped scan results, build logs, approval records, deployment histories, and policy evaluation output to specific commits.

Most of the effort then goes into the mapping. Every automated check should trace to a named requirement, so an assessor can follow a control to the mechanism that enforces it and the log that proves it ran.

Federal software producers encountered a related requirement that recently changed shape. In January 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rescinded the government-wide secure software attestation mandate. Agencies currently set their own software assurance terms according to their own risk determinations. 

The NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) is still the common reference those terms draw from, so pipeline telemetry answers most of what any given agency will ask for, and teams already collecting it skip a separate documentation exercise.

Aligning DevSecOps With CMMC, NIST SP 800-171, and FedRAMP

CMMC Level 2 security requirements are identical to NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2, and several requirement families map cleanly onto pipeline automation. Rev 2 is also the standard the Department named for self-assessment during the review period that began in July 2026, so instrumentation built against it holds its value.

Audit and accountability start with retaining records of system activity under 3.3.1, which pipeline logs already capture. Configuration management wants baseline configurations and controlled change, and policy-as-code enforces both at merge. Requirement 3.11.2 calls for scanning periodically and when new vulnerabilities surface, a cadence a scanner can hold easily.

Cloud providers encounter a related shift. FedRAMP 20x moves the program toward automated validation and machine-readable evidence, instead of static annual review cycles. Organizations pursuing authorization with FedRAMP advisory and assessment support usually find the instrumentation they built for CMMC carries over. Both models want proof that controls ran without interruption, and both will take that proof from a machine.

Strengthening Continuous Monitoring Across Build and Runtime

Continuous monitoring fails in a predictable pattern. Build time scanning matures first because it automates easily. Runtime coverage lags, sometimes for years. A workload that deployed clean can drift within days as configurations change, dependencies publish new advisories, and service accounts pick up permissions that nobody reviews.

The programs that hold up close each of those gaps. A scheduled job compares configuration baselines against running state. Vulnerability data refreshes against deployed artifacts rather than the latest build alone. Service account entitlements are reviewed on a set schedule. And alerts route to a named owner with a response window attached. 

Reporting cadence follows program obligations, and for cloud service providers that means recurring deliverables to the authorizing agency.

Maintaining DevSecOps Compliance Automation as Systems Change

Pipelines decay. Somebody spins up a repository outside the approved templates. A team adds a deployment path that skips the gates because a release was urgent. An engineer disables a failing check and never turns it back on.

All of that is ordinary engineering behavior. All of it quietly pulls a control out of the evidence chain.

Shared ownership prevents most of that drift. Development, security, and operations each own specific controls. When a gate has to be bypassed, the exception gets documented, and a named person accepts the residual risk. Control mappings also need a scheduled review, especially after architecture changes or a requirements update.

Every CMMC level requires an annual affirmation of continuing compliance in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), signed by a senior official. Level 1 pairs that with an annual self-assessment. Levels 2 and 3 carry a three-year reassessment cycle, though the third-party portion of that cycle is suspended during the program review. 

Programs that treat compliance evidence as normal system output spend less on audit prep every cycle, and they carry less regulatory risk in between.

How Vaultes Supports Continuous Compliance

At Vaultes, we help government agencies and Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractors build DevSecOps programs that produce compliance evidence during normal software delivery. We hold dual accreditation as a FedRAMP Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) and a CMMC Third-Party Assessment Organization (C3PAO). Request a consultation to talk through where your program stands and what comes next.

Fast software delivery can create real security pressure when teams build, test, and release without a shared risk model. Strong DevSecOps services help organizations bring security into daily engineering work, where issues are easier to detect, document, and resolve. 

For teams currently supporting Government missions, regulated workloads, or sensitive data environments, DevSecOps implementation creates a disciplined path for faster delivery and stronger control.

In This Article: How DevSecOps services implementation connects development speed with security accountability across secure software development, automated testing, CI/CD security, continuous monitoring, and compliance workflows for Government and regulated environments.

Integrating Security Early In Development

Security is strongest when teams build it into planning, design decisions, and the coding process from the very start.

Late-stage reviews often uncover problems after developers have already committed time, budget, and dependencies to a chosen architecture. Shift-left security gives teams earlier feedback, which can reduce rework and strengthen the secure development lifecycle.

Effective early integration can include threat modeling, secure coding standards, architecture reviews, dependency checks, and secrets detection. Developers don’t need to become full-time security analysts, but they do need clear guardrails inside the tools they already use. 

Tools, including static analysis, integrated development environment alerts, and peer review standards, can help teams catch vulnerabilities before deployment.

NIST Special Publication 800-218, the Secure Software Development Framework, supports this approach by outlining secure software development practices that organizations can apply across different software development lifecycle models. 

For regulated organizations, that structure helps connect engineering activity with documented risk management.

Automating Security Testing Processes

Automated security testing gives DevSecOps teams the consistency needed for modern release cycles. Manual reviews still have value, especially for architecture decisions and higher-risk findings, but they can’t keep pace with frequent commits, container updates, and infrastructure changes.

Automated security testing may include static application security testing, dynamic application security testing, software composition analysis, container image scans, infrastructure-as-code checks, and credential exposure detection. 

Each test should run at the right point in the workflow. Some checks belong in the developer environment, while others belong in pull requests, build stages, staging environments, or production monitoring.

Strong automation needs smart tuning to be effective. Too many low-value alerts can slow developers and lower overall trust in the process. 

Mature DevSecOps best practices use severity thresholds, exploitability context, asset sensitivity, and remediation ownership to help teams act on the findings that carry the most risk.

Aligning DevSecOps With Compliance Requirements

Compliance alignment should be built into DevSecOps services from the start, especially for organizations working under FedRAMP, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance, or federal software security expectations. 

Security controls, testing workflows, access records, vulnerability reports, and approval logs can all become useful evidence when organized correctly.

CISA’s Secure Software Development Attestation Form incorporates selected practices from NIST SP 800-218, which makes secure software development documentation especially relevant for federal contractors and software producers. 

DevSecOps consulting can help organizations connect technical practices to formal evidence, reducing audit friction and improving regulatory readiness.

Under FedRAMP vulnerability scanning guidelines, organizations must scan 100% of inventory components on a monthly basis at minimum. The requirement reinforces the need for automated vulnerability scanning, complete inventories, and clearly documented remediation workflows.

Strengthening Collaboration Across Teams

DevSecOps succeeds when development, security, operations, compliance, and leadership teams share responsibility. Siloed workflows create slow handoffs, missed context, and unclear ownership during deployment or incident response.

Collaboration should be practical. Security champions can represent security priorities inside engineering teams. 

Shared sprint planning can help teams schedule remediation before risk builds up. Joint incident reviews can turn production findings into better coding standards, stronger tests, and clearer deployment gates.

Clear ownership also improves response time, meaning that teams should know who reviews findings, who approves exceptions, who updates documentation, and who validates fixes. A shared workflow keeps security from becoming a last-minute blocker.

Implementing Continuous Monitoring

Continuous security monitoring helps teams detect threats, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations after software enters active environments. Applications, cloud resources, containers, identities, logs, and network activity all generate signals that can help security teams understand risk in near real time.

Monitoring should connect back to development. Production findings can inform backlog priorities, infrastructure changes, policy updates, and future test cases. 

A recurring misconfiguration, for example, may point to a needed infrastructure-as-code rule rather than a one-time ticket.

For regulated environments, continuous monitoring supports operational resilience and compliance reporting. Security teams need accurate asset inventories, vulnerability data, alert triage, and remediation records to support long-term oversight.

Securing CI/CD Pipelines

CI/CD security deserves focused attention because pipelines often hold access to code repositories, secrets, build systems, artifacts, and deployment environments. A compromised pipeline can affect the integrity of the software delivery process itself.

Effective CI/CD security begins by controlling who can reach pipelines, repositories, build systems, and deployment environments.

Teams should apply least privilege, protect branches, require code review, rotate secrets, and separate duties across build, test, approval, and deployment stages. Secrets should live in managed vaults, not code repositories or configuration files.

Maintaining Ongoing Security Improvements

DevSecOps cannot be treated as a one-and-done effort when risks, software components, cloud services, and regulatory requirements are constantly changing. Strong programs measure progress and refine controls over time.

Useful metrics to track include mean time to remediate vulnerabilities, recurring findings by application, security gate failure rates, dependency age, patch performance, and evidence completeness. 

Each of these measurements helps leadership understand where risk is improving and where teams need support.

Regular updates should include tool tuning, policy review, developer training, incident lessons, and control mapping. A mature DevSecOps implementation creates a feedback loop in which each release improves the next.

Build Stronger Software With Security Built In

DevSecOps services give organizations a disciplined way to connect secure software development, automation, compliance, monitoring, and deployment integrity. 

At Vaultes, we help teams mature their DevSecOps implementations with senior-level guidance, federal compliance expertise, and practical engineering support. 

Our DevSecOps consulting helps Government agencies, contractors, and regulated organizations build secure systems with confidence, clarity, and accountability.

Content modernization is a relationship challenge 

Content migration is often framed as a technical step in modernization: move pages out of legacy sites, implement them on a new platform, and decommission what’s old. But in practice, content migration and modernization lives or dies on something far less technical: relationships. 

Legacy content exists because people rely on it. It reflects years of policy decisions, operational constraints, and institutional knowledge. When that content moves to a modern platform, the work can’t succeed without the active involvement of the people who own, maintain, and depend on it. 

At the same time, those relationships are rarely uniform. Some program offices want to modernize the content themselves. Others need significant support or want little involvement. Capacity can shift over time. And priorities can change mid-migration. 

Content migration and modernization efforts that assume a single engagement model struggle. But those that treat it as a flexible partnership with shared standards and adaptable ownership are far more resilient. 

How inflexible approaches derail content migration 

Many content migration and modernization projects kick off with well-defined plans, fixed roles, and standardized workflows. While clarity has value, rigidity often becomes a liability when working with legacy content. Common failure patterns include: 

• Starting with tasks instead of trust: When migration begins with spreadsheets, deadlines, and review requests instead of first building relationships, program teams may feel overwhelmed, defensive, or unclear about why changes are needed. This slows reviews and increases resistance. 

• Assuming consistent capacity: Program offices rarely have stable availability. Staff turnover, policy changes, and operational demands can suddenly limit participation. Rigid processes and models break when teams can’t engage as originally planned. 

• Enforcing one way of working: Some teams want to audit and write their own content. Others prefer external drafting with internal review. Forcing a single model creates bottlenecks and frustration—especially when it doesn’t match how teams already work. These issues are not caused by lack of expertise or effort. They arise when content migration and modernization are treated as a linear production process rather than a collaborative, evolving relationship. 

A framework for flexible partnership in content migration 

Successful migration and modernization efforts are designed to adapt. The framework we use outlines three principles for building partnership models that support both progress and quality. 

1. Anchor the work in shared purpose, not fixed roles

Instead of starting with predefined responsibilities, we begin by aligning on outcomes. This creates room for flexibility while keeping everyone focused on the same goals. 

Early conversations emphasize questions such as: 

• What risks does outdated content pose today? 

• What does “successful migration” mean for this program? 

• What level of involvement feels realistic right now? 

By establishing shared purpose first, teams can adjust who does the work without losing momentum or trust. 

2. Separate standards from who does the work

Flexibility is only sustainable when standards are consistent. In strong partnership models, content standards are fixed, while execution is adaptable. Program offices may: 

• Lead content audits using shared templates 

• Draft or revise content themselves with guidance 

• Collaborate on reviews while the migration team implements 

Regardless of who performs the task, all content is held to the same expectations for accuracy, accessibility, clarity, and structure. 

This approach allows ownership to shift without lowering quality and empowers program teams to participate in ways that make sense for them. 

3. Design for shifting ownership over time

Content migration and modernization projects are rarely static. As the project progresses, capacity changes. Teams may become more confident and want to take on more responsibility or less. Flexible partnership models anticipate this by: 

• Allowing engagement levels to change over time 

• Providing tools, examples, and support to build confidence 

• Creating clear handoffs as legacy systems are retired 

Rather than locking teams into roles defined at kickoff, this approach treats ownership as something that evolves, supporting both immediate delivery and long-term sustainability. 

Moving legacy content forward

Modern platforms demand more than new technology. They require new ways of working together. 

When content migration and modernization efforts are approached as a partnership built on trust, flexibility, and shared standards, the process and outcomes are more resilient. Work continues even as conditions change. Ownership becomes clearer, not more fragmented. And content is better positioned to stay current long after legacy systems are gone. 

Content modernization succeeds not because responsibilities are rigidly assigned, but because partnerships are designed to adapt. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Many digital services companies develop a matrixed environment to support their teams in terms of program compliance, people management, and technical expertise. This often looks like technical expertise support from experienced practitioners, such as Directors or principal level subject matter experts, solution architects, enterprise coaches, and so forth, combined with contractual compliance support from Program Managers. While this approach ensures oversight, it introduces a fair amount of complexity, and often results in program delivery being several steps removed from company leadership.

Our Approach

Our program management practice at Vaultes is unique. On the surface, it looks like a typical government consulting set-up: each program is assigned a Program Manager who is responsible for serving as the main point of contact with our government clients and for ensuring the team delivers work that meets contractual requirements. However, it’s not quite that simple underneath. 

According to a 2014 study from the American Council for Technology¹, government IT project success depends on having a Program Manager with strong compliance and technical skills.  

At Vaultes, we believe in this approach. Our Program Managers are highly experienced in the traditional sense: they hold project, product, and program management certifications and have years of experience within government or government consulting. Along with these compliance skills, our Program Managers also have technical backgrounds, which ensures that our Program Managers can speak to the technical quality of the delivery teams’ work. That allows them to serve as true translators and connective tissue between delivery teams and our government stakeholders. They are equipped to be experienced thought-partners to stakeholders, and, in collaboration with a program’s technical practitioners, can ideate and serve as solution architects for complex government ecosystems.

What Separates Us From Other Vendors?

In addition to being a strong throughline from the team to the government stakeholders, our Program Managers are able to identify delivery risks early on due to their technical expertise. They know high-quality work because they have done it themselves and can proactively flag and remediate delivery risks and ensure high delivery outcomes because of their deep expertise.  

Our structure is built to operate in a lean, modular way with minimal overhead staff without sacrificing communication and delivery quality. In fact, our streamlined Program Management approach means we actually reduce the likelihood of communication and delivery errors. We don’t require lots of overhead staff to ensure delivery quality, because those team members are already embedded on the team in the form of our technical Program Managers and technical leads (on larger programs). Having minimal overhead roles allows us to pass savings on to our client without reducing work quality. It also reduces the layers between our company leadership and our delivery work, which speaks to another core Vaultes value: that delivery quality remains a top priority at all levels of our organization. Our Program Managers have immediate access to our Executive Leadership team and our growing Program Management Office. Our Program Managers are well-supported internally, so they can in turn focus on supporting our government clients and delivery teams.  

We’ve designed our organization in the same way that we like to design our solutions – lean, flexible, modular, adaptable, and built simply to reduce as many potential failure points as possible. When you choose to work with Vaultes, we assign each contract a Program Manager. If one is not in scope or budget for the contract, we provide one at no cost to clients – that’s how firmly we believe that our Program Managers help our teams deliver value. When you choose Vaultes for your digital services projects, know that everyone on the team has the expertise to deliver frictionless, high value experiences and similarly frictionless, high-quality outcomes.  

If you’d like to learn more about our Program Management Practice or our Digital Government Services, schedule a time to speak with us at info@vaultes.com.