For years, many organizations have approached CMMC 2.0 readiness primarily as a technical exercise to be handled by IT or a security team. That approach was understandable when cybersecurity requirements were viewed mainly as best practices or internal risk management initiatives.
However, under CMMC 2.0, that mindset creates actual risk.
With the CMMC Final Rule in place, and major primes already demanding that their sub-contractors be compliant, things have changed. The method does not cover interpreting, documenting, or validating requirements. As a result, CMMC now affects far more than security posture. It directly influences contract eligibility, award decisions, performance obligations, assessment outcomes, and legal exposure.
Importantly, organizations that continue to treat CMMC as an IT-only project risk falling behind. In fact, the reality is that CMMC readiness is now a cross-functional obligation that must involve legal, contracts, compliance, and IT working together. Those that align these functions early are better positioned to reduce risk and build sustainable compliance.
To understand why, organizations must start with the legal foundation behind CMMC.
CMMC Is Rooted in Contract Law, Not Just Cybersecurity
From the start, IT departments were not supposed to handle CMMC requirements entirely. The requirements we have in place now started as federal acquisition regulations. Enforcement flows from DFARS clauses that make cybersecurity an enforceable condition of contract performance.
Specifically, DFARS 252.204-7012, 7019, 7020, and 7021 convert cybersecurity obligations into legally binding contractual commitments. The Department of Defense commonly incorporates these clauses into its contracts across the Defense Industrial Base. For sub-contractors who rely on DoD contracts for their business, these are accepted as a matter of course. Failure to comply can result in contractual and legal consequences, not just technical findings.
Importantly, what qualifies as CUI is not determined by IT teams alone. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) defines CUI categories, and organizations are expected to scope systems based on how contracts and the CUI Registry define data handling requirements.
Collectively, these clauses require contractors to implement NIST SP 800-171 to protect controlled unclassified information, submit accurate SPRS scores reflecting their implementation status, and cooperate with Department of Defense assessments and audits. DFARS 7021 further integrates CMMC 2.0 into contract award and performance, meaning compliance may determine whether an organization can bid, win, or continue performing on certain contracts.
Now, here is something some companies may not realize. Once the parties accept these clauses and execute a contract, they can enforce the obligations. Contractors are responsible for understanding the requirements they accept and for maintaining compliance throughout contract performance. Therefore, failures can impact current contracts, renewals, and future awards.
This legal foundation explains why CMMC readiness cannot live solely within IT teams. It begins with understanding contractual obligations.
Why IT-Only CMMC Programs Commonly Fail
Many DIB organizations approach CMMC readiness by focusing first on technical configurations. Usually, efforts may center on security technologies, network segmentation, or system hardening. While these activities are important, they address only part of the requirement.
However, without legal and contractual context, this approach often leads to critical gaps. Organizations may incorrectly scope where CUI exists, either over-scoping systems unnecessarily or under-scoping environments that actually handle regulated data. Both scenarios increase risk, either through wasted effort or assessment failure. This is especially common when organizations misunderstand where CUI is actually processed, stored, or transmitted, including through third-party providers or remote access configurations.
IT-focused efforts can also result in inaccurate SPRS scores, particularly when scores are based on assumptions or partial implementations. Inaccurate reporting creates downstream contractual and legal exposure. Documentation may reflect IT practices but fail to align with contractual obligations or assessor expectations. Controls may exist technically but not meet what the contract legally requires.
Interpreting legal and contractual aspects is necessary to determine when and how to pass requirements to subcontractors, verify their compliance, and meet contractual incident reporting deadlines. Determining when and how requirements must be passed to subcontractors, verifying subcontractor compliance, and meeting contractual incident reporting deadlines all require legal and contractual interpretation.
One of the most important factors to consider is that CMMC is a government requirement, and it carries legal weight. That means what you submit to them carries a legal risk associated with those representations. Technology solves execution problems, not interpretation problems.
Legal Risk Is Now a Central Part of CMMC Readiness
Under CMMC 2.0, representations about compliance matter as much as the controls themselves. Statements made to the government regarding cybersecurity posture are treated as contractual representations. Accuracy is critical. Recent enforcement actions and whistleblower cases show that inaccurate cybersecurity representations are increasingly treated as contractual and legal failures, not just audit issues.
If a contractor makes an inaccurate or unsupported claim within CMMC, inaccurate or unsupported claims can create a range of legal consequences. Failure to meet DFARS cybersecurity requirements may constitute a breach of contract, affecting performance, renewals, or termination decisions. Questionable or inconsistent information can disqualify organizations from future awards because source selection uses compliance status and SPRS scores.
Inaccurate submissions may also trigger increased scrutiny. The DoD may initiate additional assessments, request supporting documentation, or require corrective actions. In more serious cases, knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting compliance can increase enforcement risk under the False Claims Act.
The Department of Justice has publicly identified cybersecurity misrepresentation as an area of focus through its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative. This reinforces that cybersecurity representations are no longer viewed as purely technical matters.
SPRS scores and other compliance statements and documentation are no longer just internal artifacts. These materials may be reviewed, relied upon, and audited beyond the original assessment. Legal review helps ensure that what an organization claims aligns with what it can prove. CMMC documentation is now a legal artifact, not just an audit checklist.
The Bridge from Contracts to Controls
One of the biggest sources of confusion surrounding CMMC is how its various components relate to one another.
DFARS defines what is legally required. These clauses establish the obligation to protect CUI, specify reporting and assessment rights, and define accountability. NIST SP 800-171 outlines the 110 technical and procedural controls that must be followed to protect CUI, showing how to meet those obligations. CMMC assesses and verifies compliance with these controls.
DIB organizations have to connect these three layers intentionally. Contract language going forward will define the obligations, timelines and who is responsible for what. Control implementation must align with those obligations. Evidence and documentation must demonstrate that controls operate as required.
If those layers are misaligned, even at the technical level, or within more mature existing programs, the assessment can fail. Someone might implement controls but not document them properly. Documentation may exist but fail to satisfy assessor expectations. Legal, technical, and evidentiary alignment is essential.
Why CMMC Requires Cross-Functional Ownership
Organizations that succeed in their CMMC 2.0 efforts understand that multiple functions must work together. For example:
- Legal teams interpret contractual obligations and assess risk.
- Contracts teams manage flowdowns, certifications, and contract-specific requirements.
- Compliance teams coordinate documentation, policies, and assessment artifacts.
- IT and security teams implement and maintain controls.
When these functions attempt to operate in silos, inconsistencies emerge. Documentation may conflict. Claims may not match implementation. Issues discovered late often require costly remediation.
CMMC readiness should be governed like any other enterprise risk program, with clear ownership, oversight, and coordination. Treating it as a business-wide responsibility supports long-term resilience. This means having buy-in from the C-suite at the very top, down to anyone who handles, manages or secures CUI.
From One-Time Projects to Continuous Readiness
Another element of CMMC 2.0 is that DIB businesses may not realize that this is not a one-and-done situation. Once you work to achieve the CMMC certification, you are not done. In most cases, that certification only lasts three years. Plus, compliance obligations persist throughout contract performance. Contracts may require annual affirmations, ongoing evidence maintenance, or reassessments. Evidence should show how controls work in practice and be updated as environments change. In some cases, contracting officers may also validate compliance before exercising option years, increasing the need for sustained readiness beyond initial certification.
Manual, ad hoc approaches are difficult to sustain and increase the potential for errors. Repeatable automated processes help organizations remain aligned as requirements evolve and reduce disruption when reviews occur.
How Organizations Can Approach CMMC Readiness More Effectively
One of the ways to reduce that legal risk is to approach the entire CMMC process from a legal perspective first. Clearly defining CUI scope, aligning policies and procedures with contractual obligations, and implementing workflows that support consistency are essential steps.
Planning for continuous compliance rather than assessment day alone helps organizations stay prepared as contracts, systems, and requirements change.
Conclusion: CMMC Readiness Is a Business Risk Issue
CMMC readiness now affects contract eligibility, revenue continuity, legal exposure, and supplier relationships. Organizations that treat it as an IT-only project risk falling behind.
The most resilient programs combine legal insight with practical execution. As CMMC requirements expand across contracts, this integrated approach is becoming the standard.
To explore these legal and practical perspectives in more depth, review our webinar about becoming CMMC 2.0 compliant with a look at the legal ramifications. To explore these legal and practical perspectives in more depth, review our upcoming webinar on navigating CMMC 2.0 compliance and understanding its legal implications. Or, view our CMMC Ready Suite to see how our solutions can help you all along your CMMC compliance journey.
