For years, “compliance” has been treated like an unavoidable tax on doing business with the Pentagon. Today, with CMMC 2.0 tied directly to award eligibility, it has quietly become one of the strongest competitive levers defense contractors and their MSP partners can pull. According to recent research, only about 1% of defense contractors report being fully prepared for CMMC audits, even as enforcement begins to bite; that gap is creating winners and losers in real time.​

The compliance gap no one can ignore

Recent state-of-the-DIB reporting shows that despite years of lead time, the vast majority of contractors are still struggling with basic CMMC and NIST 800‑171 requirements such as multi-factor authentication, endpoint protection, and vulnerability management. Median SPRS scores have improved, but still sit far below the maximum 110, which means most organizations are not yet in a position to pass a rigorous third‑party assessment.​

At the same time, the Department of Defense has finalized CMMC 2.0 rules and begun phasing requirements into DFARS, meaning more and more solicitations will include CMMC levels as explicit conditions of award over the next several years. Contractors that cannot demonstrate the required level at bid or award are increasingly treated as ineligible — no matter how strong their technical solution or past performance.​

Locked out of billions vs. capturing the pipeline

Analysts and law firms have been blunt: non‑compliance is now a contract‑eligibility problem, not just a cyber‑risk problem. For thousands of small and mid‑tier firms that make up the bulk of the Defense Industrial Base, failure to reach CMMC Level 2 in time will mean exclusion from a significant portion of future DoD opportunities as clauses flow down into solicitations and subcontracts.​

The flip side is powerful. Research commissioned by CyberSheath highlights that roughly 80,000 contractors will ultimately need Level 2 certification, but only a tiny fraction hold final certificates or feel fully ready today. That mismatch means early movers — those who can prove validated compliance — will be among a relatively small group eligible to compete for and absorb work as enforcement tightens, effectively capturing business that non‑compliant competitors leave on the table.​

Why primes and COs now prefer “boring” compliant partners

Prime contractors are under mounting pressure to manage cyber risk deep into their supply chains, and CMMC is designed explicitly to flow obligations down to subcontractors handling CUI. Studies show that many vendors still lack basic governance, such as formal third‑party risk assessments and contractual security requirements, which makes them weak links from a prime’s perspective.​

In this environment, a subcontractor that can walk into a teaming discussion with a clear SPRS score, current gap assessment, documented enclave for CUI, and evidence of continuous control monitoring looks like a low‑risk, high‑signal choice. For contracting officers and evaluators sifting through proposals, that kind of clarity around cyber posture can help de‑risk awards and reduce the likelihood of painful headlines or program delays later.​

Turning artifacts into capture ammunition

Most contractors already generate compliance artifacts: System Security Plans, Plans of Action and Milestones, policies, incident response plans, and audit logs. The difference between a “check‑the‑box” player and a capture‑driven player is how those artifacts are used. Contractors focused on growth translate their compliance posture into proposal‑ready proof:

• Using SPRS scores and remediation history to demonstrate credible progress toward full NIST 800‑171 implementation.

• Describing their CUI enclave architecture and monitoring capabilities in technical volumes to show that sensitive data will be segregated and protected above baseline expectations.​

• Highlighting regular internal or third‑party assessments to signal that compliance is sustained, not just point‑in‑time.​

Framing these elements explicitly as risk‑reduction and program‑stability benefits turns what used to be “appendix fodder” into part of the winning pitch.

The MSP as the compliance engine behind multiple winners

This is where MSPs serving defense tech can step into a much larger role. Most of the operational controls that CMMC and NIST 800‑171 care about — identity and access management, patching, endpoint protection, logging, vulnerability management, backup, incident response — are already in the MSP wheelhouse. With the right compliance tools in place, the opportunity is to design and market those services as a repeatable “compliance engine” that primes and subs can plug into.​

In practice, that means:

• Standardized, CMMC‑mapped reference architectures (for example, secure Microsoft 365/Azure or other enclave designs) that can be deployed and documented consistently across multiple clients.​

• Managed evidence pipelines: ticketing, logging, and configuration baselines organized so that generating audit‑ready packages for a C3PAO or government review becomes a routine export, not a heroic project.​

• Shared dashboards for executives and BD teams that track compliance posture alongside contract timelines, so leadership can see where risk to eligibility exists months before recompetes or major bids.​

An MSP that can do this at scale becomes far more than “the IT vendor.” It becomes the infrastructure that lets a prime uplift its entire supply chain and a mid‑tier subcontractor show up to every capture discussion already halfway through the compliance story.

Packaging services as capture accelerators, not just protections

For MSPs, the language around these offerings matters. Defense contractors are used to buying “readiness projects” that leave them with binders and diagrams but no sustained operational muscle. A better framing is to offer ongoing, subscription‑based services explicitly designed to protect eligibility and improve win rates, such as:​

• “CMMC‑ready environment in 90 days” packages that combine hardening, documentation, and initial gap closure tied directly to upcoming solicitations.

• “SPRS improvement and maintenance” services that commit to measurable score improvements and continuous evidence collection.

• “Prime supply‑chain uplift” programs where the MSP partners with a prime to standardize a compliant baseline across a cohort of key subs, de‑risking the prime’s CMMC obligations and making those subs more competitive.

By anchoring outcomes in business terms — “eligible for Level 2 awards,” “no scramble before C3PAO assessments,” “faster onboarding to new programs” — MSPs can justify higher value pricing and build stickier relationships.

Using your MSP relationship as a selling point

For defense tech firms, the MSP relationship itself can become part of the pitch. Proposal teams should work with their MSPs to:

• Include high‑level descriptions of the managed environment, monitoring, and incident response coverage in technical and management volumes, showing that cyber responsibilities are clearly assigned and operationalized.​

• Attach tailored statements of capability or letters from the MSP describing the environment’s alignment with CMMC levels and DFARS clauses, to reassure evaluators and primes.​

• Build joint case studies demonstrating how improved compliance posture reduced findings in past audits or helped clear assessment hurdles ahead of a bid.​

When the MSP can credibly tell that story across multiple clients, it creates network effects: each successful certification and award becomes proof that the “compliance engine” model works.