Kratos SecureInfo FedRAMP Cost: What a Kratos 3PAO Engagement Costs in 2026

SecureInfo is a Virginia-headquartered cybersecurity assessment firm acquired by Kratos Defense in 2010 and now operating as a subsidiary of the broader Kratos Defense and Security Solutions portfolio. The firm holds FedRAMP 3PAO accreditation via A2LA and is consistently among the most-named federal-focused 3PAOs on the FedRAMP Marketplace assessor list. What distinguishes Kratos from Coalfire, Schellman, and A-LIGN is the parent-company federal heritage. Kratos Defense holds prime and subcontract relationships across the DoD, Intelligence Community, and civilian federal space, and its assessment subsidiary carries the institutional context that comes with that history.

The practical effect is that Kratos assessors tend to understand the relationship between FedRAMP and the surrounding federal compliance ecosystem more deeply than 3PAOs whose practice originated in commercial assurance. The DoD Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (CC SRG), the NIST Risk Management Framework variations across IL2 through IL6, and the way IRS Publication 1075 and FedRAMP overlap on tax-data systems are subjects Kratos assessors can navigate without external consultation. That depth matters less for pure commercial SaaS sold into civilian agencies, but it matters a great deal for CSPs whose business case includes selling into Defense.

The firm's authorization volume on the Marketplace is below Coalfire's and roughly comparable to A-LIGN's on initial assessments at Moderate. The bigger differentiator is the mix: a higher share of Kratos engagements involve High-impact systems, DoD-adjacent boundaries, and CSPs whose ultimate destination is IL4 or IL5 rather than commercial federal civilian sales. CSPs targeting that destination often consolidate assessor relationships with Kratos early.

The Kratos range tracks Coalfire's closely on like-for-like Moderate scope, with the firm sometimes coming in marginally below and sometimes at parity. What is notable is the optional DoD SRG add-on at the bottom of the table. Kratos can perform the Cloud Computing SRG assessment work DISA requires for IL4 and IL5 provisional authorization. Bundling FedRAMP and SRG assessment work with the same firm avoids the friction of two independent assessor teams covering overlapping evidence, and it produces a more coherent narrative across the two authorizations.

The IL4 / IL5 add-on is not appropriate for every CSP. Many CSPs that achieve FedRAMP Moderate authorization never pursue DoD authorization because their addressable market sits inside civilian agencies. For those CSPs, the Kratos federal-heritage premium pays for capability that is never used. The FedRAMP vs DoD IL4 cost page works through when the DoD addressable market is large enough to justify the additional authorization investment.

Federal program management as a discipline is different from commercial audit. Federal program managers tend to think in terms of milestone-driven deliverables, formal change control, written communication trails, and governance reviews. Commercial audit firms increasingly adopt those practices, but federal-heritage firms like Kratos operate them as native culture rather than acquired technique.

The pay-off shows up in three places. First, ConMon delivery is more predictable. Annual subset assessment dates are set early, deliverable schedules are committed in writing, and slippage is rare. CSPs that have experienced ConMon engagement-management drift with other firms (assessment dates moving by weeks, deliverable quality varying between cycles) often value Kratos's discipline. Second, AO interaction is smoother. Kratos assessors tend to write SARs in the prose register and structure federal AOs are comfortable reviewing, which reduces the back-and-forth during agency review. Third, formal change control is built into the engagement. Significant Change Requests are scoped, priced, and delivered as discrete program-management deliverables rather than ad-hoc engineering interventions.

The trade-off is administrative weight. Kratos's program-management discipline adds modest overhead compared to leaner commercial-style engagement structures. For a startup CSP whose engineering team chafes at formal program management, the cultural fit can be uncomfortable. The FedRAMP cost for a startup page describes the cultural-fit dimension of 3PAO selection in more detail.

Two scenarios push CSPs away from Kratos. First, pure commercial SaaS with no DoD aspirations. CSPs whose business case is civilian agency sales (HHS, GSA, USDA, Treasury, Commerce) and whose product roadmap does not extend into Defense rarely extract the federal-heritage premium Kratos's pricing reflects. For that profile, Schellman's commercial-assurance cross-leverage or A-LIGN's phased flexibility usually produce a better cost outcome. Second, CSPs that prioritize speed over depth. Kratos's program-management discipline adds structure but also adds time. Engagement timelines tend to be slightly longer than the leanest commercial-style 3PAOs, which can matter when a fiscal-year ATO target is at risk.

The right way to evaluate Kratos against the alternatives is to ask: where will this CSP's product be in five years? If the answer involves DoD authorization, classified workloads, or IRS-1075 data, Kratos's federal depth becomes a real asset that compounds over the multi-year ConMon cycle. If the answer is purely civilian commercial SaaS sold federally, the depth is mostly unused and the premium is hard to justify.