CMMC 2.0 is not optional. Neither is governing the AI your team already uses.
The gap between what your policy says and what your AI agents actually do is the finding an assessor will write up. Most contractors cannot yet produce evidence that the tools touching CUI are governed.
AI tools touch CUI without governance.
Copilots and agents are already in the workflow. If they reach controlled data ungoverned, that is a reportable gap.
You can’t hand the assessor a control map.
CMMC runs on documented evidence. AI governance that isn’t mapped to controls produces nothing an assessor can score.
A failed assessment puts the contract at risk.
For defense suppliers, CMMC status is eligibility. A gap on AI controls is a gap on your ability to win and keep work.
Select a CMMC 2.0 domain. See the AI SAFE² controls that satisfy it.
Illustrative crosswalk. Your engagement produces a full control-by-control mapping from the AI SAFE² v3.0 governance framework to your CMMC 2.0 assessment scope.
Evidence an assessor accepts. Methodology with a pedigree.
AI SAFE² mapped to CMMC 2.0
A documented crosswalk from 161 controls to your assessment scope — assessor-ready evidence, not prose.
USCYBERCOM-lineage methodology
Built by practitioners who governed autonomous systems at national scale — the standard, applied to your environment.
Capability Statement & past performance
Contracting-ready documentation for your file — capability statement, past performance, and points of contact.
IT-AAC affiliated
Aligned with the IT Acquisition Advisory Council on standards-based, mission-focused acquisition practice.
Start by measuring your exposure with a free AI governance assessment — then we build the documented crosswalk to CMMC 2.0.
What contracting and security leads ask us.
Close the AI governance gap before the assessor finds it.
Request a federal briefing, or start with a free AI governance assessment to baseline your CMMC 2.0 readiness.