Cloud engineering
Migrations and tenant architecture for organizations where Microsoft 365 is also the compliance boundary.
For a defense contractor, choosing a cloud environment is a compliance decision before it is a technical one. Where CUI is allowed to live, which government community tenant is required, and how the data flows between them determine what your assessment scope looks like for years afterwards.
We do this work because our compliance clients kept needing it and the two cannot sensibly be separated. Getting the tenant architecture wrong makes everything downstream harder and more expensive.
What we do
Migration to Microsoft 365 Commercial or GCC High, including tenant-to-tenant moves for organizations that chose wrong the first time. GCC High is frequently required for handling CUI and ITAR-controlled data, and it is materially different from Commercial in cost, feature availability, and support. Those differences are worth understanding before committing rather than after.
Configuring Microsoft 365 to satisfy specific control requirements: conditional access, data loss prevention, retention and labeling, endpoint policy, and the audit logging an assessor will ask to see. Mapped to CMMC requirements rather than to generic best-practice lists.
See also: CMMC Readiness
Assessment of an existing tenant against your obligations. Most tenants have accumulated configuration nobody remembers making, and a review typically surfaces both genuine risk and licensed capability that was paid for and never turned on.
Review of what you are paying Microsoft against what you actually use. Licensing is complicated enough that overspend is normal rather than exceptional, and the compliance-driven SKUs are among the easiest to over-purchase.
Process
Establish the compliance obligations first: what data you handle, what your contracts require, and which environments are therefore viable. This narrows the options considerably and does so before money is spent.
Document what exists today: tenants, subscriptions, identity, data locations, and licensing. Frequently the first accurate inventory an organization has had.
Target architecture with the compliance boundary drawn deliberately, so assessment scope is a decision rather than an accident.
Execution in stages, with rollback positions, rather than a single cutover weekend.
Configure to the control requirements and produce the evidence showing those configurations are in place and operating.
Deliverables
Every engagement produces documentation you can hand to an auditor, a customer, or your own board without translating it first.
FAQ
Both are available. Migration and architecture work is delivered directly; where you have a capable team already, the engagement is often design and review rather than execution.
Which one fits is a scoping conversation, not a fixed model.
It changes almost everything about how the environment should be designed. A boundary drawn for convenience is a boundary you will spend years evidencing.
Getting segmentation, identity, and logging right at design time is far cheaper than retrofitting them once an assessor has asked a question you cannot answer.
Yes. Reviewing an existing tenant is a common engagement on its own, and licensing analysis frequently pays for the work outright.
For the wider estate rather than the tenant, that is a cloud architecture assessment.
The GCC High question in particular is cheaper to answer before a migration than after one.