IAM Integration

No. That line gets drawn clearly, not just when asked. This service implements phishing-resistant MFA and automated account lifecycle management aligned to NIST SP 800-53 IA-2/AC-2, producing an evidence package suitable for inclusion in your authorization documentation and for closing related POA&M items, subject to your agency's independent assessment. The assessment and the authorization decision remain separate steps owned by your Authorizing Official.

Licensing is not integration. The gap between "we have Entra ID" and "our 40 applications enforce phishing-resistant MFA with automated deprovisioning" is exactly this service, and it's the gap your Zero Trust Maturity Model identity-pillar score reflects.

Some applications can't federate natively, that's why the methodology includes a per-app legacy strategy (gateway, delegation, or documented risk acceptance) and a pilot wave before anything mission-critical moves. Nothing cuts over without the application owner's tested sign-off.

We'd point you to the methodology and the people: FICAM-aligned architecture, NIST SP 800-63-4 assurance-level selection, and the specific platform certifications our architects hold. The engagement model is also built for exactly this concern, a fixed-price assessment sized so your exposure is one small task order before committing to integration waves.

Not a department-wide enterprise program today, and we say so upfront. Avalon is sized for component and bureau-level engagements, roughly 15–40 applications, one identity platform, that enterprise integrators routinely under-serve because the deal size doesn't clear their overhead.

A single-bureau engagement with one identity provider and 15–40 applications typically runs 4–7 months end to end. The entry-point readiness assessment alone runs 4–8 weeks.

PIV at the desktop login does not mean phishing-resistant authentication at each application, per-application enforcement is the actual requirement, and the actual gap this service closes.