APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT & MODERNIZATION
APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT & MODERNIZATION
Avalon replaces the systems an agency can no longer afford to maintain, staff, or secure with modern ones it can, without stopping the mission to do it.
Avalon takes the aging system your agency depends on and rebuilds it on a modern, supportable foundation in controlled increments, assess, plan, then modernize piece by piece, so the mission never bets everything on one risky cutover.
THE PROBLEM & THE APPROACH
The Challenge
Our Approach
The system can't absorb a new mission requirement or a policy change, updates take months, and outages threaten the operations that depend on it.
Avalon decomposes the system incrementally using a strangler-fig pattern: new services stand up alongside the legacy system and traffic migrates slice by slice, so the mission never stops running.
Unsupported operating systems, languages, and components can't satisfy NIST SP 800-53 SA-22, generate repeat audit findings, and put the system's Authorization to Operate at risk at reauthorization.
Every application gets an explicit, evidence-based disposition, and reauthorization checkpoints are built into the modernization roadmap from day one, not discovered at cutover.
O&M consumes a growing share of the IT budget as scarce legacy specialists and escalating vendor extended-support contracts eat what should be modernization funding.
A fixed-price assessment quantifies the agency's own cost curve and scores each application on mission criticality, technical health, cost, and compliance exposure, so the business case is evidence, not a vendor's assumption.
Institutional knowledge is concentrated in a small number of people near retirement, and a single departure can strand the agency with an unmaintainable system.
Documentation, runbooks, and knowledge transfer are standard deliverables, and the incremental delivery model means no single cutover, or single departure, can take the mission down.
CORE CAPABILITIES
Inventory, static analysis, and dependency mapping feed an explicit, evidence-scored disposition for every application in scope.
A sequenced roadmap and incremental execution that keeps the legacy system running while the modernized system comes online beside it.
The modernized system arrives with everything the agency's O&M staff and ISSO need to operate and reauthorize it.
OUR PROCESS
Accounts, network access, and repository access requested at award, the most common schedule risk, planned for explicitly. (2–4 weeks, often parallel with discovery)
Inventory, static analysis, SME interviews, dependency mapping, run-cost baseline, and security posture review. (4–8 weeks)
Disposition decisions, target-state design, and a sequenced roadmap with reauthorization checkpoints, a natural contract break point. (3–6 weeks)
Strangler-fig decomposition, refactor or rebuild sprints, data migration rehearsals, and incremental production releases. (3–12+ months, scope-dependent)
Final data migration, production cutover with rollback criteria, and hypercare. (2–6 weeks per application)
Legacy retirement actions, documentation handoff, training, and closeout. (4–8 weeks)
WHY AVALON
6
Federal Frameworks Addressed
The Reauthorization Impact Is Planned, Not Discovered at Cutover
Most boutique dev shops discover the ATO problem at cutover and hand the agency an unauthorizable system. Avalon's cybersecurity practice means the reauthorization impact is designed into the roadmap from day one, because the people who scoped the engagement deliver it.
Avalon fields an assessment team in weeks; large systems integrators staff through internal resource pipelines measured in months.
The reauthorization impact is designed into the roadmap from day one, not discovered at cutover, the difference between a modernized system and an unauthorizable one.
Every application gets an evidence-scored decision, not a reflexive 'replatform everything to the cloud' recommendation.
Avalon has no legacy O&M revenue stream to protect, modernization that finishes is the business model, not a threat to it.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
Straight answers about scope, risk, and what modernization does and doesn't get you.
Talk to Our Team →6
Federal Frameworks Addressed
The engagement is structured so scale is never the risk: a fixed-price assessment first, then incremental slices with rollback criteria at every cutover, no big-bang replacement a small team could fumble. Key personnel are named and committed in the proposal, and a teaming bench for surge is identified up front.
Accurate, and Avalon states it up front rather than letting a proposal gloss over it. What we offer instead: named key personnel with directly relevant delivery records, a fixed-price assessment that puts the delivery risk on Avalon, and a small first phase so the exit cost of trying us is one small task order.
No. Retain and rehost are legitimate dispositions, and the assessment frequently recommends modernizing two of five applications while leaving three alone. Every disposition is evidence-based, not reflexive.
That knowledge is real, and it's also the dependency the agency is trying to escape. The incumbent's economics reward keeping the legacy system alive; an independent assessment is worth buying even if the incumbent later executes, because it hands the agency an unconflicted map.
Sometimes, and the disposition analysis will say so honestly; 'retain' is a legitimate outcome. But the comparison has to include escalating extended-support contracts, the scarcity premium on legacy staff, audit and POA&M carrying costs, and the mission cost of six-month change cycles.
No, worth stating plainly rather than letting a proposal imply otherwise. This service eliminates the unsupported components underlying specific findings and produces the documentation your SSP update needs, it doesn't complete the assessment or grant the ATO. That decision belongs to your Authorizing Official.
Most failed federal modernizations share a pattern: big-bang replacement, frozen requirements, reauthorization discovered late. The incremental model exists because of those failures, small slices, working software early, rollback criteria at every cutover, and the ATO plan built into the roadmap from the start.
Talk to Avalon about scoping a fixed-price application assessment and modernization roadmap.