FinOps

Their compensation grows with your consumption, ask when their last recommendation reduced their own revenue. Avalon's fee shrinks if it finds nothing, and the audit will show in eight weeks whether their coverage is as complete as assumed.

Access is read-only, least-privilege, agency-sponsored, with nothing exfiltrated and CUI-handling terms written into the SOW. The access model was designed for a security office to approve.

Findings are framed as repurposable capacity, dollars to redirect to the backlog, a modernization ask, or an AI pilot leadership wants funded, and the report is structured so your CIO controls that narrative. An unmanaged overrun takes the choice away; a documented recovery hands it back.

It is unusual, and Avalon comes prepared with two structures: an FFP-plus-incentive arrangement consistent with FAR 16.4, or a straight FFP variant with the gainshare removed. Your contracting officer picks; the analysis is identical.

Fair question, and the offer is built for exactly that situation: fixed price under the simplified acquisition threshold, read-only access, named senior personnel doing the work, a defined eight-week exit, and a fee structure where Avalon only does well if you recover money.

No. The word 'forensic' describes the evidentiary method, every finding traceable to raw billing and configuration data, not an attestation or IG-style audit. Avalon does not perform financial-statement audits or attestation engagements.

Yes. The audit is deliberately a small-senior-team product, not a staffing exercise. Scope is bounded by named payer accounts in the SOW, and Avalon runs one of these at a time today, which is also why the buyer gets principals, not a bench.