Updated October 2026
ControlCase CMMC Cost: no published fee schedule
ControlCase brings two decades of PCI QSA heritage to its CMMC C3PAO practice, with a multi-framework methodology that streamlines evidence collection across PCI, SOC 2, ISO, HITRUST, and CMMC. It publishes no fee schedule, and we do not invent one. This profile covers what is verifiable: how to confirm authorisation, where the bundling genuinely reduces billed hours, and how to test the claim in a quote.
Vendor profile
ControlCase has been a PCI Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) since the early days of the PCI Data Security Standard. Over the past decade the firm has expanded its accreditation portfolio across SOC 2 (CPA firm-adjacent), ISO 27001 (registered certification body partnership), HITRUST (CSF Assessor), and FedRAMP (3PAO). The Cyber AB CMMC C3PAO authorisation is the most recent addition. The combination of accreditations is unusual: most assessment firms specialise in one or two frameworks. Verify current C3PAO authorisation at cyberab.org/Marketplace.
The firm's commercial differentiator is what it calls One Audit, a methodology that maps controls across multiple frameworks and reuses evidence collected for one assessment to satisfy the equivalent control in another framework. For contractors holding multiple compliance obligations, this is meaningful: a single set of MFA evidence can satisfy PCI 8.4, NIST SP 800-171 IA-2(1), ISO 27001 A.9.4.2, and SOC 2 CC6.1 simultaneously. The methodology does not eliminate the need for separate assessments (each framework has its own report and accreditation pathway), but it does reduce duplicate evidence-collection labour.
On the CMMC side specifically, ControlCase deploys named Certified CMMC Assessors per Cyber AB requirements. The firm has built a CMMC practice that leverages its existing PCI QSA infrastructure (assessor training, evidence platforms, project management). This means engagements tend to be well-structured and document-led, which fits contractors with mature documentation hygiene but can feel formal to smaller contractors used to lighter engagements.
What ControlCase charges, and why no page can tell you
ControlCase does not publish per-engagement pricing, and this page does not estimate it. A figure attached to a named firm's undisclosed fee has no inputs you could check, and it lands with a reader as a ControlCase price while being nothing of the kind. So there are no ControlCase fee numbers here.
What is publishable is the shape of the cost, because every C3PAO prices the same way: assessor hours times a rate. DoD's cost analysis behind the 32 CFR Part 170 final rule, 89 FR 83092 (15 October 2024) models that engagement at 120 assessor hours for a small entity and 200 hours for an other-than-small entity, at $260.28 per hour: $31,234 and $52,056. That is a federal planning figure, not a price any firm has agreed to, but it is the only published anchor. Full workings on the C3PAO cost page.
Pricing the One Audit bundle without guessing
The bundling claim is testable even though the prices are not. Ask ControlCase to quote the same scope twice: CMMC Level 2 standalone, and CMMC Level 2 alongside the other framework you need, both in assessor hours by phase. The efficiency should show up as fewer hours in the combined quote, because one set of MFA or logging evidence answers the equivalent control in each framework. If the combined quote does not show fewer hours, the bundle is a billing arrangement rather than a saving.
- Ask which controls the methodology treats as shared evidence between your two frameworks, named individually.
- Ask whether the two assessments run on one evidence collection cycle or two.
- Ask what happens to the quote if one framework's scope later changes.
The bundled column assumes both PCI DSS and CMMC scopes share infrastructure and can leverage One Audit evidence reuse. The bundling efficiency is typically 15-25 percent savings versus running the engagements separately, which is captured in the bundled-column ratio.
Where ControlCase fits well
The clearest fit is for contractors with payment-card processing in addition to CUI handling. Hardware vendors that sell directly to consumers (collecting PCI-scoped payment data) plus to DoD (handling CUI) fit this pattern. So do larger defense contractors that operate commercial e-commerce alongside their government business. For these organisations, ControlCase's bundled-assessment approach typically saves $15K-$40K versus separate engagements with separate firms.
ControlCase also fits well for contractors pursuing multiple commercial compliance frameworks alongside CMMC. A SaaS vendor selling to commercial enterprises (SOC 2 + ISO 27001 needed) and to DoD (CMMC needed) gets meaningful efficiency by running all three through one assessor. The cross-framework methodology shines in this scenario.
For pure-DoD contractors with no other commercial-framework obligations, the bundling advantage disappears and ControlCase becomes a like-for-like alternative to other mid-tier C3PAOs. The choice then comes down to assessor availability, geographic proximity, and Statement of Work fit. The Coalfire Federal profile and Schellman profile cover those alternatives.
Statement of Work levers
For ControlCase engagements specifically, the largest fee-mover beyond scope itself is the use of the One Audit methodology. If your scope spans CMMC plus PCI plus SOC 2, write the Statement of Work to explicitly request evidence reuse across frameworks. The firm will quote a higher headline fee than a single-framework engagement but a meaningfully lower combined total than three separate engagements. Pin this down in writing.
The second lever is the evidence-platform used during the engagement. ControlCase operates a proprietary evidence-collection portal that streamlines uploads and assessor review. For contractors that already maintain an SSP authoring platform (Atlassian, Hyperproof, Drata, Vanta), check whether ControlCase will accept evidence pushed from those platforms versus requiring re-upload to the ControlCase portal. Reducing duplicate evidence handling can save 20-40 hours of client-side labour over the engagement.
The third lever is the post-assessment surveillance approach. ControlCase, like other C3PAOs, will produce a CMMC certification report at engagement end. For multi-framework engagements, the firm can package surveillance reviews (annual SOC 2 Type 2, quarterly PCI ASV scans, CMMC annual affirmation prep) into a single ongoing engagement rather than multiple separate ones. This usually saves 10-15 percent on the recurring assessment-adjacent spend.
Engagement timeline
A standalone CMMC Level 2 engagement with ControlCase typically runs 4-7 months from Statement of Work execution to certification posting. Bundled multi-framework engagements run longer (6-10 months) because the evidence-collection cycle has to satisfy multiple framework reporting requirements, but the per-framework calendar elapsed time is shorter than running each separately. C3PAO scheduling backlogs add another 4-9 months from engagement signature to assessment kickoff, in line with the broader market.