How Can Government Contractors Use Training to Strengthen Compliance? An Interview with Courtney Edmonson

Often compliance failures happen because companies do not know what they do not know. From your perspective, where do government contractors most often underestimate that risk, and how can stronger training help surface those blind spots before they turn into audit findings, pricing issues, or legal exposure?

Compliance requirements reach across the organization, making cross-functional awareness essential for identifying risks before they become larger problems.

Courtney Edmonson:

One of the most common areas where contractors underestimate risk is assuming that compliance only applies to a specific role or department. In reality, federal requirements touch nearly every function across the organization, from business development and pricing to accounting, supply chain, and cybersecurity. When teams operate with partial knowledge, gaps form at the handoffs between functions, and those gaps are often where issues surface during audits or reviews.

What we see consistently is that most compliance failures are not intentional. They come from individuals making decisions without full visibility into the requirements that apply to that situation. Strong, structured training helps surface those blind spots early by giving teams context, not just rules. It helps individuals understand how their role connects to the broader contract lifecycle, which is critical for preventing issues before they become audit findings or legal exposure.

In your experience, where do breakdowns most often occur between departments such as finance, contracts, supply chain, program management, and cybersecurity, and what should organizations do differently to train more cohesively?

Breakdowns often occur at the intersections between departments when teams are trained separately rather than in the context of the entire contract lifecycle.

Courtney Edmonson:

Breakdowns most often occur at the intersections between departments, especially when each function is trained in isolation. Finance may understand allowable costs, contract management may understand clause requirements, and supply chain may understand procurement requirements, but those perspectives are rarely brought together in a way that reflects how work actually happens.

The challenge is that federal contracting is inherently cross-functional. Decisions made in one area often have downstream impacts in another. For example, a pricing decision can affect audit risk years later, or a procurement action can impact compliance with purchasing system requirements.

Organizations need to shift away from fragmented training models and toward unified training that brings teams together across functions and across the contract lifecycle. When teams learn in context, they are better equipped to make aligned decisions, reduce rework, and avoid gaps that can lead to findings or delays.

In your opinion, how should contractor leadership think about the ROI of training, and what distinguishes organizations that truly treat workforce education as a strategic asset?

Training can serve as a business control that reduces compliance exposure while also improving efficiency, decision-making, and credibility.

Courtney Edmonson:

What we see most often is leadership treating training as a discretionary expense rather than a business control. That perspective tends to change after a significant audit finding or a system deficiency, but by then the cost of that lesson is already substantial.

When you look at the potential exposure, the ROI becomes clear. A single audit issue can result in questioned costs, cost disallowances, or long-term system findings. On the legal side, False Claims Act settlements involving defense contractors reached $634 million in FY2025 alone, with individual cases routinely running into the tens of millions. In comparison, the cost of training is relatively small and predictable.

Beyond risk reduction, there is also a performance and competitive benefit. Well-trained teams are more efficient, make better decisions, and are more credible with contracting officers and auditors. That credibility can influence everything from proposal evaluations to long-term relationships with agencies.

At FPS, we believe that knowing the rules is not enough; teams must be able to apply them in real-world situations. From your standpoint, how important is practitioner-led, scenario-based training in helping contractors translate requirements like FAR, DFARS and CMMC into sound day-to-day decisions?

Scenario-based training helps teams develop the judgment needed to apply federal requirements when real-world situations do not have an obvious answer.

Courtney Edmonson:

Knowing the regulations is important, but it is not enough. The FAR, DFARS, and related requirements are often principles-based and require interpretation. Teams need to be able to apply those principles in real-world situations, where the answer is not always obvious.

That is where practitioner-led, scenario-based training becomes critical. When training is grounded in real examples, such as how an auditor evaluates a cost, how a purchasing system review is conducted, or how a pricing decision is supported, it helps bridge the gap between theory and execution.

This type of training builds judgment. It prepares teams to make decisions in situations where there is ambiguity, which is exactly where most compliance risks arise.

From your perspective, what is the biggest strategic adjustment contractors need to make in 2026 to stay competitive and compliant at the same time?

Contractors need to move away from reactive compliance and build regulatory awareness, aligned processes, and consistent training into everyday operations.

Courtney Edmonson:

The biggest adjustment is recognizing that compliance can no longer be reactive. The regulatory environment is changing quickly, and expectations from agencies continue to increase. At the same time, audit volumes and enforcement actions have increased substantially in recent years.

Contractors need to move toward a proactive, integrated approach where compliance is built into how the organization operates on a daily basis. That includes staying current on regulatory changes, aligning internal processes, and ensuring that teams across the organization are trained consistently.

Organizations that continue to rely on outdated assumptions or informal knowledge transfer will struggle to keep pace. Those that invest in structured, ongoing training and alignment across teams will be in a much stronger position to manage risk and remain competitive.