What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PS-3 Personnel Screening?

SSP PS-3 statement describing background screening before access and rescreening frequency by position risk level; Background check completion records for a sample of new hires dated before access; Background screening completion records by role tier; Termination and transfer access removal evidence within SLA; Sanctions policy with documented application history; Third party personnel screening attestations.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PS-3?

Termination access removal exceeds documented SLA

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · PS - Personnel Security

`PS-3` Personnel Screening

Screen individuals prior to authorizing access; rescreen at FedRAMP frequency per position risk; US citizenship may apply.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), PS-3. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

HR system / LMS

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

Background check completion records for a sample of new hires dated before access · HR system / LMS
Background screening completion records by role tier · HR system / LMS

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Termination and transfer access removal evidence within SLA · HR system / LMS
Third party personnel screening attestations · HR system / LMS
Acknowledgement of access agreements signed at hire · HR system / LMS

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP PS-3 statement describing background screening before access and rescreening frequency by position risk level · HR system / LMS
Sanctions policy with documented application history · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 2 of 7 artefacts that already live in a system (HR system / LMS); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Termination access removal exceeds documented SLA
Sanctions applied informally without HR documentation
Contractor screening relies on vendor attestation without sampling
Position risk designations not reviewed when responsibilities change

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

PS-2 Position Risk Designation · PS-3(3) Personnel Screening | Information Requiring Special Protective Measures (PS-3(3))