What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SR-6 Supplier Assessments and Reviews (SR-6)?

SSP SR-6 statement describing supplier assessments, their frequency and triggers for reassessment; Supplier assessment reports with risk ratings and follow-up actions; Supply chain risk management policy and program charter; Tiered vendor inventory with criticality scoring; Component authenticity verification evidence for hardware purchases; Continuous monitoring scorecards for critical suppliers.

What is the most common gap auditors find on SR-6?

Supplier incidents discovered through news rather than contractual notification

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · SR - Supply Chain Risk Management

`SR-6` Supplier Assessments and Reviews (SR-6)

Assess and review the supply chain risk posture of suppliers at defined frequency and after significant events.

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), SR-6. 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

hard

to go live

Vendor register / contract repository

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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Supplier assessment reports with risk ratings and follow-up actions · Vendor register / contract repository
Component authenticity verification evidence for hardware purchases · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP SR-6 statement describing supplier assessments, their frequency and triggers for reassessment · Vendor register / contract repository
Supply chain risk management policy and program charter · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Tiered vendor inventory with criticality scoring · Vendor register / contract repository
Continuous monitoring scorecards for critical suppliers · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Supplier incidents discovered through news rather than contractual notification
Flow down clauses present in master agreements but missing from statements of work
Sub tier suppliers not identified for critical components

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

SR-5 Acquisition Strategies, Tools, and Methods (SR-5) · SR-8 Notification Agreements (SR-8)