What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PS-5 Personnel Transfer?

SSP PS-5 statement describing access review on transfer and notification timeframes to account managers; Transfer tickets showing access review and removal of prior role permissions; Sanctions policy with documented application history; Third party personnel screening attestations; Acknowledgement of access agreements signed at hire; Personnel security policy and position risk designation matrix.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PS-5?

Sanctions applied informally without HR documentation

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

`PS-5` Personnel Transfer

Review/confirm ongoing operational need for access when personnel transfer; modify access; notify within FedRAMP timeframe.

Source: FedRAMP Moderate (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), PS-5. 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 Moderate (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

Identity provider / directory

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

Transfer tickets showing access review and removal of prior role permissions · Identity provider / directory
Background screening completion records by role tier · HR system / LMS

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

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-5 statement describing access review on transfer and notification timeframes to account managers · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Sanctions policy with documented application history · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Personnel security policy and position risk designation matrix · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Sanctions applied informally without HR documentation
Contractor screening relies on vendor attestation without sampling
Position risk designations not reviewed when responsibilities change
Background checks not re run when employees move to higher risk roles

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-4 Personnel Termination · PS-6 Access Agreements