What RA-1 policy and procedures requires before any other RA control can be tested
RA-1 asks the organization to document a risk assessment policy and the procedures that implement it, at the organization, mission or business process, or system level, and to show that both are disseminated to defined roles, owned by a designated official, and reviewed and updated at a defined frequency and after defined events. An assessor will not test RA-2 through RA-10 in any meaningful way until RA-1 exists, because those controls depend on the policy for their scope, their owners and their review cycle. In Release 5.2.0, RA-1 carries 9 organization-defined parameters and no control enhancements, so the work is almost entirely in filling in those parameters with values the organization can defend. Compliance leads should confirm each parameter against the policy text itself: who the designated official is, which roles receive the document, the review frequency and the list of triggering events. In practice RA-1 is often thin, with a policy that names a role but no frequency, or procedures that were written once and never tied to the RA-3 and RA-5 activities they are supposed to govern.
SP 800-53B assigns RA-1 to the low, moderate and high baselines and to the privacy baseline, so it applies whatever the system's impact level. Appendix C of SP 800-53 Rev. 5 lists it as implemented by the organization rather than inherited or provided by a service, and marks it as an assurance-related control. That combination means a cloud provider or software vendor cannot supply RA-1 on the organization's behalf: the organization must own the policy, and an assessor will ask who approved it and when it was last reviewed. The practical first step is to inventory which policies already exist at each level, map each to the RA-1 parameters, and identify gaps in ownership or review cadence. The NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 publication page and its OSCAL catalog are the natural next reads for the exact parameter text in the release you are assessing.
Self-hosted documentation platforms can hold the policy and procedures and keep their history, which is the evidence most assessors look for first. XWiki keeps version history for each page, recording what changed, when and by whom, and BookStack assigns page permissions through roles, so the approval and dissemination record can be shown from the platform itself. Neither tool decides who the designated official is or what the review frequency should be; those are governance decisions the organization makes and records. Budget for the time to write, approve and disseminate the documents, which is internal effort or the scoped work of a consultant, and for the upkeep that recurs after each review cycle. Ask any implementation partner to deliver the platform configuration, the document structure and the review workflow in writing, and keep the approval decisions with the named owner.
Which policy levels and parties RA-1 covers in a given system
RA-1 is written once per scope, and the scope decides how many policy documents exist and who owns them. The cards below walk through the three policy levels, the people who must receive the policy, the third parties it governs, and how FedRAMP Class and SP 800-53B baseline selection set the boundaries.
Organization level policy
An organization-level risk assessment policy applies across every system, mission and business process the organization runs, and it is usually owned by a single designated official such as a CISO or head of risk. Each system then inherits its direction from this one document. Check that the organization-level policy names the official who manages it, sets the review frequency, and states how system-level procedures must align with it. Organization-wide policies are the most efficient choice when many systems share the same risk methods.
Mission or business process level
A mission or business process policy narrows the frame to one function, such as claims processing or payments, when that function has its own risk owners and tolerance. Use it when one part of the organization needs stricter or different risk methods than the enterprise default. Confirm the boundary of each process policy, so that no system falls between two documents. This level adds documents and owners, so record which process policy governs each system in the system security and privacy plan.
System level procedures
System-level procedures describe how the risk assessment work is carried out for one system, including who runs scans, who reviews results and where the output is stored. They implement the policy above them and are typically owned by the system owner or the information system security officer. Check that every authorized system has a current procedure document, and that procedures refer back to the policy level they implement. Procedures are the level most likely to drift from reality, so review them after system changes.
Roles that must receive the policy
RA-1 requires dissemination to defined roles, so the distribution list must name them explicitly rather than rely on a shared folder. Typical recipients include system owners, security engineers running scans, risk managers, privacy staff and the officials who accept risk. Keep a dated record of who received each version and who acknowledged it. Ask the policy owner to confirm that the list matches the roles defined in the organization's own parameters.
Third parties whose work the policy governs
Managed service providers, cloud hosting providers, scanning vendors and outsourced assessors perform risk assessment activity that the organization still answers for. The policy should state which external parties must follow its methods, what evidence they return, and how their results enter the organization's risk register. Contracts should reference the policy so that vendor scans and assessments meet the same standard. Confirm this in writing before a third party starts work.
FedRAMP class and baseline scope
The security impact level and baseline selection under SP 800-53B determine whether RA-1 applies to a system and how broadly. SP 800-53B assigns RA-1 to the low, moderate and high baselines and to the privacy baseline. FedRAMP's Rev5 baselines require RA-1 at Classes B, C and D, so a cloud service seeking FedRAMP authorization must address it at each of those classes. Ask the authorizing official to confirm which baseline and class apply before writing the policy scope.
How an assessor tests RA-1 and what they ask to see
This table compares the two assessment methods SP 800-53A applies to RA-1, the evidence each one produces and the findings assessors commonly raise. Read it as a checklist for what to have ready before an assessor arrives, since RA-1 is tested almost entirely through documents and interviews.
| Assessment element | What the assessor does | Evidence to have ready |
|---|---|---|
| Examine: policy content | Reads the risk assessment policy and checks that it covers purpose, scope, roles, responsibilities, management commitment and coordination, and compliance, at the level the organization defined. | Approved policy with version number, effective date, approver and the organization-defined parameters filled in |
| Examine: procedures | Checks that implementing procedures exist for the policy and describe how the risk assessment work is carried out in practice. | Written procedures for each RA family control that depends on RA-1, mapped to the policy |
| Examine: review and update records | Confirms the policy and procedures were reviewed and updated at the frequency and after the events the organization defined. | Review history with dates, reviewer names, change logs and records of event-driven updates |
| Interview: policy owner and designated official | Asks who manages the policy and procedures and whether that person can explain their responsibilities and current content. | Written appointment of the designated official, with a named role and deputy if one exists |
| Interview: dissemination recipients | Samples staff in the defined roles to confirm they received, can locate and understand the policy and procedures. | Distribution list, acknowledgment records or intranet publication logs for each defined role |
| Common finding: undated or unversioned policy | Cannot tell which version was in force at a given time, so review cycles cannot be tested. | Version table with effective dates and retained prior versions |
| Common finding: unnamed owner | Finds that the policy names a team or no one, so the designated official requirement is not met. | Appointment record that names a role and a person, updated when staff change |
| Common finding: procedures that differ from practice | Interviews staff and compares what they say they do with the written procedures, and flags gaps. | Sample of completed risk assessment work that follows the written procedure, or a documented exception |
How to build the RA-1 policy set in order
This sequence turns RA-1 from a single document into a governed policy set with a named owner, a defined scope, a review cycle and a record that an assessor can check. Each step produces an artifact that the next step depends on.
Decide the policy level and scope
Decide whether the risk assessment policy applies at the organization, mission or business process, or system level. Most organizations start at the organization level and add narrower procedures for systems that need them. Write down which systems, business units and third parties fall inside the policy, and confirm the level with the authorizing leadership. The output is a short scope statement that names the level and the boundary, and that the control owner signs off on before drafting begins.
Appoint the designated official
RA-1 requires a designated official to manage the policy and procedures. Name one accountable role, not a committee, and record the reporting line and the deputy who covers absences. The designated official should have authority to approve procedure changes and to request resources for the assessments that the policy governs. The output is a signed appointment record that states the role, the responsibilities and the date of appointment, stored where an assessor can retrieve it.
Set review frequency and triggering events
RA-1 requires the policy and procedures to be reviewed and updated at a frequency the organization defines, and after events it also defines. Set a calendar interval that your governance body can meet, then list the events that force an earlier review, such as a significant change to the system, a new regulatory requirement, a material incident or a change in the risk assessment method. Confirm your chosen values against the organization-defined parameters in the current catalog. The output is a review schedule and a trigger list, both approved by the designated official.
Draft the policy and implementing procedures
Write the policy as the statement of intent: purpose, scope, roles, the risk assessment principles the organization follows and the link to the wider risk management program. Then write procedures that describe how the work is done, including who runs assessments, which inputs they use, and where results are stored. Keep the two documents separate so that procedures can change without a policy rewrite. Map each defined parameter to the text that sets it. The output is a draft policy and a draft procedure set with a parameter table that the reviewer can check line by line.
Approve and disseminate the documents
Route the draft through the approval authority the organization has named, and record the approver, the version number and the effective date on the document itself. Then disseminate the approved set to the defined roles, such as risk owners, system owners, security operations and the teams that run assessments. Keep a dissemination list showing who received which version and when, and how they acknowledged it. The output is an approved, versioned policy set and a dissemination record that matches the roles named in the policy.
Record the first review and calendar
Run a first review against the approved set to confirm that every defined parameter is filled in, every role has a named person, and the triggers connect to real change-management and incident processes. Record any gaps as actions with owners and due dates. Enter the next scheduled review and the trigger list into the governance calendar. The output is a dated review record, an action log and a calendar entry, which together show an assessor that the policy is maintained rather than written once.
How RA-1 sets the governance frame for RA-2 to RA-10
RA-1 is the control that tells an organization who decides how risk assessment works before any system is assessed. Its policy names the official who manages the risk assessment policy, the roles that receive it, and the review frequency and triggering events that keep it current. The remaining RA controls depend on those answers. Before anyone can run RA-2, the policy has to say who may assign impact levels to a system and who approves the documented rationale, because that decision selects the baseline for every other control. The procedures should name the authorizing official who signs off that categorization, and the policy should state at what level (organization, mission or business process, or system) the rule applies. Confirm these choices in writing before the first categorization, not after the first audit finding.
Under RA-3, the policy should say who approves a risk assessment, who accepts its report and what triggers a new one. Under RA-5, it should assign ownership of scan scope, authenticated scanning, signature updates and remediation timeframes, with a named owner for each. Under RA-7, the procedures should require every accepted, mitigated, transferred or avoided risk to be recorded in the plan of action and milestones, with a named approver for each decision. A practical check is to pick one open finding and trace it from the scan result to the risk decision to the POA&M entry and its approver. If any link is missing, the procedures need a clearer owner. Keep these approvals in a version-controlled wiki or document system so the reviewer can see when each rule changed and who changed it.
RA-8 and RA-9 need explicit authorization in the same policy. A privacy impact assessment under RA-8 applies only where the SP 800-53B privacy baseline is in scope, so the policy should name the privacy official who decides when one is required. Criticality analysis under RA-9 should name who approves the list of mission-critical components that drives supply chain and protection priorities. Three related controls connect these decisions to the wider program: PM-9, SI-12 and PS-8, which the Release 5.2.0 catalog lists alongside RA-1. PM-9 covers organization-wide risk management strategy, SI-12 covers information management and retention, and PS-8 covers personnel sanctions. Confirm with your assessor which of these your organization treats as in scope for the policy, because the RA-1 review should cover them in the same cycle.
Evidence that proves RA-1 is in place and current
An assessor testing RA-1 checks two things: that a risk assessment policy and its procedures exist and are approved, and that they have been kept current. The six artifacts below answer those questions, and each one needs an owner and a routine so it stays accurate between audits.
Approved risk assessment policy
The policy itself, showing its scope (organization, mission or business process, or system level), purpose, roles and the date it was approved. Each version should carry a version number and the name and title of the approver, usually the designated official or a senior leader with authority over risk. Check that the approved version matches the one published to staff, and that the policy names the review frequency and triggering events that RA-1 requires you to define. An unsigned draft in a shared folder will not satisfy an assessor.
Implementing procedures
Procedures turn the policy into steps: who performs risk assessments, which inputs they use, how findings are recorded and who signs off. Assessors compare procedures against the policy to confirm they implement it rather than restate it. Each procedure should reference the RA controls it supports and carry its own version history. Confirm that owners of RA-3, RA-5 and RA-7 activities can point to a procedure they actually follow.
Dissemination record
Evidence that the policy and procedures reached the roles that must follow them. Keep distribution lists, acknowledgment records or access logs from the document store, with dates. Where the organization defines roles in its own terms, the record should show that each defined role received the current version. Re-check the record after every version change, because an acknowledgment of an older version does not show that staff know the current requirements.
Designated official appointment
A written appointment naming the individual who manages the risk assessment policy and procedures, with the date it took effect and the scope of authority. This record shows that someone accountable exists and that the role is not vacant after a staff change. Keep a note of handover when the official changes, and confirm that the appointment is referenced from the policy so an assessor can trace ownership in one step.
Review log with dated changes
A log showing each review of the policy and procedures, the date it occurred, who performed it, whether changes resulted, and the change summary. Reviews that find no change still belong in the log, because the frequency requirement is tested against the review record. Compare the log's dates with the review frequency stated in your policy. A gap longer than the stated frequency is the most common finding for this control.
Post-trigger update records
Records showing that the policy or procedures were updated after a defined event, such as a significant system change, a new regulatory requirement, a material incident or a failed assessment finding. Link each update to the triggering event in the ticket or change record, and show the revised version and its approval. Keep a short list of the triggers your organization defined so you can show which events were in scope during the period under review.
What meeting RA-1 costs in money and effort
This table breaks the cost of RA-1 into one-time setup and recurring upkeep, showing who is paid for each item and what drives effort up. Use it to structure a quote request, since no price list or duration is published for this control and the real figures depend on your own scope.
| Cost component | Who is paid or who does the work | One-time or recurring, and what drives it |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting the risk assessment policy and procedures | Internal policy owner, with outside help if a partner drafts or reviews the text | One-time. Effort rises with the number of policy levels (organization, mission or business process, system) and the number of systems the procedures must cover. |
| Approval and sign-off | Designated senior official and any governance committee members | One-time, then repeated at each revision. Effort rises with the number of approvers and how often they meet. |
| Initial dissemination to defined roles | Policy owner, HR or training staff, and IT administrators who receive the procedures | One-time per role group. Effort rises with the number of roles and locations that must acknowledge the documents. |
| Annual review and update | Internal policy owner, reviewers, and any consultant engaged for a periodic check | Recurring. The frequency is set by your own defined review cycle, so confirm the interval in your policy before budgeting. |
| Updates after triggering events | Policy owner and the teams affected by the change, such as after a new system, incident, or regulatory update | Recurring and unpredictable. Frequency depends on how many events your policy defines as triggers, so keep the list short and specific. |
| Training on the policy | Internal trainers or an outside training provider, plus staff time | Recurring with each revision and for new joiners. Effort rises with headcount and the number of role-specific sessions. |
| Evidence upkeep | Internal compliance or GRC staff, and system owners who keep approval records and review logs | Recurring. Effort rises with the number of documents, version histories, and the quality of the records kept. |
| Auditor sampling and testing | Independent assessor or auditor, paid by the organization under the assessment engagement | Recurring per assessment cycle. Effort rises with the number of sampled procedures and how quickly staff can produce evidence. |
| Tooling for versioning and access | Software licensing or self-hosting costs, plus administrator time | Mostly one-time setup with recurring hosting and maintenance. Open-source wiki options can reduce licence cost, but confirm hosting and support needs. |
| Implementation support | Implementation partner, paid under a written, fixed-scope agreement | One-time for setup and document preparation. Ask for the deliverables, the review rounds included, and what is excluded before agreeing scope. |
Which self-hosted tools keep RA-1 documents versioned and approved
RA-1 requires a documented risk assessment policy and implementing procedures that are reviewed and updated at defined intervals and after defined events. An assessor will want to see which version was in force on a given date and what changed between versions. XWiki keeps every change to a page under version control, so a policy page can show what changed, when and by whom, and users can compare any two versions and roll back to an earlier one. That history is useful evidence of review activity, but it records edits rather than decisions.
- Change records: Each saved revision carries a timestamp and author, which lets you show when the last review happened.
- Version comparison: Reviewers can diff two versions to confirm which parameters or roles changed after a triggering event.
- Rollback: Restoring an earlier version creates a new record, so the rollback itself stays visible in the history.
- What it does not do: XWiki does not record who approved a policy or whether approval was required. Confirm the approval workflow with the vendor or your own configuration before claiming it.
Confirm how your installation retains history and whether page history can be exported or locked for audit purposes.
RA-1 places ownership of the policy and procedures with a designated official and requires dissemination to defined roles. BookStack handles the access side of that requirement. User abilities come from the roles assigned to them, and permissions can be overridden per role at the shelf, book, chapter or page level. This lets you publish the risk assessment procedures to the people who need them while restricting edit rights to the policy owner and reviewers.
- Role assignment: Roles define what users can view and edit, so dissemination to defined roles can be shown from the role list.
- Granular overrides: A restricted page inside an otherwise open book can hold sensitive procedure details.
- Shelf and book structure: Grouping RA policies on one shelf makes it easier to show the full set of documents that apply at each level.
- What it does not do: BookStack does not provide a versioned approval chain by default. Confirm whether page revisions and any review status fields meet your evidence needs, and whether they can be exported.
Confirm the role and permission settings against your RA-1 dissemination list before an assessment starts.
CISO Assistant tracks frameworks, assessments and their status, so RA-1 can sit alongside the other controls it governs. The community edition ships more than 200 frameworks, including ISO 27001, NIST CSF, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIS2, DORA and GDPR, and runs audits and compliance assessments against them. Its license is AGPL-3.0-only, which matters if you modify and distribute it or run it as a network service for others. Its automatic mapping between frameworks is a convenience, not an authority, so each mapping must be checked against the source for each framework before it goes into evidence.
- Assessment tracking: Assessments and their status can record which RA-1 requirement was reviewed and when.
- Framework library: The included frameworks help you see where one policy supports several obligations.
- License obligations: AGPL-3.0-only terms apply to modifications and network use, so check them with your legal team before deployment.
- Automatic mapping: Verify every mapping against the published framework text, because the tool's links are not an assessor's determination.
- What it does not do: Confirm whether it issues signed approvals, tracks policy review dates as workflow tasks, or produces assessor-ready reports for your configuration.
Before relying on it, check the README at the project's repository and test one RA-1 assessment end to end in a non-production instance.
Where RA-1 usually fails and how to close each gap
RA-1 is rarely missing outright. It fails when the document exists but nobody owns it, cannot be dated, describes work nobody does, or never reaches the people it governs. The cards below cover the gaps assessors most often find and a specific fix for each.
Policy with no named owner
RA-1 requires a designated official to manage the risk assessment policy and procedures. When the document is signed off by a committee or simply attributed to "IT," an assessor cannot tell who answers for it. Name one role, such as the CISO or head of security risk, and record that role in the policy header and the approval block. Check that the named person can actually approve changes and is listed in the organization's control ownership register.
Undated and unversioned documents
An assessor testing RA-1 needs to see which version was in force on a given date and when it was last reviewed. Policies saved as loose files on a shared drive usually lose this history. Store each policy and procedure in a wiki or document system that keeps version history, records who changed what and when, and allows comparison between versions. Put the effective date, version number and next review date on the first page of every document.
Procedures that describe work nobody does
Procedures that read well but do not match practice fail the test of implementation. An assessor will interview the people who run risk assessments and vulnerability scanning and compare their answers with the written steps. Walk through each procedure with the team that performs it, record the steps as they actually happen, and remove or change anything that cannot be evidenced. Each procedure should name the input, the output and the record it produces.
No record of dissemination
RA-1 expects the policy and procedures to reach the defined roles. Publishing a document to a folder does not show that anyone received it or read it. Keep a distribution list tied to roles, send notice of each new version, and collect acknowledgments from the people who must follow it. Access permissions should match the roles that need the document, so that the audience is defined and the acknowledgments can be matched against it.
Reviews that never follow a trigger
RA-1 requires review at a defined frequency and after defined events. Many organizations set an annual review date and then miss the event-driven reviews entirely, such as after a major incident, a significant system change, a new regulation or a failed assessment finding. Write the triggering events into the policy itself, assign an owner to each, and keep a dated log of reviews with the reason for each one. An empty log after a known trigger is a finding.
Policies written at the wrong level
RA-1 allows the policy to sit at organization, mission or business process, or system level. A single enterprise policy that ignores how a high-impact system is categorized and assessed leaves gaps, while a separate policy for every system creates duplication. Decide which level owns the policy and which level owns the procedures, then map each system to the document that governs it. Confirm the chosen level against the system categorization decisions made under RA-2.
Questions buyers ask about RA-1 cost, effort and ownership
Can a small team write RA-1 policy and procedures itself?
Yes, in most cases a small team can draft RA-1 itself, because the control asks for a documented policy and implementing procedures rather than a specialized technical build. The work is mostly decision-making: naming the official who manages the policy, choosing the level it applies at (organization, mission or business process, or system), defining who receives it, and writing procedures that staff can actually follow. The effort rises when the organization has many systems with different owners, when existing policies conflict, or when no one has authority to approve the document. Ask whoever runs your assessment to confirm the level and format they expect before drafting starts, so the team does not write a document that must be redone.
What does RA-1 require from leadership?
RA-1 needs leadership to appoint a designated official, approve the policy and fund its upkeep. The policy only has force if someone with authority signs it and makes sure the people named in it receive it. Leadership also sets the organization-defined parameters, such as the review frequency and the events that trigger an update, because those choices bind the organization later. Without that sponsorship, the policy tends to sit in a drafts folder and fails the assessor's test of dissemination. Expect leadership time to be concentrated at the start, with a smaller recurring commitment for each scheduled review.
How often must the RA-1 policy be reviewed?
The review frequency is an organization-defined parameter, so the organization sets it and must follow it. RA-1 requires review and update at a defined frequency and after defined events, which means a document that says one thing and a practice that does another will fail assessment. Confirm the exact frequency and triggering events in your assessment plan or with your authorizing official before you publish the policy, because an assessor will check your stated values against your records. Common triggering events include changes in law or contract, a significant incident, a major system change or a change in organizational structure, but your own list must match what you commit to.
Does a partner need to write or sign the RA-1 policy?
A partner is not required, and the organization owns the policy either way. An implementation partner can help structure the document, map the organization-defined parameters to your environment and prepare the evidence that the policy was disseminated and reviewed. An independent assessor then tests whether the policy and procedures exist and are followed. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for assessment, but it does not issue assessment reports or authorizations, and the authorizing official remains accountable for accepting risk. Consider bringing in outside help when internal staff lack time, or when the scope spans many systems that need consistent procedures.
How does RA-1 relate to FedRAMP Class B, C and D?
RA-1 is required at FedRAMP Class B, C and D under the Rev5 baselines, so a cloud service seeking any of those impact classes must have a risk assessment policy and procedures in place. FedRAMP's rules set the baseline requirement, while the policy content, parameters and review cadence are still defined by the organization and tested by the assessor. Check the current FedRAMP Rev5 control reference for the exact requirement wording and any parameter values that FedRAMP sets, since those can change with rule updates. The policy you write for FedRAMP should also be the one that governs RA-3, RA-5 and related controls, so the same document is cited across the package.
What happens if the RA-1 policy is missing at assessment?
A missing RA-1 policy usually produces a finding against the control, and that finding often affects other controls because RA-1 sets the governance frame for the rest of the risk assessment family. An assessor will ask for the documented policy, the procedures, evidence of dissemination to the named roles and records of reviews. If any of those are absent, the organization may need a plan of action and milestones with a remediation date, and the authorizing official must decide how to treat the open risk. Writing the policy under time pressure during an assessment is possible but often leads to documents that do not match real practice, which creates a second finding.
Do open-source tools remove the cost of RA-1?
Open-source tools remove license fees for the tools themselves, but they do not remove the cost of deciding what the policy says or proving that people follow it. RA-1 is mainly a documentation control, so the realistic tooling is a wiki or document system with version history, plus a way to track approvals and dissemination. XWiki keeps every change under version control and lets users compare and roll back versions, which supports evidence of review. BookStack assigns permissions by role, which helps show who can edit and who can read the policy. Staff time, approval workflow and assessor preparation remain the main costs. Confirm each tool's license terms with its vendor before relying on it in a regulated environment.
Official sources for RA-1 requirements and assessment
Start with the official OSCAL catalog when you need the exact wording of RA-1 and its organization-defined parameters. The Release 5.2.0 catalog in NIST's usnistgov/oscal-content repository carries the SP 800-53 control text together with the SP 800-53A assessment procedures in machine-readable form, so an assessor's checklist and your policy can be traced to the same source. Use the SP 800-53 Rev. 5 publication page for the narrative context, and confirm the release number your assessor expects before you cite a version in your policy. The SP 800-53A procedures for RA-1 are the document an assessor will follow, so read them before drafting.
Next, confirm which baselines require RA-1 for your system. SP 800-53B assigns RA-1 to the low, moderate and high baselines and to the privacy baseline, so the control applies whatever the impact level. The OSCAL profiles in the same repository let you see that selection directly, and the SP 800-53B publication explains how tailoring works if your organization adjusts it. If you operate under FedRAMP, check the FedRAMP Risk Assessment control reference, which states the RA-1 requirement for the Rev5 baselines in its current form. Ask your authorizing body or FedRAMP assessor to confirm which version of that reference governs your authorization.
If your environment handles controlled unclassified information in nonfederal systems, RA-1 also reaches you through SP 800-171 Rev. 3, where requirement 03.15.01 (Policy and Procedures) is derived from RA-1. Map the two requirements together so one policy satisfies both, and confirm with your contracting officer or prime contractor which requirement set their assessment will use. The SP 800-171 Rev. 3 publication is the primary reference for the nonfederal requirement wording. Record the source you used for each mapping in your evidence file, since an assessor will ask how the policy was derived.
How DeployOpen prepares RA-1 policies and evidence
The sequence turns RA-1 from an unwritten expectation into a versioned policy set, a dissemination record and an evidence index that an independent assessor can test. DeployOpen prepares these materials on the client's own infrastructure, and the organization approves and owns them.
Agree the scope and policy level in writing
DeployOpen and the client agree a written scope that names the systems, business units and information covered by the risk assessment policy. The client's security or compliance lead then records the policy level, whether organization, mission or business process, or system, and the baseline the organization has selected. The step closes when the signed scope document names the policy owner, the approving official and the baseline in force. Only the organization makes those decisions; DeployOpen records them.
Map existing documents against RA-1 requirements
The team inventories any risk assessment policy, standards, runbooks or meeting notes the organization already uses, and compares them with the RA-1 parts: the policy statement, the procedures that implement it, the designated official, the dissemination roles, and the review frequency and triggering events. Gaps are logged as a short list with a named owner for each item. The output is a gap register that the client reviews before drafting starts.
Set up versioned document systems
DeployOpen installs or configures a document platform on the client's own cloud account, data center or air-gapped network, such as XWiki or BookStack, and sets access by role. XWiki keeps version history that records what changed, when and by whom, and users can compare versions and roll back. BookStack assigns permissions through roles that can be overridden at shelf, book, chapter or page level. The step is complete when a test edit shows a recorded version history and role-restricted access works as designed.
Draft the policy and procedure set
DeployOpen drafts the risk assessment policy and its implementing procedures from the gap register, using the organization's own terminology and the parameter values the client chooses for RA-1. The client's policy owner reviews each draft, and the approving official signs off. The output is an approved policy and procedure set, with the approval date, the approver and the next review date recorded on each document. Drafts that the client has not approved are not treated as policy.
Prepare dissemination and acknowledgment records
The team prepares a distribution list by defined role, a communication note for each role, and an acknowledgment process that captures who received the policy, when, and which version. DeployOpen configures the platform so that dissemination is traceable, and the client's HR or security function runs the actual distribution. The step closes when the distribution record links each named role to a version of the approved document.
Define review cycles and triggering events
The client sets the review frequency and the events that trigger an earlier review, such as a significant system change, a new assessment finding or a change in the organization's risk posture. DeployOpen writes these into the procedures and creates a review calendar in the document system. The output is a review schedule with owners, which an assessor can compare with the review history in the platform.
Compile the evidence index for the assessor
DeployOpen builds an evidence index that lists each RA-1 determination statement from SP 800-53A, the document or record that addresses it, its location, its version and its owner. The index also notes related controls the policy depends on, such as PM-9, PS-8 and SI-12, so the assessor can follow the governance chain. The client checks the index for accuracy. DeployOpen does not issue audit reports or certifications; an independent assessor or auditor tests the evidence and reaches the conclusion.
