Implement the controls. Show proof that we did it. Then explain that proof to the auditors.
For a small business, compliance can feel like another full-time job. The people keeping systems running are also updating policies, collecting records, organizing evidence, and answering follow-up questions. Meanwhile, customers still need support and employees still need working computers.
It is understandable to ask: can one provider coordinate all of this? And if readiness and auditing come packaged together, where do conflicts of interest enter the picture?
Watch: Conflict of Interest in SOC 2 Audits?
Bundled services or separate auditors? Watch the video, then explore the workload and independence questions below.
Why compliance feels like so much work
Think about an employee leaving your company. Disabling the account is one task. Demonstrating who authorized the change, when access ended, and which systems were checked is another. Explaining those records during an examination adds another layer.
Multiply that across access reviews, security training, vendor reviews, change management, and backup testing. The workload can become difficult to manage when evidence is scattered across inboxes, spreadsheets, and individual employees’ memories.
Doing the work, preserving useful evidence, and responding to questions all need an owner. When those responsibilities are unclear, the same request may pass through several people before anyone can answer it.
Why an integrated compliance workflow is appealing
A shared platform and coordinated process can reduce repeated uploads, missed requests, and time spent explaining the same environment. A readiness consultant can help translate a request into the records your team needs to locate.
That convenience matters. A business owner should be able to understand the workflow, the responsibilities, and the total cost before committing to an engagement.
But using one workspace and using one organization to prepare and independently examine the work are different decisions.
Where auditor independence matters
For SOC 2, an independent CPA firm performs the examination and issues the report. AICPA ethics staff identify financial relationships, referral arrangements, and pressure over examination decisions as potential independence and objectivity threats. Read the AICPA staff guidance on SOC tool-provider relationships.
An integrated offering is not automatically acceptable because it uses separate teams. Applicable independence requirements still govern. Some threats may be addressed through appropriate safeguards; arrangements that prevent compliance with professional requirements must be declined or discontinued.
The practical question for a buyer is whether the auditor can make and communicate an independent judgment, including findings the other providers would prefer not to hear.
How an integrated provider describes its safeguards: Thoropass
The concern behind “auditing your own work” is a self-review threat: the examination may require evaluating decisions or work performed by the auditor or a related organization. Potential threats must be evaluated under the applicable professional standards; a shared brand or platform alone does not settle whether a particular engagement is permissible.
Thoropass provides one example of how an integrated provider describes its approach. These are the company’s published statements, rather than an independent determination by BCS about a specific engagement.
Separate responsibilities for guidance and examination
In its independence statement, Thoropass describes distinct customer, customer-success, and auditor roles. It says its auditors do not design or operate customers’ controls, while customers retain responsibility for their control environment. Its platform aggregates evidence rather than configuring customers’ security systems.
Identify the CPA firm and review its quality oversight
Thoropass identifies Laika Compliance, LLC, doing business as Thoropass Assurance, as its licensed CPA firm, and Thoropass, Inc. as its services and technology firm in its explanation of independence. Buyers should confirm the actual contracting and reporting entities for their engagement.
The company also reports a 2025 peer-review rating of “pass” and says the review is available on request. Request the report and review its scope; peer review should not be treated as blanket approval of every engagement or service arrangement.
Keep SOC 2 and ISO certification requirements distinct
Thoropass Certification LLC’s separate impartiality policy states that it does not provide management-system consultancy or internal audit services to certification clients. It describes ongoing impartiality reviews and certification decisions made independently of audit activities under ISO/IEC 17021-1.
That certification policy should not be presented as the SOC 2 independence rule. SOC 2 results in a CPA attestation report; ISO/IEC 27001 involves management-system certification. Each engagement must follow its own applicable requirements.
Management retains ownership
Assign a company decision-maker to approve controls, oversee implementation, and evaluate the services provided. Education, templates, and automated evidence collection do not transfer management’s accountability to the platform or auditor.
Our view: a coordinated workflow can save time. Buyers should still ask which work each entity performs, which relationships exist, and how independence is evaluated and documented. These arrangements also do not override CMMC’s separate restrictions on prior consulting.
Questions to ask before buying a package
- Which organization provides readiness support, and which CPA firm issues the report?
- What ownership, referral, or financial relationships connect them?
- Who decides which controls our business adopts and how they operate?
- Can the auditor request additional evidence and report deficiencies freely?
- Can we retain our platform and readiness provider if we choose another auditor?
- Which tasks remain our responsibility, and who on our team will complete them?
Ask for a clear explanation of responsibilities and independence before choosing a provider.
Reduce repeated work through everyday operations
Our recommendation is to capture evidence while completing the task. An offboarding ticket can record approval, actions, timestamps, and verification. An access review can preserve who reviewed permissions and what changed. A recovery exercise can document what was tested and what needs improvement.
Assign a control owner, establish a review schedule, and keep records in a consistent location. Automation can help collect information, but people still need to check that it is complete and reflects the actual environment.
Would the same arrangement work for CMMC?
Do not assume that an arrangement evaluated for SOC 2 will meet CMMC rules. CMMC Level 1 uses self-assessment, while Level 2 has self-assessment and C3PAO certification assessment paths. The certification path has explicit restrictions involving prior consulting work.
Read our companion article: CMMC Consultant vs. C3PAO: Workload, Evidence, and Conflicts of Interest.
SOC 2 readiness support in Austin and Houston
Business Communication Solutions helps small businesses with gap assessments, technical implementation, evidence organization, and preparation for auditor questions. Your management team retains its responsibilities, and the independent CPA firm performs the SOC examination.
Explore our SOC 2 readiness and gap assessment services to discuss support alongside your internal IT team or existing provider.
Austin: 512-257-1433 Houston: 281-815-8784
What do you think?
Would you prefer a coordinated compliance package or separate readiness and audit providers? What safeguards would you want before trusting an integrated offering?
And which part takes the most time in your business: implementing controls, collecting proof, or communicating with auditors?