Checklist: What to Ask an AI Vendor Before Automating Judging or Triage

Hook: Stop trusting black boxes with your awards and triage workflows

Automating judging or triage with AI can save hours, reduce manual errors, and scale engagement — but it also introduces new risks: opaque models that skew outcomes, insecure handling of nominee or voter PII, and vendors that disappear or change course mid-program. If you’re a business buyer or small‑business operator selecting an AI vendor in 2026, you need a pragmatic, evidence‑based checklist that covers model transparency, data handling, FedRAMP/PII implications, and vendor financial stability.

The 2026 context you can’t ignore

Late 2025 and early 2026 set the tone for enterprise AI procurement: regulators tightened disclosure expectations; FedRAMP adoption accelerated for cloud AI platforms serving government or regulated markets; and new hybrid BPO+AI models emerged that pair automated decisioning with human oversight. Two illustrative developments:

• BigBear.ai eliminated debt and recently acquired a FedRAMP‑approved AI platform — a sign of vendor consolidation and the value placed on FedRAMP authorization for federal and sensitive workloads.
• MySavant.ai launched an AI‑powered nearshore workforce, reflecting a trend where intelligence augments traditional nearshoring and BPO — but also raising questions about data residency, access controls, and human+AI governance.

These developments mean your due diligence must be cross‑disciplinary: technical, legal, financial, and operational.

How to use this checklist

Use the sections below as a procurement questionnaire, an RFP addendum, or a vendor scorecard. Each section ends with concrete questions to ask, suggested contract language snippets, and an RFP scoring tip. Run through these before pilots, contracts, or production rollouts.

Checklist sections

1. Model transparency & fairness
2. Data handling, privacy & PII
3. FedRAMP & compliance posture
4. Security & voting integrity
5. Vendor financial stability & continuity
6. Operational SLAs, audits & exit planning

1) Model transparency & fairness

Automated judging or triage affects reputations and outcomes. You must know how the model reaches decisions, what data it was trained on, and whether it amplifies biases.

• Require model cards and data statements. Ask for a model card that details training data composition, intended use cases, performance metrics across cohorts, and limitation statements. Model cards should be updated at least quarterly for production models.
• Explainability & human review. For every decision that affects an award outcome or an escalated support triage, the vendor must provide an explainability artifact (saliency map, feature weights, counterfactual explanation) and a defined human-in-the-loop process.
• Bias testing & mitigation. Request independent bias test results (e.g., disparate impact ratios, false positive/negative rates across protected attributes) and mitigation steps (reweighting, adversarial re-training, or post‑hoc calibration).

Questions to ask

• Can you provide a model card and a public summary of training data sources and dates?
• How do you detect, measure, and remediate model bias? Provide recent test results and remediation logs.
• Do you provide per‑decision explainability and a documented human review workflow for contested outcomes?
• Has the model been audited by an independent third party? Can we review the audit findings?

Contract language snippet

"Vendor shall deliver a model card and quarterly bias/audit reports. For any disputed decision, Vendor will produce an explainability artifact and enable human review within 48 hours."

RFP scoring tip

Score vendor responses highest if they provide reproducible audit artifacts, third‑party audits, and an explicit human governance escalation path.

2) Data handling, privacy & PII

Nominee data, voter identities, judge notes, and supporting documents often contain PII and sensitive business information. Data handling expectations should be unambiguous and auditable.

• Data classification & minimal collection. Require the vendor to classify data types and follow a minimal data collection principle—only store what is necessary for the judged workflow.
• Encryption & key management. Data must be encrypted at rest and in transit (TLS 1.3+). Ask whether the vendor or you control encryption keys (BYOK is preferred for sensitive programs).
• Pseudonymization & differential privacy. For public voting or analytics exports, pseudonymize identifiers and consider differential privacy for aggregate reporting to avoid reidentification.
• Data residency & nearshore risks. If the vendor uses nearshore staff or MySavant‑style human+AI teams, confirm where data is processed and stored. Different jurisdictions have different legal protections and breach obligations.

Questions to ask

• What categories of data will you collect and store for judging and voting workflows? Provide a data map.
• Where will the data be stored and processed? List cloud regions and subcontractors.
• Do you support BYOK and customer‑managed encryption? Describe key rotation procedures.
• How do you protect PII for nearshore human reviewers? What access controls, NDAs, and background checks are in place?
• Do you have a data retention and secure deletion policy aligned with our retention requirements?

Contract language snippet

"Vendor will maintain a data map, encrypt customer data in transit and at rest, support BYOK on request, and ensure that any nearshore human reviewers are bound by written NDAs and local compliance controls. Vendor will delete customer data within X days of contract termination."

RFP scoring tip

Prioritize vendors that support BYOK, publish a clear data map, and provide evidence of strong access controls for nearshore teams.

3) FedRAMP & compliance posture

If your organization touches federal grants, contracts, or regulated data, FedRAMP authorization is increasingly non‑negotiable. In 2026, FedRAMP adoption expanded beyond traditional federal systems to AI platforms used in sensitive decisioning.

• Know the FedRAMP level you need. FedRAMP has Low, Moderate, and High baselines. Judging systems that store PII or sensitive contractor information typically need at least Moderate authorization.
• Understand what "FedRAMP‑authorized" means. Some vendors use FedRAMP providers or claim authorization for underlying infrastructure, but you must confirm authorization covers the specific service offering and deployment model; cloud cost rules and provider policies can materially change economics and security posture (see cloud policy changes).
• Ask for the ATO package and FedRAMP SSP. A System Security Plan (SSP) and Authority to Operate (ATO) package demonstrate controls, continuous monitoring, and approved plans of action and milestones (POA&M).

Questions to ask

• Are you FedRAMP authorized? If yes, what level (Low/Moderate/High) and for which service offering?
• Can we review your SSP, POA&M summaries, and continuous monitoring reports? Are they current as of the last 12 months?
• If not FedRAMP‑authorized, do you host on a FedRAMP‑authorized IaaS/PaaS and can you operate under a FedRAMP provisional authority or inherit controls?
• How do you handle crosswalks to HIPAA, CJIS, or other relevant standards?

2026 note: beware of partial claims

Some vendors in 2025–2026 acquired or partnered with FedRAMP vendors (BigBear.ai is an example of consolidation around FedRAMP platforms). That’s valuable, but verify the authorization applies to the product you’ll use — not just an underlying service.

Contract language snippet

"Vendor will maintain FedRAMP Moderate authorization for the offered service and deliver an SSP and quarterly continuous monitoring reports. If authorization changes, Vendor will notify Customer within 5 business days and propose mitigating controls."

4) Security & voting integrity

Voting integrity is central to awards credibility. Technical controls, auditability, and tamper evidence protect against manipulation and build trust with nominees and voters.

• End‑to‑end audit logs. Ensure immutable, time‑stamped audit logs capture nominations, votes, judge actions, edits, and exports. Logs should be exportable in standard formats and stored for a contractually specified period; build in low-latency telemetry and canary strategies from the start (edge observability patterns help here).
• Multi‑factor authentication & role separation. Enforce MFA for admin and judge accounts. Separate roles (nominator, judge, auditor) and data scopes so no single user has excessive control.
• Tamper evidence & integrity checks. Use cryptographic signing, append‑only ledgers, or blockchain anchoring for vote manifests if non‑repudiation is required. At minimum, provide hash chains and signed manifests for each voting round.
• Anti‑fraud & bot mitigation. Confirm rate limiting, bot detection, and anomalous voting behavior detection. Ask how the vendor distinguishes organic voter variance from coordinated manipulation; credential stuffing is a common attack vector to account for (credential stuffing controls are relevant).

Questions to ask

• Are all vote and judge actions logged immutably? Can we export logs and artifacts for independent verification?
• Do you provide cryptographic signing or anchoring for vote manifests? Describe the approach and retention policy.
• What anti‑fraud systems and heuristics do you use to detect vote manipulation or account takeovers?
• How quickly can we perform a full recount or export for external audit? What formats do you support?

Contract language snippet

"Vendor will provide exportable, signed vote manifests and immutable audit logs accessible to Customer on demand. Vendor will support an independent audit of X days' data within Y business days of request."

5) Vendor financial stability & continuity

Vendor financial health affects long‑term support, roadmap delivery, and data accessibility if contracts end abruptly. In 2026 the market saw consolidation and vendors eliminating debt (BigBear.ai) — both good and cautionary signals.

• Ask for high‑level financial signals. Request revenue trends, cash runway, recent funding events or debt restructurings, and customer concentration (top 10 customers % of revenue).
• M&A and platform migration risk. If a vendor has recently acquired technology or been acquired, confirm migration plans and data portability guarantees. BigBear.ai’s FedRAMP play highlights how acquisitions can change product stability.
• Escrow & data access guarantees. Negotiate source code or data escrow for mission‑critical systems and a contractual plan for data export and continued operation in the event of vendor insolvency or acquisition; require a verified restoration plan and an escrow arrangement.

Questions to ask

• Provide a summary of revenue growth, profitability or burn, and recent financing events (public summary). What is the current cash runway?
• Who are your top 10 customers and what % of revenue do they represent (high‑level info)?
• If you are acquired or change platform providers, what is the migration plan and customer rights for data export or transition support?

Contract language snippet

"Vendor will maintain a data escrow and provide a verified restoration plan. If Vendor undergoes a change of control, Vendor will provide 90 days' notice and migration assistance to Customer at predetermined fees."

6) Operational SLAs, audits & exit planning

Technical functionality is only part of the story. Define who owns what during incidents, how audits run, and how to leave cleanly.

• SLA uptime & performance. Define acceptable availability for nomination portals, voting windows, API response times, and scheduled maintenance windows; borrow canary rollout and observability practices from CDN and edge teams (edge observability).
• Incident response & breach notification. Require incident response timelines (initial response < 1 hour, full report within 72 hours), breach notification thresholds, and root cause remediation timelines.
• Audit rights & pen testing. Include quarterly vulnerability scans, annual pen tests, and rights to commission a third‑party audit with a mutually agreed scope.
• Exit & data handover. Specify export formats, escrow procedures, and a timeline for final data deletion once data is transferred and validated.

Questions to ask

• What uptime and response‑time SLAs do you provide for nomination and voting windows?
• Provide your incident response process and recent postmortem examples (sanitized).
• How do you support audits, and can we commission independent tests? What costs apply?
• Describe the exit process and the formats in which you will export our data. How long will you retain backups after deletion?

Contract language snippet

"Vendor shall provide 99.9% availability during active voting windows, notify Customer of security incidents within 1 hour, and deliver a full incident report within 72 hours. Vendor will support data export in CSV/JSON and provide migration support for 90 days post termination."

Red flags that should halt procurement

• Vendor refuses to provide a model card, bias test results, or third‑party audit reports.
• Opaque data map or refusal to support BYOK for sensitive PII.
• Claims of being "FedRAMP‑compatible" without providing SSP/ATO evidence.
• No export/escrow options or short retention commitments that prevent a clean exit.
• Lack of immutable audit logs or cryptographic evidence for voting manifests.
• High customer concentration without contingency plans for continuity if a major client leaves.

Practical due‑diligence workflow

1. Issue the checklist as an RFP addendum; require completed responses and artifacts (model card, SSP, SOC 2, pen test) within 10 business days.
2. Run a quick technical review: security team checks SSP and pen test; data team reviews data map; legal reviews FedRAMP/PII clauses.
3. Commission a short pilot with canary metrics for bias and integrity — limit sample size and scope, require audit logs, and test export/restore workflows.
4. Engage a third‑party audit for models (if high risk) and validate vendor financial summaries with procurement or treasury if continuity is critical.
5. Sign with escrow, SLAs, and a minimum 90‑day migration assistance clause.

Real‑world example: combining controls

Imagine a mid‑sized nonprofit launching a national awards program. They chose a vendor that advertised FedRAMP compatibility, but the procurement team followed this checklist. They requested the SSP and discovered the FedRAMP authorization applied only to an underlying IaaS, not the vendor's application layer. They negotiated BYOK, immutable vote manifests, and a 90‑day data escrow. During the pilot, bias tests found higher false positives for submissions from smaller organizations. The vendor reweighted training data and added a human review step for borderline cases. The campaign launched with transparent reporting and an independent audit, increasing nominee trust and boosting voter turnout by 24%.

Quick checklist you can copy into an RFP

• Provide model card, bias test results, and third‑party audit summary.
• Supply a complete data map and support BYOK.
• Confirm FedRAMP authorization level and deliver SSP/ATO documentation.
• Exportable, immutable audit logs for all votes and judge actions.
• MFA for all privileged accounts; role separation and least privilege.
• Pen test annual, quarterly vulnerability scanning, and audit rights.
• Escrow arrangement; 90 days migration assistance; data deletion timeline post‑termination.
• Provide financial summary (revenue trend, cash runway) and top customer concentration metric.

Actionable takeaways

• Never accept vague FedRAMP or privacy claims — ask for SSPs and evidence of authorization for the product you’ll use.
• Insist on explainability and human‑in‑the‑loop for any decision that materially affects outcomes.
• Treat nearshore human reviewers with the same data protection expectations as cloud staff: NDAs, access controls, and documented processing locations.
• Include explicit continuity clauses (escrow, export formats, migration support) — financial volatility and consolidation are real in 2026.

Final perspective: balance innovation with accountability

AI can make judging and triage faster, fairer, and more scalable — but only when paired with transparency, strong data practices, and contractual safeguards. In 2026, expect vendors to claim FedRAMP ties or hybrid BPO+AI offers (like MySavant.ai’s model) and watch for consolidation moves similar to BigBear.ai’s FedRAMP acquisition. Use this checklist as a guardrail: it helps you capture vendor commitments, validate technical claims, and protect nominees, voters, and your organization’s reputation.

Next steps — template scorecard & pilot script

Need a ready‑to‑use scorecard and a pilot script tailored to awards or triage workflows? We created a downloadable RFP addendum, a 10‑point model audit form, and a 30‑day pilot script that enforces export, audit, and bias checks.

Call to action

Don’t roll the dice with an opaque AI vendor. Download our vendor checklist and pilot templates, or schedule a free vendor readiness review with our procurement team at nominee.app. We’ll help you validate FedRAMP claims, design human‑in‑the‑loop safeguards, and build contract language that protects your program and participants.

Related Reading

• Building a Desktop LLM Agent Safely: Sandboxing & Auditability
• Ephemeral AI Workspaces & Sandboxed Desktops
• How Startups Must Adapt to Europe’s New AI Rules
• Edge Observability for Resilient Flows & Canary Rollouts
• News: Major Cloud Provider Per‑Query Cost Cap
• Arc Raiders: Best Spots on Old Maps You Shouldn’t Forget
• How Hijab Creators Should Respond to Deepfakes and Platform Drama
• Could Convenience Stores Host Massage Pop-Ups? Lessons From Asda Express
• Budget Smart Home Setups for Cat Owners: Low-Cost Lamps, Speakers, and Feeders That Make Life Easier
• How to Choose a Gym Bag for Winter Training: Materials That Beat Cold, Damp and Odours