As security expectations and vendor scrutiny continue to evolve across GovCon, we spoke with Rye Jones, CEO and Co-founder of NextStage, to share perspective on how government contractors can evaluate software security responsibly, which questions matter most during vendor selection, and how independent validation supports confidence and speeds up the evaluation process.
Why security questions matter in GovCon software selection
When you don’t ask vendors the right questions, you risk compromising three key areas: data security, compliance, and operational continuity.
The tools GovCon teams use every day handle sensitive data. Understanding what data will live in the system before vendor conversations begin determines which compliance requirements apply.
FAR, DFARS, and CMMC apply to any system that handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Contractors who cannot confirm a vendor meets those standards are carrying a compliance gap.
A vendor’s security program has direct operational consequences for its customers. Mature programs respond quickly to due diligence requests and maintain proper documentation. Programs that fall short stall platform rollouts and disrupt pursuits.
Software security is subject to greater scrutiny in GovCon
Security scrutiny in GovCon environments is driven by several established factors:
- Security obligations follow data classification. When teams store, process, or transmit federal contract information, safeguarding expectations apply. FAR 52.204-21 is often the starting point, outlining requirements for protecting covered contractor information systems.
- DoD work raises the bar. Many defense contractors operate under DFARS cyber clauses and NIST 800-171 requirements. With CMMC Level 2 now being enforced, formal third-party assessments are a current requirement for contractors handling CUI.
- Federal guidance informs expectations. Zero Trust initiatives and related guidance shape how identity, access, logging, and monitoring are evaluated.
- Risk assessment is often part of early evaluation. Procurement, IT, and compliance teams are often required to review vendor security as part of initial due diligence.
As a result, systems used for internal operations, including BD and proposal development, are expected to demonstrate credible security maturity.
The questions government contractors should ask every vendor
The questions below form a baseline checklist to support consistent, informed evaluations.
1) What framework or standards are implemented?
Why it matters
Frameworks create a shared reference point for evaluating security maturity and comparing vendors. They also help buyers understand how controls align with GovCon expectations.
What a strong answer looks like
- Alignment to recognized standards such as NIST SP 800-53 or NIST SP 800-171. For teams handling CUI, NIST 800-53 is the relevant benchmark. It underpins FedRAMP authorization and maps directly to FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency requirements.
- Explanation of how controls are mapped, tested, and maintained over time.
- Documentation showing consistency between stated alignment and operational practices.
What to watch out for
- The frameworks cited are relevant to the work being done. A vendor referencing standards outside the scope of your compliance requirements is not answering the right question.
Framework alignment provides a reference for assessing the presence and relevance of controls. For DoD contractors under CMMC Level 2, that alignment is required.
2) Who has assessed your security controls?
Why it matters
Independent validation builds confidence that controls exist and are tested, reducing the risk of relying on self-attestation and unverified claims.
What a strong answer looks like
- Identification of an independent third-party assessor and the type of assessment performed, such as a FedRAMP assessment conducted by an accredited 3PAO.
- Clear definition of assessment scope, including which systems, environments, and services are covered.
- Willingness to share reports or summaries under NDA and explain results in plain language.
- Bonus points: The assessor has a demonstrated industry track record working with federal compliance frameworks.
What to watch out for
- No third-party assessment or credible plan to get assessed.
- Irrelevant compliance standards.
Independent assessment supports transparency and accountability, even though it does not eliminate risk.
3) Who is your dedicated security and compliance personnel?
Why it matters
Software vendors are part of a government contractor’s compliance posture. If a vendor falls behind on requirements like CMMC or can’t respond to due diligence requests, it creates compliance risk for the contractor. Dedicated security and compliance personnel means someone is accountable for keeping the platform aligned with federal standards and responding when it matters.
What a strong answer looks like
- A named individual who owns security and compliance internally, with relevant certifications and demonstrated experience in federal compliance frameworks.
- The ability to speak directly to the control environment without routing questions through other teams.
- Active involvement in product decisions, not just compliance documentation.
What to watch out for
- Fully outsourced security and compliance leadership and teams.
- Leaders without appropriate professional certifications or experience.
A vendor with a security lead gives you confidence. A vendor without one is a risk you’re taking on.
4) How do you protect sensitive BD and proposal data?
Why it matters
BD and proposal systems often contain pricing strategies, teaming plans, resumes, and customer insights. In some cases, they may also handle CUI.
What a strong answer looks like
- Encryption of data in transit and at rest, with clearly defined key management practices.
- Strong handle on software supply chain and personnel security.
- Clear requirements for system access.
- Strong identity and access controls, including SSO, MFA, role-based access, and least-privilege defaults.
- Tenant isolation for multi-tenant systems.
- Logging and audit trails for key activities.
Clear policies for data retention, backups, exports, and secure deletion.
What to watch out for
- Conflicts of interest with ownership.
- Offshore teams or contractors.
- Process as a way to compensate for the lack of technical control implementations.
For AI-enabled capabilities, vendors should be able to explain how customer data is handled and protected.
5) What does a compliant deployment of your product look like?
Why it matters
Some vendors maintain a separate, dedicated instance for customers who require FedRAMP compliance, distinct from their standard product environment. That separate instance often runs with restricted or disabled features to reduce compliance scope and may be priced differently. Contractors evaluating a platform for CMMC compliance need to know whether the authorized environment is the same product they evaluated and whether any capabilities differ.
What a strong answer looks like
- Clear confirmation of whether FedRAMP authorization covers the same environment your team would actually use and deploy.
- Explicit disclosure of any features that are restricted or unavailable in the authorized environment, and additional costs.
- Willingness to demonstrate the authorized version of the product, not just the standard version.
A platform that separates compliance from capability is asking you to choose between the two.
6) How do you support customer audits or security reviews?
Why it matters
Contractors often need to respond to security requests from primes or customers. Vendor readiness can affect deal timelines and operational continuity.
What a strong answer looks like
- A standardized security package that includes control summaries, assessment reports, and incident response documentation. These documents likely require an NDA prior to sharing.
- Defined processes for handling security questionnaires and customer-specific reviews.
- Clear incident response and notification procedures.
What to look out for
- Unwillingness to share necessary documentation.
Vendors serving GovCon customers should be familiar with review expectations common in federal contracting.
7) How often are controls reviewed or updated?
Why it matters
Security programs need ongoing oversight. Assessments lose value if controls aren’t regularly reviewed, tested, and updated.
What a strong answer looks like
- Defined continuous monitoring practices, including vulnerability management, patching timelines, access reviews, and log monitoring.
- Documented change management processes for product updates and infrastructure changes.
- Evidence of recent testing, policy reviews, or remediation activity.
When vendors reference federal frameworks, buyers should expect discussion of ongoing monitoring and governance.
Things to Watch Out for in Vendor Evaluations
Claiming compliance through another party
A vendor cannot inherit compliance from a cloud provider, platform partner, or any other third party they work with. Each vendor is responsible for their own assessment and their own authorization scope. For example, deploying on a FedRAMP equivalent cloud infrastructure does not make the application running on top of it FedRAMP compliant or CMMC ready. Vendors who point to another party’s compliance status as evidence of their own are conflating the two.
No documented path for a third-party assessment
A vendor with no plan for a third-party assessment is not prioritizing compliance in a way that government contractors require. This is a signal that security is being described, not executed. If a vendor does reference an upcoming audit, ask for the signed letter of engagement with the auditor. This will make it clear that there is a plan in motion.
How to use these answers in vendor selection
To apply this checklist without slowing decisions:
- Start with the data context. Align with business stakeholders and end users on how the software being evaluated is going to be used. For example, a team handling CUI in pre-award workflows is subject to CMMC requirements, which means the vendor they select needs to meet FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency under current DoD guidance.
- Prioritize evidence. Favor vendors that provide independent assessments and clear documentation.
- Evaluate clarity. Strong vendors explain security controls directly and without unnecessary complexity.
- Use a tiered review approach. Reserve deeper analysis for situations where risk warrants it.
- Document outcomes. Maintain internal summaries to support future reviews and audits.
Conclusion
Security and compliance maturity are commonly evaluated as part of GovCon software vendor selection. Focused questions and clear interpretation of responses help contractors manage risk while maintaining momentum.
Independent assessment, alignment to CMMC and other federal controls, and operational transparency signal a vendor’s readiness to support government contracting requirements.
