Using AI (FedRAMP-certified) to Detect Payment Fraud: Lessons from BigBear.ai’s Pivot

Cut fraud and accelerate enterprise deals: why regulated AI matters now

If your business accepts enterprise payments or services government contracts, you face a double bind: rising payment fraud and stricter security expectations from buyers. Standard rules-based fraud filters and off-the-shelf ML models that aren’t certified for regulated environments can block deals, slow procurement, and expose you to compliance gaps. BigBear.ai’s pivot in late 2025—eliminating debt and acquiring a FedRAMP-authorized AI platform—illustrates a practical path: use regulated AI to secure payments while unlocking enterprise and government revenue.

Top takeaway

FedRAMP-certified AI isn’t just for federal agencies. For merchants that serve government or large enterprises, adopting regulated AI for fraud detection reduces procurement friction, strengthens data privacy posture, and provides a defensible control environment that buyers increasingly require. But it requires disciplined engineering, clear data scoping, and an operational governance plan.

Why BigBear.ai’s move matters to merchants and payment teams

BigBear.ai’s acquisition of a FedRAMP-authorized AI platform is a real-world signal that regulated AI is becoming a strategic enabler in security-sensitive markets. For payments teams this matters because:

• Faster trust-based deals: Government and some enterprise buyers prefer vendors with FedRAMP-authorized components because it reduces their procurement risk and accelerates contracting.
• Baseline security controls: FedRAMP requires documented controls around access, logging, configuration, and continuous monitoring—controls that plug directly into payment security programs and can shorten vendor risk assessments. Invest in modern observability and logging patterns to meet these expectations (modern observability).
• Market differentiation: Offering fraud detection built on regulated AI becomes a commercial differentiator when you target high-regulation verticals (defense, healthcare, state/local government).

How regulated AI improves payment fraud detection—practical mechanisms

Moving to a FedRAMP-authorized AI model changes not only compliance posture but also the engineering approach to fraud detection. Key mechanisms:

1. Secure data handling: FedRAMP frameworks require strict data flow diagrams, encryption at rest/in transit, and role-based access. For payments, that means tokenization of card data, restricted PII exposure to models, and auditable data retention policies. Also require HSM-backed key management and modern PKI practices (secret rotation & PKI).
2. Continuous monitoring & logging: Fraud systems must provide detailed telemetry—feature inputs, model decisions, and drift metrics—logging that aligns with FedRAMP continuous monitoring expectations. This materially improves incident response and dispute reconciliation for chargebacks. Invest in observability and drift detection.
3. Model governance: Regulated AI enforces processes around versioning, explainability, and approval gates. That leads to faster root-cause analysis for false positives/negatives and ensures any automated declines can be explained to enterprise buyers or auditors; consider portable explainability tools (see the portable explainability tablet guide).
4. Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): FedRAMP-grade solutions typically document dependencies and third-party risk, which reduces supply-chain objections from procurement teams. Track installer, packaging and distribution trust issues similar to modular installer bundles playbooks.

2024–2026 trends that make this moment strategic

Several regulatory and market shifts through 2025 and into 2026 make FedRAMP-style regulated AI especially relevant for payment security:

• Federal and state buyers increasingly require certified security baselines for vendors after the 2024–25 policy focus on AI safety and data protection; platform policy shifts and payment platform moves are accelerating demand for certified controls (payment & platform news).
• Industry standards for AI transparency and model risk management (NIST and sector-specific guidance) matured in 2024–2025, pushing enterprises to demand stronger governance from AI vendors.
• Payment fraud patterns evolved: bots, synthetic identity, and account takeover attacks scaled during 2023–2025, leading to a step-change in demand for advanced ML detection techniques integrated with stronger compliance attestation. Pair fraud detection with behavioral and liveness checks where appropriate (biometric liveness).

What FedRAMP does—and what it doesn’t—for payment teams

Clarify expectations before you purchase or claim FedRAMP compliance:

• What FedRAMP provides: a government-audited baseline for cloud security controls, continuous monitoring practices, incident reporting, and specific authorization levels (Low/Moderate/High) suitable for different data sensitivity.
• What it does not replace: Payment-specific compliance such as PCI DSS, or privacy laws like CCPA/GDPR. You still must tokenize cardholder data, meet PCI requirements, and maintain customer privacy protections.
• Operational overhead: FedRAMP-grade integrations often come with stricter change control, SSO requirements, and may restrict on-the-fly model experimentation.

Architecture patterns for integrating FedRAMP AI into payment fraud workflows

The right architecture depends on buyer requirements and risk tolerance. Here are three practical patterns that merchants use in 2026.

1) FedRAMP-hosted model API (recommended for rapid procurement)

Use-case: You need a certified endpoint to evaluate transactions in real time for government/enterprise customers.

• Flow: Transaction → Tokenization layer → Secure API call to FedRAMP model → Score/Audit log → Decision engine.
• Benefits: Fast onboarding for government buyers; centralized continuous monitoring and certified controls.
• Tradeoffs: Potential latency and higher per-request cost; less ability to customize model internals.

2) Hybrid: Feature extraction locally, model scoring in FedRAMP environment

Use-case: You want low-latency pre-filtering while keeping scoring and logs in a certified environment.

• Flow: Local microservices compute non-sensitive features (session anomalies, device heuristics) → Federated or encrypted transfer of minimal feature vector → FedRAMP model returns risk score and detailed audit record.
• Benefits: Lower latency, reduced data sharing, still compliant with buyer expectations.
• Tradeoffs: Requires strong cryptographic controls and careful feature selection to avoid exposing PII.

3) On-prem or VPC-hosted model (for highest control)

Use-case: Large enterprise or defense customers require models to run within their environment.

• Flow: Full model and MLOps stack deployed inside customer VPC/on-prem → Local scoring, local logging; vendor provides model updates via signed artifacts.
• Benefits: Maximum buyer confidence and minimal external data movement.
• Tradeoffs: Highest implementation cost; complexity in distribution, updates, and auditing.

Practical checklist for merchants considering FedRAMP AI for fraud detection

Use this checklist to evaluate vendors and define your integration plan.

1. Authorization level: Confirm if the platform is FedRAMP Low, Moderate, or High and map that to the sensitivity of the payment data you’ll send.
2. Data minimization plan: Define the minimal feature set required for scoring. Tokenize PANs and never send raw card data unless absolutely necessary and covered by PCI scope.
3. Auditability: Require per-transaction explainability logs (features, model version, score, timestamp) retained per your records-retention policy. Consider a portable explainability surface (explainability tablet).
4. SLAs & latency: Define acceptable latency (e.g., <200 ms for real-time decisions) and throughput targets; demand performance metrics in the contract. Use latency playbooks for guidance (latency playbook).
5. Model governance: Insist on CI/CD gates, data lineage, and documented retraining schedules; require notification of model changes and a staging environment for testing. Track data lineage and cataloging best practices (data catalogs).
6. Penetration testing & audits: Ensure the vendor supports third-party pen tests and produces the SOC 2 / FedRAMP artifacts required for your procurement team. Combine this with observability artifacts (observability).
7. Incident playbooks: Integrate vendor notification timelines into your fraud incident response and chargeback dispute processes. Align incident playbooks with crisis communications best practices (crisis comms).

Measuring impact: KPIs and targets for 2026 deployments

Set pragmatic KPIs to measure both security efficacy and business impact.

• Fraud detection metrics: Precision, recall, false positive rate (FPR), false negative rate (FNR), and AUC. Target improvement ranges: 20–50% reduction in false negatives and 10–30% reduction in false positives within the first 6 months when switching to advanced models, depending on baseline.
• Business metrics: Chargebacks per 1000 transactions, dispute resolution time, approval rate for government RFPs, and deal close time.
• Operational metrics: Model decision latency, model drift rate, and mean time to detect anomalies in model behavior.
• ROI: Compare reduction in fraud loss + improved win rate on enterprise deals versus total cost of ownership (subscription, integration, monitoring).

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Deployments fail for predictable reasons. Plan to avoid these three traps.

1. Over-sharing raw data: Don’t send full cardholder data or broad PII into external model endpoints. Use tokenization, pseudonymization, and local feature extraction. Also design with privacy-first patterns (privacy-first personalization).
2. Lack of human-in-the-loop: Fully automated declines increase false positives and customer friction. Implement a tiered response: allowholds, additional auth, and human review for medium-risk scores. Pair automated checks with human verification and liveness where appropriate (biometric liveness).
3. Not planning for drift: Models trained on historical fraud patterns degrade as criminals adapt. Implement continuous monitoring, periodic re-labeling, and an adversarial testing cadence—use observability guides to instrument drift metrics (observability).

Case example: enterprise payments detection workflow (conceptual)

Below is a compact workflow that blends FedRAMP scoring with payment system realities.

1. Payment request received by payment gateway; PAN tokenized immediately.
2. Local pre-filter computes device/fingerprint features and risk heuristics.
3. Minimal feature vector and tokenized identifiers sent to FedRAMP model endpoint.
4. Model returns risk score, explanation metadata, and a decision code; all stored in an immutable audit log.
5. Decision engine applies rules: auto-approve, soft decline + challenge, or send to human review. Action and logs feed CRM and chargeback workflows.
6. All transactions and model outputs are monitored for drift and anomalous patterns; labelled fraud cases are fed back into retraining pipelines in a sanitized, privacy-compliant way (observability).

Data privacy and overlapping compliance: FedRAMP, PCI, and privacy law

Merchants must operate at the intersection of several frameworks. Key guidance:

• PCI DSS remains mandatory for cardholder data regardless of FedRAMP status. Use tokenization and keep the card data scope tightly controlled.
• FedRAMP complements, not replaces, PCI: FedRAMP addresses cloud and system controls while PCI controls payment data handling specifics.
• Privacy laws: Build consent and data subject rights handling into your model data flows. For EU or UK enterprise deals, verify admissible legal bases for data processing under GDPR/UK GDPR. Follow privacy-first design principles (privacy-first).

Vendor negotiation points and contract language to ask for

When you evaluate a FedRAMP AI vendor, include these contract clauses to reduce merchant risk:

• Explicit FedRAMP authorization level and the Agency Authorization to Operate (ATO) references.
• Performance SLAs for latency, availability, and throughput tied to remedies/credits.
• Data segregation guarantees, encryption standards (TLS 1.2+/AES-256), and HSM usage for key management.
• Right to audit or obtain third-party pen test reports and SOC/FedRAMP artifacts.
• Clear model update, rollback, and notification procedures.

Final recommendations: roadmap for adoption (90–180 day plan)

Follow this phased plan to pilot a FedRAMP AI fraud solution without disrupting payments.

1. Days 0–30: Vendor selection, map data flows, agree on minimal feature vector, and finalize contract clauses.
2. Days 30–60: Implement tokenization and secure API integration; build the audit/logging pipeline and connect to SIEM.
3. Days 60–90: Run a shadow mode (scores only) on a representative traffic sample and measure KPIs (FPR, FNR, latency). Use low-latency playbooks (latency playbook) to tune performance.
4. Days 90–180: Gradual rollout with human-in-the-loop interventions, refine thresholds, and operationalize retraining and monitoring routines.

Conclusion: Regulated AI is a strategic lever for payment security in 2026

BigBear.ai’s recent acquisition highlights a broader market truth: regulated AI is no longer niche—it’s a practical differentiator for merchants seeking enterprise and government revenue. FedRAMP-certified AI platforms bring stronger controls, faster buyer acceptance, and better auditability; but they require careful engineering, explicit data governance, and ongoing model operations. Adopt a staged integration plan, insist on data minimization and explainability, and measure both security and commercial impact.

Quick pragmatic rule: If your target buyer list includes government agencies or large enterprises in regulated sectors, treat FedRAMP-authorized AI as a near-term requirement for competitive bids.

Actionable next steps

Start with three immediate moves:

1. Run a vendor risk mapping exercise: list enterprise/government buyers and identify required authorization levels.
2. Draft a one-page data minimization plan for fraud scoring that removes any direct PAN exposure.
3. Schedule a 60-day shadow pilot with a FedRAMP-authorized AI provider and target measurable KPI improvements.

Call to action

Ready to evaluate FedRAMP-backed AI fraud detection for your payments stack? Contact our payments security team to get a vendor checklist, a 60-day pilot plan tailored to enterprise buyers, and a technical integration template that preserves PCI scope and accelerates procurement.

Related Reading

• News & Analysis: Embedded Payments, Edge Orchestration, and the Economics of Rewrites
• Modern Observability in Preprod Microservices — Advanced Strategies & Trends for 2026
• Practical Playbook: Building Low‑Latency Live Streams on VideoTool Cloud (Latency Guidance)
• Buyer’s Guide: Choosing a Portable Explainability Tablet — NovaPad Pro and Alternatives
• Launch Checklist: Turning a TV Brand into a Successful Podcast (inspired by Ant & Dec)
• Santa Monica’s New ‘Large-Scale’ Festival: What Local Shops and Hotels Need to Prepare
• Music Mood Menus: Create a Mitski-Inspired Dinner with Melancholic Desserts and Cocktails
• Integrating Navigation APIs into Logistics and Dev Tools: Lessons from Google Maps and Waze
• Travel Safety for Live Broadcasters: Permissions, Privacy, and Local Laws