The barrier between federal and state cloud procurement has effectively dissolved for authorized providers. With StateRAMP’s rebranding to GovRAMP and the FedRAMP RFC-0024 mandate for authorization packages, the opportunity to pursue a more unified compliance strategy has never been more practical. 

Organizations that have already invested the time, money, and engineering effort required to earn a FedRAMP authorization now have a clear, repeatable path to extend that investment into the state and local market without commissioning a second assessment. This article lays out the strategic and technical rationale for that approach. 

Compliance and OSCAL Code for Readability

RFC-0024 establishes a firm deadline for all CSPs to transition their authorization packages to the machine-readable Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL) format by September 2026. For engineering teams, the mandate represents a fundamental shift in how compliance documentation is produced and consumed. 

Traditional security packages are narrative-heavy Word documents and spreadsheets maintained through manual review cycles. OSCAL packages, on the other hand, are structured data, such as JSON or XML documents, that can be validated programmatically and ingested directly by both federal and state assessment systems. The goal for many compliance platforms (and organizations seeking compliance) is to create a documentation pipeline that generates OSCAL natively.

The key goal of this move is to distinguish between narrative-based and telemetry-based compliance.

• Narrative documentation describes intended behavior. A control implementation statement might read “The system enforces a minimum password length of fourteen characters.” This might be true, but the narrative must be manually reviewed, re-verified, and re-attested at every assessment cycle.
• Telemetry-based documentation, on the other hand, is generated from evidence. An automated pipeline queries the identity provider’s configuration API and stamps the result with a timestamp and a cryptographic hash. That evidence can be consumed by both a FedRAMP reviewer and a GovRAMP reviewer without modification, because it is a verifiable statement of fact rather than a human interpretation.

Organizations that invest in telemetry-driven documentation workflows report reductions in authorization preparation costs. 

What Is the GovRAMP Fast Track Program?

GovRAMP is built on the same NIST 800-53 Rev. 5 control baseline as FedRAMP Rev5. This shared foundation was an intentional design decision made to enable exactly the kind of reciprocity that this article describes. The practical consequence is that SSPs, SARs, and Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms) developed for a federal authorization can be resubmitted to the GovRAMP PMO.

The State, Local, and Education (SLED) information technology market is projected to grow from $155 billion in 2025 to $178 billion by 2028, driven by accelerating modernization mandates, the retirement of legacy systems, and an expanding appetite for cloud-delivered services. 

For CSPs that already hold federal authorizations, this market represents the single largest adjacent revenue opportunity available without developing a new product line. Meanwhile, state and local agencies are actively seeking cloud solutions that meet rigorous security standards, and the GovRAMP Authorized Product List is where procurement officers look first.

Now, while some state-specific requirements may add supplemental controls or impose different vulnerability remediation timelines, the core package transfers directly. 

For FedRAMP-authorized products, GovRAMP offers a Fast Track pathway that requires no new audit. The following steps outline the process from start to finish.

1. Verify Your FedRAMP Status. Confirm that the product holds a current FedRAMP Ready designation, a Provisional Authority to Operate, or a full Agency ATO. Expired or lapsed authorizations will not qualify for reciprocity, so any outstanding continuous monitoring findings should be resolved before initiating the GovRAMP process.
2. Establish GovRAMP Membership. Organizations must become official GovRAMP members before their solutions can be submitted for validation. Membership involves an application, a fee structure, and an agreement to adhere to GovRAMP’s continuous monitoring requirements.
3. Submit For Reciprocity Review. Package the existing FedRAMP security documentation and submit it to the GovRAMP Program Management Office for independent validation. The PMO reviews the package against the GovRAMP criteria and identifies any gaps that need to be addressed.
4. Align Continuous Monitoring Programs. Synchronize monthly vulnerability scans, annual assessments, and incident response reporting so that a single monitoring workflow satisfies both federal and state requirements. This avoids the operational burden of maintaining two parallel monitoring programs with different cadences and reporting formats.
5. Secure a Sponsor. To achieve full Authorized status on the GovRAMP Authorized Product List, a government official from a state or local agency must agree to act as a sponsor. The sponsor reviews the security package and formally accepts the residual risk associated with the product.

Common Challenges of the GovRAMP Program

The reciprocity pathway is efficient, but it is not automatic. Several common mistakes can slow or derail the process.

• Letting Continuous Monitoring Lapse: A FedRAMP authorization that has fallen out of compliance due to missed scans or unresolved POA&M items will not qualify for the GovRAMP Fast Track. The authorization must be current and in good standing at the time of submission.
• Treating OSCAL Conversion As Optional: The September 2026 OSCAL deadline is approaching quickly. Providers that have not begun converting their documentation will face compressed timelines, making dual-market entry significantly harder.
• Underestimating the Sponsor Relationship: Securing an SLTT sponsor requires building trust with a government stakeholder willing to put their name on a risk-acceptance decision. This relationship-building should begin early in the process, ideally in parallel with the documentation submission.
• Ignoring State-Specific Supplements: While the core NIST 800-53 controls transfer cleanly, some states impose additional requirements regarding data residency, breach-notification timelines, or encryption standards. A thorough gap analysis before submission prevents surprises during the PMO review.

Achieve FedRAMP and GovRAMP Compliance with Lazarus Alliance

Put your FedRAMP authorization to work, lean on OSCAL documentation, and make sure you can adopt GovRAMP or other frameworks much more easily. 

To learn more about how Lazarus Alliance can help, contact us. 

• FedRAMP
• GovRAMP
• NIST 800-53
• DFARS NIST 800-171
• CMMC
• SOC 1 & SOC 2
• ENS
• C5
• HIPAA, HITECH, & Meaningful Use
• PCI DSS RoC & SAQ
• IRS 1075 & 4812
• CJIS
• LA DMF
• ISO 27001, ISO 27002, ISO 27005, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, ISO 27701, ISO 22301, ISO 17020, ISO 17021, ISO 17025, ISO 17065, ISO 9001, & ISO 90003
• NIAP Common Criteria – Lazarus Alliance Laboratories
• And dozens more!