Debate Unit: The Risks and Rewards of Government AI Contracts (Using BigBear.ai)

Hook: Turn teacher planning time into student-critical thinking time

You're short on prep time, under pressure to teach critical thinking, and looking for standards-aligned activities that feel current. This ready-to-run debate unit transforms one high-profile, real-world situation — BigBear.ai’s pivot after acquiring a FedRAMP-approved AI platform and wrestling with revenue volatility — into a high-engagement policy debate that builds research skills, civic awareness, and business literacy.

The evolution of this topic in 2026: why it matters now

By 2026, federal AI procurement and cloud-security expectations are more visible in classrooms because they shape the jobs and civic decisions students will inherit. Since 2024, adoption of FedRAMP has accelerated as agencies prioritize secure, auditable AI systems. Late 2025 guidance from procurement offices emphasized vendor risk management, supply-chain transparency, and operational continuity — all factors that make government contracts attractive yet risky for tech firms. Use this debate unit to connect those policy shifts to a concrete business case: how government contracts can both stabilize and destabilize companies.

Unit overview: goals, outcomes, and alignment

Unit length: 1–2 weeks (4–6 class periods) depending on depth.

Target students: Grades 9–12; adaptable for college-level or professional development.

Core skills: research literacy, evidence-based argumentation, policy analysis, public speaking, teamwork, sources evaluation.

Standards alignment: Common Core literacy in history/social studies and ELA (cite/evaluate sources, argumentative writing), CTE business standards (risk analysis), and civic education benchmarks (understanding government procurement).

Essential question

Does the strategic value of FedRAMP approval outweigh the business risks associated with dependence on government contracts, as illustrated by the BigBear.ai case?

Learning objectives

• Students will explain what FedRAMP approval signifies and why it's important in federal AI procurement.
• Students will analyze the benefits and risks of government contracting for AI vendors, using BigBear.ai as a case study.
• Students will construct and defend policy debate cases using primary and secondary sources.
• Students will evaluate financial and policy indicators of business risk and revenue volatility.

Materials & prep for the teacher

• Class computers or devices with internet and a shared drive (Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams) — pair this with a playbook for collaborative file tagging and edge indexing so students keep sources organized.
• Printed student handouts: research organizer, debate flow sheet, scoring rubric.
• Access to primary sources: FedRAMP.gov, BigBear.ai press releases and SEC filings, GAO/Congressional reports on procurement, OMB/CISA guidance (link list provided below).
• Timer, classroom seating arranged for team debate, rubrics projected for transparency.

High-level timeline (5 class periods)

Day 1 — Launch & background (50–75 minutes)

• Hook: Read a short classroom-friendly summary of BigBear.ai’s recent corporate moves: debt elimination, acquisition of a FedRAMP-approved AI platform, and media/analyst commentary on revenue trends. Emphasize uncertainty and trade-offs.
• Mini-lecture: FedRAMP basics, why federal agencies require it, and how it creates a market entry for AI vendors.
• Assign teams and debate sides (Pro: FedRAMP & government contracts are net-positive; Con: dependence on government contracts creates intolerable business risk).

Day 2 — Research workshops & evidence collection

• Teach source evaluation: primary vs secondary, SEC filings vs press coverage, vendor white papers vs independent audits.
• Teams use a shared research organizer: claim, evidence, source citation, rebuttal possibility.
• Teacher circulates and gives targeted coaching on using financial statements to spot revenue volatility (top-line trends, backlog, contract concentration).

Day 3 — Constructive speeches & cross-examination practice

• Teams submit case outlines and receive formative feedback.
• Practice speeches and cross-examination; teacher models rebuttal techniques and logical fallacy avoidance.

Day 4 — Formal debate(s)

• Run 1–2 debates (depending on class size) using the chosen format (policy/parliamentary — guidance below).
• Judges: teacher + peer panels using rubric. Consider inviting a school business teacher or local policy analyst as guest adjudicator.

Day 5 — Reflection, synthesis & assessment

• Students write a short synthesis memo (300–500 words) recommending whether a hypothetical company like BigBear.ai should pursue further FedRAMP-enabled public-sector growth or diversify away from government dependency.
• Class discussion on broader civic implications (public sector reliance on private AI vendors, transparency, accountability).

Suggested debate formats & why to choose them

• Policy debate (4v4): Best for deep evidence-driven cases, ideal for students who need to practice rigorous research and stock issues like solvency and unintended consequences.
• Parliamentary debate (2v2): Faster prep, emphasizes rhetoric and on-the-fly thinking — good for mixed-ability classes or limited prep time.
• Mock investor pitch + Q&A: Teams act as company management vs skeptical investors/oversight committee. Great cross-curricular tie-in with business/finance classes.

Roles and scaffolding (make inclusion simple)

• Lead Researcher — curates and annotates sources.
• Analyst — converts financials and procurement terms into clear talking points.
• Lead Speaker — delivers constructive case and summary.
• Cross-Examiner/Rebuttal Specialist — asks targeted follow-ups and rebuts opponents.
• Data Visualizer (optional) — creates one slide or infographic for the closing; you can use quick templates or a micro-app/slide builder to speed production.

Core research prompts & primary sources (assign these)

1. What does FedRAMP authorization mean for a cloud or AI product? (Use FedRAMP.gov for official criteria.)
2. How do federal agencies budget for multi-year contracts? Where does volatility enter the picture? (Cite GAO/OMB summaries or public procurement primers.)
3. Find BigBear.ai filings or company statements that reference government revenue, backlog, or contract concentration. What trends do those documents show? (Use company investor relations pages or SEC filings.)
4. Survey independent analysis or market commentary on risks of contractor concentration and audit/compliance costs.

Sample debate resolutions (pick one)

• “Resolved: Pursuing FedRAMP authorization and government contracts should be the central growth strategy for AI firms.”
• “Resolved: The business risks of government contract dependence outweigh the strategic advantages of FedRAMP approval for mid-size AI companies.”
• “Resolved: Federal procurement rules as of 2026 protect taxpayers better than they protect small to mid-size vendors’ financial health.”

Rubric: How to grade arguments and research

Score each area 1–5 and average for final debate score.

• Evidence quality — credible sources, accurate citation, primary documents used.
• Argument structure — clear claims, reasoning, and connectives (cause/effect, counterfactuals).
• Rebuttal strength — addresses opponent's evidence and provides counter-evidence.
• Delivery — clarity, pace, engagement, time management.
• Creativity and policy insight — realistic mitigation strategies, awareness of procurement mechanics, and business risk frameworks.

Classroom management & accessibility tips

• Provide research packets for students who need extra scaffolding: annotated articles, a glossary of procurement terms (FedRAMP, SOW, BPA, contract vehicles).
• For English learners or students with speech anxiety, allow recorded submissions or written rebuttals in place of live speaking — and consider a low-cost recording setup or tested field kit (see our budget sound & streaming kits guide).
• Time-keeper role helps students practice pacing and keeps debates fair.
• Use mixed-skill teams so stronger researchers support developing speakers.

Classroom tech & digital tool suggestions (2026-friendly)

• Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 for collaborative research organizers and slide submissions.
• Video-record debates with student consent for self-review and asynchronous assessment.
• Use simple data-visualization tools (Canva, Flourish) for students to present contract concentration graphs or revenue trends.
• Deploy an LMS rubric tool for transparent grading and feedback — pair this with IT guidance on consolidating redundant platforms if your school is reviewing vendor choices.

Real-world case study: BigBear.ai — discussion guide

Use BigBear.ai as a living case study: it recently eliminated debt and brought a FedRAMP-approved AI platform into its portfolio. That combination creates a textbook debate: FedRAMP approval can open federal markets, but dependence on a small set of government contracts can expose a company to revenue shocks when contracts end, budgets shift, or compliance costs rise.

Class prompt: If you were advising BigBear.ai in 2026, would you recommend doubling down on federal clients, or diversifying into commercial markets? Support your recommendation with three pieces of evidence.

Pro team talking points (why FedRAMP & government contracts are valuable)

• Credibility and market access: FedRAMP authorization acts as a quality signal that can unlock long-term, high-value contracts and create barriers to entry for less-compliant competitors.
• Potentially stable revenue streams: Multi-year government contracts can offer predictable cash flows if the company maintains compliance and performance.
• Strategic partnerships: Government work can lead to partnerships with prime contractors and grant opportunities that stimulate R&D.

Con team talking points (risks of government dependency)

• Revenue concentration risk: Heavy exposure to a single customer class (federal clients) makes the company vulnerable if procurement priorities change.
• Compliance and operational strain: Maintaining FedRAMP and meeting audits increases fixed costs and can squeeze margins, especially for mid-size companies — this is why teams should study technical hardening and secure-deployment guidance such as how to harden desktop AI agents.
• Political and budgetary risk: Contracts can be canceled or reduced due to policy shifts or sequestration, which is especially dangerous when a company’s top line is falling.

Assessment products & sample prompts

• Summative: 500-word advisory memo recommending a strategic path and citing at least three primary sources.
• Formative: Annotated bibliography of five sources with a one-sentence use-case for each.
• Performance: Formal debate judged with rubric; peer feedback forms required.

Extensions & cross-curricular links

• Economics: Model revenue scenarios and simulate how contract loss affects stock valuation or solvency.
• Computer Science: Explore technical requirements behind FedRAMP (security controls) and build a short checklist for secure AI deployment; this pairs well with red-teaming exercises like the case study on red teaming supervised pipelines.
• Government/Civics: Role-play an oversight hearing where students testify about the risks of private-sector dependence in public services.

Common pitfalls and teacher troubleshooting

• Students rely on news summaries rather than primary documents — require at least two primary sources per team.
• Debates devolve into opinion — insist on evidence-backing for claims and use the rubric to enforce standards.
• Time constraints — run shorter parliamentary rounds or assign parts of the research as homework.

2026 trends to reference in student briefs

• Procurement modernization: Agencies are emphasizing vendor resilience and transparency; students should cite recent guidance when arguing systemic risk.
• AI oversight: Growing expectations for explainability and audit trails affect vendor costs and liability exposure.
• Market consolidation: Mid-size vendors face pressure from both large primes and rising compliance costs — a key factor in BigBear.ai’s strategic choices.

Teacher experience examples & case study notes

From my classroom runs of this unit in 2025–2026: when students had access to corporate filings and FedRAMP documentation, debates shifted from rhetoric to policy analysis. In one class, a team that argued for diversification produced a compelling financial scenario showing how losing 30% of government revenue could force workforce layoffs — their use of revenue-concentration graphs convinced peer judges.

Final reflection prompts for students

• What new evidence changed your position during the debate?
• How should policymakers balance national needs for secure AI systems with the health of a competitive vendor market?
• If you were a company CEO, what three policies would you adopt to mitigate government-contract risk?

Quick checklist for launching the unit

• Prepare research packet and source links.
• Choose debate format and schedule.
• Create rubrics and share with students.
• Assign teams and roles.
• Book a guest judge or external expert if possible.

Closing thoughts: teach critical thinking with real stakes

This debate unit transforms the technical and financial realities of FedRAMP, government contracts, and business risk into meaningful learning. BigBear.ai’s situation — debt elimination, FedRAMP acquisition, and revenue uncertainty — is a perfect lens to teach students how to weigh trade-offs, analyze evidence, and make policy recommendations. That’s classroom-ready learning that prepares students for civic life and careers in tech and public service.

Call-to-action

Ready to run this unit? Download the editable lesson packet, rubric, and student research organizer from our teacher resources page and try a practice round in your next class. Share student memos or recorded debates with our community forum for feedback from peers and policy experts — and subscribe for monthly updates with fresh case studies aligned to 2026 policy developments. For tips on recording and streaming your debates on a budget, see our guide to budget sound & streaming kits. To speed student slide production, try a micro-app slide builder, and if your school is evaluating tool consolidation or LMS choices, review the IT playbook on consolidating martech and enterprise tools.

Related Reading

• Beyond Filing: The 2026 Playbook for Collaborative File Tagging, Edge Indexing, and Privacy‑First Sharing
• How to Harden Desktop AI Agents (Cowork & Friends) Before Granting File/Clipboard Access
• Case Study: Red Teaming Supervised Pipelines — Supply‑Chain Attacks and Defenses
• Review: Best Sticker Printers for Classroom Rewards (2026 Practical Guide)
• What Bluesky’s New Features Mean for Live Content SEO and Discoverability
• Vertical Video SEO: How AI-Powered Discovery Changes Your Link Strategy
• Urban Dog Owners: Best Cars and Vehicles for Traveling with Pets
• Handling Performance Anxiety in Relationships: Lessons from Actors’ D&D Stage Fright
• Budget Home Sound System: JBL Bluetooth Speaker Picks for Every Room
• Best Accessories to Bundle with a Used iPhone Listing to Get Higher Offers