Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph

The capability layer

APIREST + bulk accessMCP serverCallable by AI agentsFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationSource-vs-source diffsEntity graphSnapshotsPoint-in-time, bitemporal

By use case

Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligence

By buyer

Compliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams

The differentiator

Coverage & sourcesThe catalogFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareFacility qualityBrowse all datasets →
Research

The dev on-ramp

DocsAPI referenceMCPQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inTry the FHIR sandbox →Request access →

Platform

APIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots

Solutions

Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams

Data

Coverage & sourcesFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareBrowse all datasets →
Research

Developers

DocsAPI referenceMCPQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inTry the FHIR sandbox →Request access →
Fonteum · Compare

Federal exclusion screening vs checking SAM.gov by hand

Checking SAM.gov by hand confirms whether a vendor is excluded today, but it leaves no dated record of what the list said at award time, doesn't scale across a vendor portfolio, and can't answer the point-in-time question every auditor asks. SAM.gov carries 324,126 active exclusion records; in one bounded Fonteum analysis, 112 prime awards worth $1.6M went to 21 recipients while each held an active exclusion.

Published June 20, 2026 · Last reviewed June 2026 · Capability comparison — public facts only

Request access →or explore the Fonteum data platform →
8-capability comparison

From a manual SAM.gov lookup to award-time, attested screening

From a manual SAM.gov lookup to award-time, attested screening
CapabilityManual SAM.gov checksFonteum
CoverageOne entity at a time, typed into the SAM.gov search box.The full GSA exclusion registry — 324,126 active records — screened in a single pass.
Point-in-time statusToday's status only — the screen shows what the list says now.As-of screening — re-derive what SAM.gov said on the date a contract was signed.
Identity resolutionA name or UEI typed by hand, with no record of how it was matched.UEI-, CAGE-, and name-keyed match against the registry, with the basis recorded.
Portfolio scaleRe-check every vendor, by hand, every cycle.A full vendor list screened in one pass via API or bulk export.
Award-time evidenceNo record of a vendor's status on the day the contract was awarded.An exclusion-active-at-award-date join — the mechanism behind the Leakage Report.
Match provenanceA screenshot with a timestamp you have to trust.Source record, exclusion type, and snapshot date stamped on every match.
Refresh cadenceAs current as your last manual lookup.Tracked against a daily SAM.gov exclusion snapshot.
Audit trailA folder of dated PDFs, assembled after the fact.An attestation chain plus a downloadable evidence artifact.

Descriptions reflect the manual SAM.gov screening pattern — searching the public exclusion registry by hand — not any single vendor or service. SAM.gov remains the authoritative source; figures cite Fonteum's published federal-contracting research.

Why coverage, timing, and evidence matter

What a manual SAM.gov check leaves uncovered

An award to an excluded party is the failure mode

Federal rules bar awards to excluded parties (FAR 9.405; 2 CFR part 180). Yet in one bounded Fonteum analysis, 112 prime awards worth $1.6M went to 21 recipients while each held an active federal exclusion. A manual SAM.gov check at award time is the control that is supposed to catch this — and it is the control that is hardest to prove ran.

The point-in-time question is the one a manual check can't answer

A live SAM.gov lookup tells you a vendor's status today. An auditor asks a different question: what did the list say on the day the contract was signed? Without a dated snapshot, that answer has to be reconstructed from memory — or it cannot be answered at all.

Manual checks don't scale across a vendor portfolio

Screening one vendor in the SAM.gov UI is quick. Re-screening a few hundred vendors every solicitation cycle, and keeping a dated record of each, is the task that quietly lapses. A registry-wide screen turns that into one repeatable pass.

A clear result needs a record, not a screenshot

Suspension-and-debarment programs are judged on evidence. A UEI-keyed match against a dated SAM.gov snapshot, wrapped in an attestation chain and exportable as an artifact, is the record a screenshot of a search result does not provide.

Related comparisons

Compare other ways to screen

Multi-source exclusion screening vs doing it yourself →

The healthcare side — screening the OIG LEIE and state Medicaid lists by hand.

Exclusion screening vs single-list checks →

Multi-source, identity-resolved screening with match provenance vs checking one list.

Provenanced provider data vs raw public files →

Snapshot-dated, attestation-wrapped records vs parsing bulk federal CSVs yourself.

FAQ

Common questions

Can't I just check SAM.gov myself for free?
Yes — SAM.gov exclusion search is free and authoritative for a single entity's status today. The limits show up at scale and over time: a manual check doesn't retain what the list said on a past date, doesn't produce a dated audit record, and is impractical to run across a large vendor portfolio every solicitation cycle.
What does a manual SAM.gov check miss?
It misses the award-time record and the point-in-time question. A live lookup shows current status, not what SAM.gov said when a contract was signed. It also leaves no dated, re-derivable evidence trail, and it doesn't scale: each of the 324,126 active exclusion records and each vendor has to be checked one at a time.
How can a vendor receive an award while excluded?
Most often a screening gap, not intent: the award-time check is skipped, run against a stale copy, or matched on a name that doesn't tie to the excluded entity. In one bounded Fonteum analysis, 112 prime awards worth $1.6M went to 21 recipients during an active exclusion window — exactly the gap an award-time, point-in-time screen closes.
How does Fonteum prove a vendor's status at award time?
By retaining dated snapshots of the SAM.gov exclusion registry and joining them to award dates. A screening result can be re-derived as of a past date rather than only the current list, so the question of what the list said when a contract was signed has a dated, attested answer rather than a reconstruction.
Does this replace SAM.gov?
No. SAM.gov remains the authoritative federal exclusion registry. Fonteum is the screening and evidence layer on top of it: registry-wide coverage in one pass, NPI- and UEI-keyed identity matching, dated point-in-time snapshots, and an attested audit artifact. Teams use the two together rather than choosing one.
Request access

Screen your vendor list with an award-time record.

Read the federal-contracting findings in the Leakage Report, see the exclusion landscape in the Debarment Scorecard, or request access to screen a list.

Request access →or browse the source library →
See also
  • /gov/research/contracts-awarded-during-active-exclusion → The Leakage Report — awards signed during an active federal exclusion.
  • /gov/research/federal-debarment-scorecard → How the 324,126 active SAM.gov exclusions break down by agency.
  • /screening → How exclusion screening works, plus a free roster screen.
  • /sources → Every federal and state source family with tier and cadence.

Built on the authoritative federal record

The primary sources, named on every page.

These are the federal agencies whose public datasets Fonteum ingests and attributes — the issuing authorities, not customers or partners. Every figure on the site links back to one of them.

  • CMS
  • HHS-OIG
  • HRSA
  • FDA
  • NLM
  • NUCC
  • Census
  • BLS
  • BEA

See the full source registry, with license and refresh cadence for each →

Reproducible by design

Every figure traces to its federal source.

14-tuple provenance

Every rendered fact ties to a source URL, dataset ID, snapshot date, row key, and SHA-256 — the full chain-of-custody record.

Reproducible SQL

Each study ships the exact query behind its figures, run against the cited federal snapshot. Re-run it yourself.

Daily reconciliation

Published counts are reconciled against the upstream federal datasets on a daily cadence, with drift logged.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Two doors

Use the free API and open data

Query providers, facilities, sanctions, and quality scores — each field carrying its federal source. Self-serve, no call to start.

Explore the API →Browse the data catalog →

Talk to us

Managed pilots, enterprise terms, and audit-ready, signed attestation packages for compliance, risk, and research teams.

Talk to us →
Fonteum
Platform
Platform overviewAPIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots
Solutions
All solutionsExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & enrichmentAudit evidenceProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams
Data & sources
Coverage & sourcesBrowse all datasetsState Medicaid exclusionsFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareSanctionsOwnershipStaffingDeficienciesSpecial Focus Facilities
Developers
Developer hubDocsAPI referenceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrationsWebhooks
Research & guides
Research hubGuidesHealthcare provider dataExclusion & sanctions screeningProvider credentialing dataHealthcare data for AIHospital margin gapProvider access gapsGlossaryComparisonsCitationsWhy Fonteum
Company
AboutPressCustomersPricingContactEditorial policyCorrections
Trust & legal
TrustQualitySecurityPrivacy policyTerms of serviceMedical disclaimer

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

© 2026 Fonteum LLC. All rights reserved.

·hello@fonteum.com

The U.S. healthcare graph AI can cite — every fact carries its source.

Request access→

The substrate, by the numbers

44federal source familiesDistinct CMS, OIG, HRSA, FDA and peer datasets
35dataset pagesCitable, downloadable /data catalog pages
67reproducible studiesEach shipping the SQL behind its figures