Banks have a familiar problem when they evaluate fintech partners: a lot of the work has already been done somewhere else.
The questionnaires arrive anyway. So do requests for security controls, compliance documentation, audit evidence, incident histories and other vendor-risk materials. A fintech that has already cleared one bank’s review may have to assemble much of the same information again for the next institution.
A proposed industry framework could make some of that repetition unnecessary.
A July 21 draft term sheet outlines plans for a voluntary public-private Banking Innovation Standards Development Organization, known as BISDO, alongside a certification program called Risk-Assessed, Manageable Partnerships, or RAMP. The idea is straightforward: assess certain pieces of third-party risk once, keep those assessments current and allow multiple banks to use them.
One Fintech Assessment Could Be Used by Multiple Banks
Under the proposed framework, BISDO would develop, adopt or recognize common standards for third-party risk management. Independent qualified assessors would evaluate fintech providers and individual solutions against those standards, while RAMP would issue the certifications.
A BISDO/RAMP registry would then maintain records of certified providers and solutions.
That changes the mechanics of fintech due diligence in an important way.
Instead of a provider repeatedly sending slightly different versions of the same evidence package to Bank A, Bank B and Bank C, standardized parts of the review could potentially travel with the provider. The assessment would still need to be maintained and refreshed, but the underlying work would not necessarily start from zero each time.
The draft specifically says the framework is intended to reduce repeated due-diligence requests and allow assessment costs to be spread across multiple client institutions.
Community Banks May Have the Most to Gain
Large banks can dedicate sizable compliance, cybersecurity, legal and vendor-management teams to reviewing technology partners.
Smaller institutions have less room to absorb the same workload.
The draft BISDO framework points directly to community banks, noting that duplicated reviews can be especially difficult for institutions with limited personnel, technical expertise, negotiating leverage and resources for evaluating complex third-party arrangements.
A reusable fintech certification could give those banks a more practical starting point.
RAMP certification is described as a possible “green light to consider” rather than an automatic approval. That distinction matters. A community bank could use the certification to narrow its search or establish that a potential vendor has met a baseline standard without pretending the certification settles every risk question.
The bank would still decide whether that fintech actually makes sense for its customers, technology stack and risk profile.
Certification Would Not Replace Bank Responsibility
Reusable certification sounds efficient. It is not a pass to outsource accountability.
The proposal is explicit that banks would remain responsible for institution-specific risk assessments, contracts, technology integration, ongoing monitoring and oversight.
RAMP certification would supplement third-party risk management rather than replace it. It also would not function as a regulatory endorsement, recommendation or guarantee that a provider is safe.
That leaves an important boundary around the proposal.
A standardized assessment can answer questions such as whether defined controls were reviewed, whether certain standards were met and when the certification was last updated. It cannot determine whether a specific partnership is appropriate for every bank.
A payment platform that fits one institution’s operating model may be a poor fit for another. Same certification. Different decision.
Fintechs Could Spend Less Time Rebuilding Compliance Packages
There is another side to the due-diligence process: the fintech itself.
Selling technology into regulated financial institutions can be expensive before a contract is ever signed. Providers may face different questionnaires, documentation formats and evidence requests from institutions that are fundamentally investigating many of the same risks.
Established banking vendors have lived with this process for years. Newer fintechs may find it harder to absorb.
A reusable fintech certification could remove part of that disadvantage.
Providers could invest in a standardized assessment, keep the certification current and use that evidence across multiple prospective banking relationships. The proposal says this could produce clearer expectations, standardized evidence packages and lower repetitive due-diligence costs for third-party providers.
It would not suddenly make bank sales cycles short. It could remove one particularly repetitive layer from them.
Smaller Financial Institutions Are Already Becoming More Important to Fintechs
The timing is notable because fintech partnership strategies are changing.
PYMNTS Intelligence reported that 48% of fintechs offering end-user products or services through third parties partnered with credit unions, up from 40.3% in November 2024. Partnerships with digital-only banks also increased, while reported partnerships with national and regional banks declined.
For fintechs already working with credit unions, the obstacles were not mainly outdated technology.
PYMNTS reported that 38% cited slow purchasing decisions as a hurdle, while 34% pointed to complicated regulations and 32% identified lengthy implementation processes. Only 16% cited technology infrastructure.
That makes due-diligence efficiency more than a back-office issue. It can influence which providers smaller institutions are realistically able to evaluate.
The Proposal Goes Beyond Fintech Startups
Despite the fintech angle, BISDO’s proposed scope is much wider.
The draft says the mature framework could eventually cover virtually any type of third-party provider or outsourced banking activity where common standards and independent assurance would be useful. That could include customer-facing technology, back-office services, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, payments, compliance support, data processing and other services.
Certification could also apply either to an entire provider or to a specific product, platform, service, model, process or defined technology scope.
That detail could prove important.
Banks increasingly buy individual solutions from companies with broad product portfolios. Certifying a specific solution may give institutions more useful information than treating an entire company as one uniform risk.
Reusable Due Diligence Could Change Fintech Competition
Vendor risk reviews are supposed to protect banks and their customers. They can also create an unintended barrier for smaller technology companies.
An incumbent provider already understands bank procurement. It has documentation prepared, audit histories available and employees who know how to answer another vendor-risk questionnaire.
A newer fintech has to build that machinery while trying to sell the product itself.
BISDO and RAMP would not eliminate that hurdle, but reusable assessment could lower it. A provider that has already completed an independent review could approach another bank with more of its qualification work already established.
That could give banks a larger pool of credible vendors to consider.
It could also make competition more interesting. The question would move slightly away from “Can this fintech survive our due-diligence process?” and closer to “Is this actually the best product for us?”
That is a subtle shift, but potentially a valuable one.
BISDO and RAMP Are Still a Proposal
None of this is final.
The July draft term sheet remains subject to review and modification, with several details still unresolved. Governance, funding, initial standards, certification renewal cycles, assessor requirements, monitoring rules and the way supervisors would formally recognize the framework still need to be determined.
The proposed system is voluntary as well. Banks would not be required to use BISDO standards or RAMP certification, and an uncertified fintech would not automatically be treated as unacceptable.
That may ultimately be one of the framework’s more important features.
The proposal is not trying to create a single approved list of fintech companies. It is trying to make the repeatable parts of bank due diligence genuinely repeatable.
For an industry where the same documents can move through dozens of slightly different review processes, that is not a small change.
Sources
- PYMNTS — Reusable FinTech Certification Could Streamline Bank Due Diligence
- Banking Innovation Standards Development Organization — Draft Term Sheet, July 21, 2026
- FDIC — Conducting Due Diligence on Financial Technology Companies: A Guide for Community Banks