In a significant development within the financial technology sector, Representative Gerald Connolly, the ranking member of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, has initiated an investigation into the potential preferential treatment of the fintech company Ramp in its bid for a $25 million government contract. This inquiry underscores growing concerns about transparency and fairness in federal procurement processes, especially when involving companies with limited prior experience in government contracting.
Background on Ramp
Founded in March 2019 by Eric Glyman, Karim Atiyeh, and Gene Lee, Ramp has rapidly emerged as a notable player in the fintech industry. The company offers corporate charge cards, expense management, and bill-payment software, positioning itself as a comprehensive solution for business financial operations. Headquartered in New York City’s Flatiron District, Ramp has expanded its presence with additional offices in Miami and San Francisco.
As of March 2025, Ramp’s valuation soared to $13 billion, with the company processing $55 billion in payments annually. This impressive growth trajectory has attracted investments from prominent entities, including Thrive Capital, Goldman Sachs, and Founders Fund, among others. Notably, some of these investors have affiliations with political figures, raising questions about potential influences in Ramp’s business dealings.
The Federal Contract in Question
The General Services Administration (GSA) oversees the government’s internal expense card program, known as SmartPay, a substantial initiative managing approximately $700 billion. Traditionally, major financial institutions like Citibank and U.S. Bank have been the primary contractors for this program.
In early 2025, the GSA announced plans to pilot a new program within SmartPay, aiming to modernize and enhance the efficiency of government expense management. Ramp, leveraging its innovative technology and rapid growth, positioned itself as a strong contender for this pilot program. The company’s proactive approach included publishing a blog post titled The Efficiency Formula, outlining how its technology could address wasteful government spending.
Concerns Raised by Representative Connolly
Representative Connolly’s investigation centers on several key concerns:
1. Lack of Federal Contracting Experience: Ramp’s rapid ascent in the fintech sector is undeniable; however, its absence of prior federal contracting experience raises questions about its readiness to manage a government program of this magnitude.
2. Potential Preferential Treatment: Allegations suggest that Ramp may have received favorable consideration during the procurement process. Reports indicate that the company engaged with payment industry entities regarding special bank identification numbers necessary for processing government payments before the GSA publicly announced a request for information related to the contract. Additionally, a GSA employee reportedly referred to Ramp as the favorite to secure the contract, further fueling concerns about impartiality.
3. Political Connections: The involvement of investors with ties to political figures, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and Keith Rabois of Khosla Ventures, has intensified scrutiny. These connections prompt questions about whether political affiliations may have unduly influenced the contracting process.
Broader Implications for the Fintech Industry
This investigation into Ramp’s bid for a federal contract is not an isolated incident but part of a broader examination of fintech companies’ roles in government programs. Previous federal investigations have highlighted instances where fintech firms were implicated in facilitating fraudulent activities, particularly concerning the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reports indicated that fintechs processed a disproportionate share of fraudulent PPP loans, leading to calls for stricter oversight and regulation of the industry.
Furthermore, lawmakers have expressed concerns about the rapid growth of banking-as-a-service (BaaS) partnerships between banks and fintech companies. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen have urged regulators to establish clear rules for these partnerships, emphasizing the potential risks to consumer safety and the stability of the banking system.
The Path Forward
As Representative Connolly’s investigation unfolds, it is expected to shed light on the intricacies of the federal procurement process and the extent to which political connections may influence contract awards. The outcome could have significant implications for Ramp and set precedents for how fintech companies engage with government contracts in the future.
For Ramp, this scrutiny presents both challenges and opportunities. Demonstrating transparency, compliance with federal contracting standards, and a commitment to ethical practices will be crucial in navigating this investigation. Moreover, the company may need to bolster its internal processes and governance structures to align with the rigorous requirements of federal contracts.
For the broader fintech industry, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining ethical standards and transparency, especially when engaging with government entities. As fintech firms continue to innovate and expand their services, ensuring compliance with regulatory frameworks and fostering trust with both consumers and government agencies will be paramount.
Conclusion
The investigation into Ramp’s pursuit of a $25 million federal contract underscores the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and politics in the fintech sector. As the industry continues to evolve, maintaining a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring ethical practices will be essential for sustainable growth and public trust.
