How to Choose an Gen AI Consulting Company: Checklist, RFP Questions & Scoring

Something is already happening inside your org: a leader asked for an Gen AI plan, a team shipped a flashy demo, and now reality has hit, data isn’t clean, access isn’t simple, security has questions, and nobody can clearly say who owns the model after go-live.

If you’ve been stuck in that loop, it usually sounds like this:

• “We proved it works… but we can’t deploy it.”
• “We don’t trust the outputs enough to automate decisions.”
• “Everything breaks when we try to connect it to real systems.”
• “The vendor says ‘2 weeks’, but can’t explain monitoring, rollback, or governance.”

This guide is written for that exact moment.

In the next few minutes, you’ll get a practical, production-first checklist to choose a Gen AI consulting partner, based on what actually makes Gen AI succeed after the demo: integration, monitoring, security, governance, and clear ownership. No theory. No hype. Just the criteria that helps you shortlist firms.

Decide if you need Gen AI consulting or not

Before you start comparing firms, pause for a second and answer one thing honestly:

Are you looking for advice, or are you trying to get something into production without breaking systems, compliance, or timelines?

Because “Gen AI consulting” means very different things depending on where you are right now.

You likely need a Gen AI consulting partner if…

1) Your Gen AI work keeps stalling after the demo

If pilots look good but stop at “we’ll scale it later,” the blocker is usually not the model. It’s the messy middle: data access, integration, approvals, monitoring, and ownership.

2) You need Gen AI to work inside real systems (not in a sandbox)

If your use case touches ERP/CRM/ITSM tools, customer data, payments, tickets, claims, healthcare records, or regulated workflows, you’re dealing with integration and controls, not just prompts and prototypes.

3) Security, privacy, or compliance will get involved (and they should)

If you already hear questions like:

• “Where will data be stored?”
• “Who can access the model outputs?”
• “How do we audit decisions?”
• …you need a partner that can design with governance, not add it later.

4) You don’t have a clear “owner” after go-live

If there’s no plan for who monitors performance, handles incidents, retrains models, and owns outcomes, production Gen AI becomes a permanent escalation path.

You may not need Gen AI consulting if…

1) You have a mature data + engineering foundation already

You’ve got stable pipelines, clear data ownership, monitoring, and a team that can deploy and maintain models without vendor dependency.

2) Your scope is small and internal

You’re exploring low-risk, internal productivity use cases where failure won’t trigger compliance, customer impact, or operational downtime.

Quick self-check (answer yes/no)

If you say “yes” to 2 or more, consulting is usually worth it:

• Do we need this Gen AI use case to run inside core systems?
• Will security/compliance need sign-off before go-live?
• Have previous pilots stalled due to production constraints?
• Do we lack clear ownership for monitoring + incident response?

If that sounds like your situation, keep going, because the next sections will help you choose the right type of Gen AI consulting firm, not just a popular one.

Define success before you evaluate firms (your “scope lock”)

If you skip this step, every vendor will sound “perfect.”

Because when success isn’t defined, a polished demo can feel like delivery.

So before you compare companies, lock three things, outcome, proof, and production conditions. This is what SMEs do first because it prevents you from buying capability you don’t need (or missing what you do).

1) Start with the business outcome (not the model)

Ask: What do we want to improve, measurably, in the next 90–180 days?

Examples (use the language your leaders already care about):

• Reduce cycle time (claims, tickets, onboarding, reconciliations)
• Increase straight-through processing / automation rate
• Reduce manual touches per case
• Improve decision accuracy (fraud flags, triage routing, forecasting)
• Cut operational cost or backlog
• Reduce risk exposure (audit findings, policy violations)

Instruction for this section: write 2–3 example outcomes relevant to your audience and add the KPI to measure each.

2) Decide what proof you will accept (so you don’t get trapped by “it works”)

This is where most teams get burned. Vendors say “it works,” but you need evidence that it works in your reality.

Define proof like this:

• Accuracy / quality: what “good output” means (precision/recall, error rate, acceptance rate)
• Reliability: what happens when inputs change, APIs fail, or data arrives late
• Speed: latency requirements if it’s real-time (payments, fraud, triage)
• Business impact: what metric moves because of it (not just “better insights”)

Instruction: include a mini template:

• Outcome:
• KPI:
• Proof we’ll accept:

3) Define “production conditions” (the part that separates real delivery from pilots)

A solution isn’t production-ready just because it runs. It’s production-ready when it can survive:

• system integration,
• security reviews,
• ongoing monitoring,
• incidents,
• and ownership after go-live.

Lock these conditions early:

• Where it runs: cloud/on-prem/hybrid, tenant boundaries
• What it touches: systems + data domains (ERP/CRM/ITSM/customer/PII)
• Who owns it: operations model post go-live (monitoring, retraining, incidents)
• Controls: access control, audit trail, approvals, rollback plan
• Total cost: not just build cost, running + monitoring + change management

Instruction: write this as a short “Production Readiness Checklist” with 6–8 bullets.

Quick readiness triage (so you don’t hire the wrong type of partner)

This isn’t a full “Gen AI maturity assessment.” It’s a fast triage SMEs use to avoid a common mistake:

Hiring a firm that’s great at demos when your real blocker is data, integration, security, or ownership.

Take 10 minutes and check these five areas. You’re not trying to score yourself, you’re trying to identify what kind of partner you actually need.

1) Data readiness: can you feed Gen AI with something trustworthy?

Ask yourself:

• Do we know where the required data lives (and who owns it)?
• Can we access it without weeks of approvals and one-off scripts?
• Is the data consistent enough to make decisions (not just generate summaries)?
• Do we have basic definitions aligned (customer, claim, ticket, transaction)?

Green flags (good sign):

• Named data owners + documented sources
• Consistent identifiers and a clear “source of truth”
• Known quality checks (even if imperfect)

Risk signal (you need stronger help here):

• Teams don’t trust reports today
• Data is spread across tools with no clear ownership
• You rely on manual exports to “make things work”

2) Integration reality: will this need to run inside core systems?

AI that sits outside operations becomes another dashboard nobody uses.

Ask:

• Does the output need to trigger action inside ERP/CRM/ITSM/workflow tools?
• Will it write back to systems or just “recommend”?
• Do we have APIs/events available, or are we dealing with legacy constraints?

Green flags:

• APIs exist, workflows are known, integration owners are involved

Risk signal:

• “We’ll integrate later” is the plan
• (That’s how pilots die.)

3) Security + privacy: are you prepared for the questions you’ll definitely get?

If your use case touches customer data, regulated data, or business-critical decisions, security will ask the right questions, early.

Ask:

• What data can be sent to models, and what must stay internal?
• Who is allowed to view outputs (and are outputs sensitive too)?
• Do we need audit trails for prompts/inputs/outputs/decisions?
• Do we have a policy for vendor tools and model providers?

Green flags:

• A clear stance on data boundaries + access controls
• Security is already involved

Risk signal:

• “We’ll figure it out after the PoC”
• (That usually becomes a hard stop.)

4) Operating model: who owns it after go-live?

This is the silent killer. If there’s no owner, AI becomes permanent.

Ask:

• Who monitors accuracy, drift, and failures?
• Who handles incidents and rollbacks?
• Who approves changes (data changes, model updates, prompt updates)?
• Who is accountable for outcomes in the business?

Green flags:

• Named owners + escalation path + release process

Risk signal:

• “The vendor will manage it” with no internal role clarity

5) Adoption reality: will people actually use it in the workflow?

Even great Gen AI fails if it doesn’t fit how work is done.

Ask:

• Does this replace a step, reduce time, or reduce risk in a real workflow?
• Will frontline teams trust it enough to act on it?
• Have we defined where humans review vs where automation is allowed?

Green flags:

• A clear “human-in-the-loop” decision point
• Training and workflow updates included

Risk signal:

• The plan is “we’ll just show them the tool”

What this triage tells you (and how to use it)

• If you flagged data + integration → you need a partner strong in data engineering + systems integration (not just model building).
• If you flagged security + governance → you need a partner that designs for controls, auditability, and risk management from day one.
• If you flagged operating model + adoption → you need a partner that can deliver enablement, ownership, and production operations, not just a build team.

Now that you’ve identified your real gaps, the next section is where you’ll get the evaluation checklist that predicts success, the exact criteria to compare firms without getting misled by demos.

The evaluation checklist that actually predicts success (production-first)

At this stage, don’t ask, “Who are the best Gen AI consulting companies?”

Ask: “Which firms can deliver our use case into production, inside our systems, under our controls, without creating a permanent dependency?”

SMEs evaluate partners using capability buckets that mirror real delivery. Below is the checklist. Use it exactly like a scorecard: each bucket includes what good looks like, what proof to ask for, and red flags that usually mean the project will stall.

1) Use-case discovery & value framing (do they start with outcomes?)

What good looks like

• They translate your idea into an operational workflow and define measurable KPIs.
• They can explain where AI fits, where humans review, and what changes in the process.

Proof to ask for

• A sample use-case brief: “problem → workflow → KPI → success criteria”
• A value scoring method (value vs feasibility vs risk)

Red flags

• They jump to tools/models before clarifying workflow and KPI.
• “We can do everything” but can’t explain what they’d do first.

2) Data readiness & engineering capability (can they work with messy reality?)

What good looks like

• They diagnose data gaps quickly and propose pragmatic fixes: quality checks, reconciliation, schema handling.
• They can explain how they’ll prevent “silent failures” when sources change.

Proof to ask for

• Example of a data readiness checklist or data quality monitoring approach
• A sample data pipeline/validation plan (even high level)

Red flags

• They assume clean data or request perfect datasets upfront.
• No mention of data ownership, lineage, or validation.

3) Architecture & integration (can it run inside your ecosystem?)

What good looks like

• They speak in integration patterns: APIs, events, queues, workflow triggers, identity/access boundaries.
• They know how to embed AI into ERP/CRM/ITSM processes without breaking them.

Proof to ask for

• An architecture diagram from a past delivery (sanitized is fine)
• Integration approach: where it reads/writes, how failures are handled

Red flags

• “We’ll integrate later” or “just call the model endpoint.”
• No mention of reliability patterns (retry, fallback, circuit-breaking, idempotency).

4) Model / GenAI approach (fit-for-purpose, not overkill)

What good looks like

• They choose the simplest approach that meets requirements (rules + AI, retrieval + LLM, classification, etc.).
• They can explain trade-offs: accuracy vs latency vs cost vs control.

Proof to ask for

• How they evaluate model quality (and what metrics they use)
• Example of prompt/version management or model selection rationale

Red flags

• Overpromising “human-level intelligence.”
• They can’t explain failure modes or when the model is likely to be wrong.

5) MLOps / LLMOps (production lifecycle discipline)

This is where most “great PoCs” die. Production means monitoring, rollback, and controlled change.

What good looks like

• Clear plan for deployment, monitoring, drift checks, retraining/refresh, and rollback.
• They treat the model as a living system with operational ownership.

Proof to ask for

• A monitoring plan: what is monitored, alert thresholds, incident response
• A release approach: how changes are tested and approved

Red flags

• “Once it’s built, it’s done.”
• Monitoring is described as “we’ll watch it manually.”

(High-quality production thinking here aligns with lifecycle patterns commonly emphasized by Google Cloud and AWS.)

6) Security & privacy (data boundaries and access control are non-negotiable)

What good looks like

• They start with your data classification and define what can/can’t go to the model.
• They have a clear approach to identity, access control, logging, and retention.

Proof to ask for

• Security design outline: access control, encryption, logging, retention
• How they handle sensitive data in prompts/outputs

Red flags

• Hand-wavy answers like “we’re secure by default.”
• They can’t explain where data goes, how it’s stored, or who can see outputs.

7) Governance & responsible Gen AI (risk control, auditability, and decision traceability)

What good looks like

• They define governance as a process: roles, approvals, documentation, audit trail.
• They can explain how decisions are traceable: what input led to what output and why.

Proof to ask for

• Sample governance workflow (approvals, documentation, change control)
• How they test for bias/drift and document model behavior

Red flags

• Governance is treated as “a policy deck.”
• No story for audit trail or decision traceability.

(Strong governance framing aligns with NIST risk-based thinking.)

8) Enablement & handover (will your team own it, or stay dependent?)

What good looks like

• They plan the handover from day one: documentation, runbooks, training, ownership model.
• They leave behind artifacts your team can operate confidently.

Proof to ask for

• Sample runbook / SOP (sanitized)
• Training plan and post-go-live support model

Red flags

• Knowledge stays in their heads.
• “We’ll manage it for you” without explaining what you’ll own internally.

10 RFP questions you should ask every Gen AI consulting firm

Use these questions as your “truth filter.” They’re designed to expose whether a firm can deliver production-grade Gen AI (inside real systems, under real controls) or whether you’re about to buy another polished pilot.

A) Delivery proof (can they show real outcomes, not just capability?)

1. Show us a similar use case that’s in production. What was the workflow, and what KPI moved?
2. What a strong answer sounds like: specific workflow + measurable metric + timeline + what they did to achieve it.
3. What broke or failed in that project initially, and what did you change to make it work?
4. Strong answer: clear failures (data, integration, adoption, monitoring) and concrete fixes, not “everything went smoothly.”
5. What did “go-live” actually mean, who used it, how often, and what decisions/actions did it drive?
6. Strong answer: adoption details and where the Gen AI output is embedded in the process.
7. How do you validate model quality for this kind of problem (and what metrics do you track)?
8. Strong answer: relevant metrics (accuracy + business acceptance rate + error analysis), plus how thresholds were set.

B) Production & operating model (will it stay reliable after launch?)

1. What’s your plan for monitoring, what exactly will you monitor and when do alerts trigger?
2. Strong answer: drift, latency, failures, data changes, output quality, and clear alerting/ownership.
3. What’s your rollback plan if outputs degrade or an integration breaks?
4. Strong answer: rollback steps, fallbacks, and safe modes (rules/human review) without downtime.
5. Who owns what after go-live, your team vs our team, and what artifacts do you hand over?
6. Strong answer: named roles, runbooks, SOPs, training, and a clear transition timeline.

C) Security, privacy, and governance (can they pass real scrutiny?)

1. Where does our data go, what is stored, and who can access inputs and outputs?
2. Strong answer: data boundary clarity, access controls, retention, and logging.
3. How do you handle governance, approvals, audit trails, and change management for prompts/models/data?
4. Strong answer: process-driven governance with traceability and change control, not just policy statements.
5. What are the top risks you see in our use case, and what controls would you put in place from day one?
6. Strong answer: specific risks (privacy, bias, fraud, drift, misuse, compliance) and practical controls mapped to them.

Red flags that look impressive but usually fail in production

Most Gen AI engagements don’t fail because the team couldn’t build a model. They fail because the vendor optimized for a demo, not for reliability, controls, and ownership. If you spot these signals early, you’ll save months.

1) “We can deliver in 2–3 weeks” with no integration discussion

Fast timelines are possible for narrow proofs. But if the solution needs to sit inside ERP/CRM/ITSM workflows, touch sensitive data, or trigger real actions, a serious firm will ask about APIs, workflow ownership, failure handling, and approvals, before promising dates.

Watch for: vague answers like “we’ll connect it later.”

2) They can’t explain monitoring, drift, and rollback

Production Gen AI needs a plan for: output quality checks, data changes, model drift, latency, failure modes, and what happens when things degrade.

Watch for: “We’ll monitor it manually” or “it won’t drift much.”

3) Governance is treated as a slide deck, not a workflow

If a firm can’t describe who approves changes, how prompts/models are versioned, how decisions are logged, or what audit evidence exists, governance will become a late-stage blocker.

Watch for: “We follow best practices” without naming the operational steps.

4) Security questions get generic answers

A serious partner is clear about where data goes, what is stored, how access is controlled, and what logs exist. If they’re vague, your security review will stall the project.

Watch for: “We’re compliant” with no details on data boundaries and retention.

5) They over-index on tools and hype terms

If every answer is a platform name, model name, or buzzword, but they can’t walk through your workflow, they’re selling capability, not outcomes.

Watch for: “We’ll use the latest model” instead of “here’s how we’ll reduce manual steps safely.”

6) No enablement plan = long-term dependency

If the vendor doesn’t plan documentation, runbooks, training, and a clear handover, you’ll stay locked into them for every change.

Watch for: “We’ll manage everything” without defining what your team will own.

Simple scoring rubric (so you can shortlist fast)

This is the scoring approach SMEs use when they have 6–12 vendors on the table and need to create a defensible shortlist without getting pulled into “demo theater.”

The goal isn’t perfection. The goal is repeatable decision-making: if two different reviewers score the same firm, they should land in roughly the same range.

Step 1: Score on six production-critical areas (100 points total)

1) Production readiness (30 points)

Can they explain deployment, monitoring, drift checks, rollback, incident response, and support model in plain terms?

2) Security & privacy (20 points)

Do they clearly define data boundaries, access controls, logging, retention, and review process, without vague “we’re secure” statements?

3) Integration capability (15 points)

Can they embed Gen AI into your real workflows (ERP/CRM/ITSM), handle failures safely, and explain write-back/automation patterns?

4) Governance & auditability (15 points)

Do they have a practical governance workflow (approvals, traceability, versioning, change control) that will satisfy compliance and internal audit?

5) Relevant proof (10 points)

Do they show real, comparable production outcomes, workflow + KPI + what changed, and can they explain what went wrong and how they fixed it?

6) Enablement & ownership transfer (10 points)

Will your team be able to run this after go-live (runbooks, SOPs, training, handover plan), or will you stay dependent?

Step 2: Apply a simple gating rule

Before you even total scores, SMEs use this filter:

• If Production readiness < 18/30 → don’t shortlist
• If Security & privacy < 12/20 → don’t shortlist
• If Governance < 9/15 for regulated workflows → don’t shortlist

Why? Because these are the areas that cause late-stage stalls.

Step 3: Example scoring

If a firm shows a strong PoC but can’t explain monitoring, rollback, or ownership, they might score:

• Production readiness: 10/30
• Security & privacy: 8/20
• Even if everything else looks good, they won’t make the shortlist, because SMEs know that’s where delivery breaks.

Compare firms using this checklist

At this point you’ve done what most teams skip: you’ve defined what “done” means, identified your real blockers, and built a production-first way to evaluate partners.

To make your next step easier, we’ve already shortlisted a final set of top Gen AI consulting companies based on the same evaluation criteria covered above.

Use this rubric to compare and shortlist providers here: Top Gen AI consulting companies

When you open the shortlist, score only the firms that match your gap areas (data + integration, security + governance, production operations). Don’t choose based on who looks “biggest.” Choose the firm that can show real proof, clear controls, and a clean ownership plan after go-live.

 

 

Company Details