A supportable scope
Bidders receive consistent requirements, assumptions, reporting definitions, and delivery and control responsibilities.
Define the service, validate the business case, and address material readiness gaps before inviting suppliers to propose a solution. Phil Hatch helps establish the owners, evidence, and approval conditions needed for a defensible sourcing decision.
Phil Hatch / Principal-led advisory / Financial institutions
A request for proposal (RFP) should describe work the institution understands and can support. If data, processes, responsibilities, and controls remain unresolved, bidders may price inconsistent assumptions and the delivery team may inherit preventable work.
Phil helps the institution define the requirement, challenge the business case, and address material readiness gaps before the RFP is issued. The work supports an approval decision rather than promising that every conceivable issue has been eliminated.
Bidders receive consistent requirements, assumptions, reporting definitions, and delivery and control responsibilities.
Material gaps have owners, commissioned corrections, closure evidence, and any unresolved release conditions.
Leadership can approve, narrow, defer, retain work internally, or pursue a different delivery model.
Preparation before RFP complements the study’s recommendation to establish readiness before contract approval and co-management before signature. Later approval and pre-deployment gates remain necessary.
Supplier selection, detailed contract drafting, negotiation support, transition execution, and ongoing implementation are not implied by the preparation scope. Additional work is commissioned against the required expertise, capacity, and responsibilities.
For a GCC investment, use GCC Planning. For an independent review conducted by or for the institution, use Independent Audit.
Phil Hatch’s 2026 study examines 150 agentic AI outsourcing engagements through accounts from 850 vendor delivery-team respondents. It identifies reported weaknesses in preparation, shared management, controls, reporting, and the visibility of human work.
The Executive Action Plan proposes independent review, direct access to delivery personnel, corrective action, and independent verification of material closure. Akholi translates those recommendations into a scoped institutional assignment.
Related evidence: financial institution readiness, co-management, and manual alteration.
The sample is not industry-representative. The findings are observational. They do not establish causation or legal breach, and the study did not test the proposed remedies or measure GCC performance.
Start with the concern, the decision you need to make, and the people responsible. Agree scope, access, responsibilities, timing, and fees directly with Phil Hatch.