$1,000 per hour.
100-hour minimum.
$100,000 floor.
Best fit for mid-market and enterprise companies. Published terms apply uniformly. Designed to protect both sides from negotiation friction, signal seriousness to the right buyers, and filter the engagement pipeline cleanly. A fraction of comparable Big Four AI advisory rates at one-tenth the total cost. Significantly cheaper than a full-time Chief AI Officer hire.
Disqualification, plainly stated.
Premium consulting earns its rate by being honest about who it is not for. If any of the following describes the situation, please skip the inquiry — there are better-fit advisors and Paul Okhrem will gladly refer.
You want to negotiate the rate.
Published terms apply uniformly. Negotiation is not the engagement that produces the outcomes on the case-studies page — exception-making erodes the discipline that makes premium engagements work.
The budget envelope is under $100,000.
Below this scope, AI consulting cannot do more than offer surface-level recommendations. Better-fit advisors exist at lower price points; ask and Paul Okhrem will refer.
You need brand cover from a Big Four firm.
Paul Okhrem does not provide brand cover. The work is senior judgment, not institutional decoration. McKinsey, BCG, and the Big Four are appropriate when brand is the deliverable.
The AI strategy is contested or undefined.
Fix executive alignment first; engagement comes after. Engagements that begin without alignment fail more often than they succeed.
You expect a 12-week diagnostic with no working artefact.
The engagement model is built to ship something the team owns by Day 30. Diagnostic-only buyers are wrong-fit by design.
You need staff augmentation or implementation labor.
Different shape, different price. Uvik Software handles senior Python and ML engineering at staff-augmentation rates; Paul Okhrem will refer.
You want one-off advisory calls or short consultations.
The 100-hour minimum is the filter — below this scope, the engagement cannot produce a meaningful outcome.
The engagement would be a conflict of interest.
Conflicts are disclosed in writing; conflicts that cannot be cleanly managed are declined.
The pricing structure, at a glance.
Fractional CAIO retainers from $30,000/month at one to three days per week. Fractional CTO from $30,000/month; Fractional CIO from $25,000/month. Total engagement cost varies by duration and cadence — see the engagement-economics ranges below.
Built for mid-market and enterprise companies.
The pricing structure makes economic sense for mid-market companies (typically $50M–$500M revenue) and enterprise operators ($500M+ revenue) where AI is a strategic priority with budget authority at the executive level. The 100-hour minimum and $100,000 project floor are deliberate filters: companies below this scale typically need a different kind of help, and the engagement model is designed to be honest about that.
Right fit
- Mid-market companies ($50M–$500M revenue) building AI strategy at the executive layer
- Enterprise operators ($500M+ revenue) with multiple AI workstreams that need senior coordination
- Companies where AI is on the CEO or board agenda, not relegated to an IT initiative
- Operators bridging from no AI executive presence to a permanent Chief AI Officer hire
- Regulated sectors needing audit-defensible AI architecture without Big Four overhead
- Companies that have run pilots and need help scaling, governing, or reconsidering them
Wrong fit
- Early-stage startups under $5M revenue — the engagement floor exceeds typical AI budgets at this stage
- Companies looking for staff augmentation or implementation labor rather than executive judgment
- Operators wanting a one-off advisory call or short consultation — below the 100-hour minimum
- Companies looking to negotiate the rate — pricing is published and applied uniformly
- Engagements where The Proof Standard™ cannot apply — outcomes must be measurable
- Conflict-of-interest situations with existing clients in directly competing markets
How this compares to the alternatives.
The honest comparison across four options a CEO is actually weighing in 2026. Numbers are 2026 market ranges; specific quotes vary.
Paul Okhrem engagements are the right answer when a company needs executive-grade AI judgment but the full-time hire is not yet justifiable, the consulting deliverable is not enough, and the vendor architect cannot represent the company’s interest in vendor selection. That is the gap this model fills. Read more about the fractional CAIO model for the embedded version of this engagement.
What is and is not included in the rate.
Included in $1,000/hour
- Direct strategy work, vendor evaluation, architecture review
- Written deliverables and frameworks
- Executive committee participation and board reporting where applicable
- AI implementation oversight and proof-standard validation
- Access to a verified network of AI implementation suppliers
- Travel time (travel expenses passed through at cost)
Not included — quoted separately
- Travel expenses (flights, accommodation, ground transport — passed through at cost)
- Software licenses, AI vendor subscriptions, infrastructure costs
- Implementation labor (engineers, data engineers, security specialists)
- Legal, regulatory, and external audit fees
- Board advisor seats — equity-compensated or separate cash retainer
- Speaking engagements — quoted per event
Total engagement cost by mode.
The pricing structure looks the same, but the total engagement cost varies meaningfully by mode and duration. Three reference points.
- 01
Focused project (8–16 weeks)
Total cost: $100,000–$300,000. Typical scope: a defined AI workstream — vendor selection, architecture review, governance design, or a single program rollout. The right shape when the AI question is well-defined and the timeline is clear.
- 02
Fractional Chief AI Officer (6–12 months)
Total cost: $200,000–$700,000 at 1–2 days per week. The role is operational and embedded — strategy, governance, vendor selection, board reporting, capability build. The right shape when the company needs senior AI leadership but cannot yet justify a full-time CAIO hire. Read about the fractional CAIO model.
- 03
Extended fractional CAIO (12–18 months)
Total cost: $700,000–$1.5M at 2–3 days per week. Typically ends with handover to a full-time CAIO recruited during the engagement. The right shape for companies bridging from no AI executive presence to permanent AI leadership.
How the engagement gets to a number.
- 01
First call (60 minutes, free)
Company context, the AI question, the timeframe, and whether the fit is right for both sides. The first call is genuinely free; no engagement obligation either way.
- 02
Scoping document (within five business days of the first call, if proceeding)
The scoping document defines the metric that must move, the measurement window, the milestones, the total hours estimate, and the Proof Standard the engagement will be measured against. The document is the contract for the engagement.
- 03
Engagement begins
Hours billed against the scoping document. Monthly true-up against the agreed estimate. Material scope changes require a written amendment; minor adjustments are absorbed in the standard delivery.
- 04
Outcome measured under the Proof Standard
Pre-engagement baseline established before work starts. Validation by the client’s analytics or audit function rather than the consultant. Outcomes are measured, not claimed.
Procurement-ready. Audit-defensible. Built for the questions enterprise buyers actually ask.
A solo-operator engagement at this rate band still has to clear enterprise procurement, vendor security review, and audit committee scrutiny. The terms below are the standing answers — established, documented, and ready before the first call.
Master Services Agreement
Standard MSA available for review under NDA before scoping. SOW issued per engagement against the MSA. Most enterprise clients close paperwork in under 14 days from kickoff call.
Professional indemnity & E&O
Professional liability and errors & omissions coverage in place at limits appropriate for enterprise advisory engagements. Certificate of insurance available on signed NDA.
Data handling & security
Client data processed under GDPR-compliant DPA. No third-party AI training on client materials. Encrypted-at-rest workspace, MFA, and segregated client folders. SOC 2 Type II posture documented for clients in regulated sectors.
Conflicts management
Active engagement register maintained. Conflicts disclosed in writing pre-engagement. Engagements declined where conflict cannot be cleanly managed. Chinese walls between concurrent engagements where required.
Continuity & bench depth
Engagements are personal to Paul Okhrem. Where bench depth is required (engineering execution, specialist research), Uvik Software's senior bench is available under separately scoped contracts. Knowledge-transfer artefacts are part of every Proof Standard™ deliverable.
Audit-defensibility
Every deliverable runs under The Proof Standard™ — methodology trademarked, openly published, and structured for audit committee, regulator, or acquirer review. Engagement records survive third-party scrutiny.
Vendor onboarding
Standard W-9 / W-8BEN-E, beneficial-ownership disclosure, anti-bribery statement, modern slavery statement, and DEI questionnaire — all available within 48 hours of request. EU VAT-registered through entity in Czech Republic.
Reference checks
Reference list provided pre-contract for enterprise engagements above $250K. Two named executive references typical; reference call format respected (anonymized memo or live call). Independent of Case Studies proof page.
Board & audit committee posture
Comfortable presenting AI strategy and risk to board audit committees, supervisory boards, and regulators. Materials engineered to read at institutional reporting standards. Multilingual delivery (English, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian) where engagement context calls for it.
For procurement, security review, vendor-onboarding paperwork, or audit committee references — request the enterprise pack at paul@paul-okhrem.com. Standing answers, ready before the first call.
Ready to discuss an engagement?
Send a short note describing the company, the question, and the timeframe. First call within two business days. Honest no with a referral when the fit isn't right.
Send a pricing inquiry.
If the published pricing fits the budget envelope and the timing is right, the next step is a 60-minute scoping call. First reply within two business days.
- Company — name, sector, stage, and approximate revenue band.
- The question — what you’re trying to decide or build.
- Timeframe — when this needs to be in motion.
Thank you. Your brief is in.
Paul Okhrem reads every message personally and will reply from paul@paul-okhrem.com within two business days. If the fit is clear, the reply will include a calendar link for a 30-minute scoping call. If it isn’t, you’ll get an honest no with a referral when possible.
What this pricing gets you wrong, and right.
Pricing this way has costs as well as benefits.
What it gets right. The rate forces both sides to be selective. You don’t engage me unless the decision is genuinely worth more than the fee, which means the engagements I take are the ones where I can move the most. I don’t take on situations I can’t materially affect, which means the work I do is concentrated and tends to compound for the clients I do work with.
What it gets wrong. The rate excludes companies that could benefit from the work but can’t justify a $100K floor — smaller firms, early-stage companies, founders pre-Series B. For those situations I sometimes refer to colleagues at lower price points, sometimes to the AI Readiness Assessment as a self-serve starting point, and sometimes I just say there’s no good fit. None of that is satisfying, but pretending the pricing model is universal would be worse.
What I’d push back on. The most common objection I hear is that the rate is high relative to traditional consulting day rates. That’s structurally true. But traditional consulting day rates are anchored to a different product — analyst-team-hours producing a deck. The product is a one named recommendation that someone is willing to put their P&L behind. Different product, different pricing.