Major consulting firms have access to senior executives, have established relationships and strong reputations. CASME's peer panel asked where Procurement can influence professional services decisions, and how artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the balance of power.

The above questions shaped CASME's Panel Discussion Strategic Partner or Strategic Risk? Procurement, the Big Four and Limits of Influence. Procurement leaders from global organisations discussed why stakeholders favour familiar firms, where Procurement can challenge those choices and where executive relationships limit its influence. They also examined how changing consultancy delivery models affect commercial control and strategic supplier relationships.

Experiences differed, particularly on the value of competition and the commercial benefits of AI. Attendees also answered two live polls, and we draw on both below.

1. Procurement Competes With the Consultants for Executive Attention

How can Procurement get in front of executives when the consultants are already working with them?

Late engagement remains a familiar frustration. In the first audience poll, around 60% of respondents chose it as the leading barrier to Procurement acting as a strategic adviser on consultancy spend. Lack of credibility with senior stakeholders came second.

Consultants often have direct access to executives before Procurement knows a project exists. By the time the requirement reaches the function, the stakeholders may already have chosen a firm and committed to a timetable. Stronger communication helps, and so do access to decision-makers and senior sponsorship.

In our view, this puts Procurement in a similar position to any supplier competing for an executive's time. The consulting firms bring their reputation and the assurance of having done similar work elsewhere, and Procurement will rarely win on those terms. Its strength lies in a different kind of insight: what the organisation pays across business units and countries, and how the firms' prices and terms compare. A consulting firm has little reason to offer that view.

Panellists gave two examples of making that contribution visible. One expanded contract summaries beyond savings to explain the risks removed and other improvements negotiated. Another found that proactive contract reviews turned a hesitant stakeholder group into a steady source of further requests.
 

KEY INSIGHT
Compete for executive attention as a leading supplier would. Lead with insight that the consultants have no reason to provide, such as price benchmarks and comparisons across business units and countries.

2. Stakeholders Are Buying Reassurance Alongside Expertise

Why does a lower price so rarely win the argument?

Major consulting firms offer scale, specialist resources and familiarity with complex organisations. Their reputation also reassures the person commissioning the work.

Participants described how hard it is to challenge a familiar firm when stakeholders believe it offers greater certainty of delivery. An executive who takes a lesser-known firm to the board can expect more questions, and the panel described the major firms as a comfort blanket. An alternative may need more explanation internally, even where its capabilities are strong.

This shapes how Procurement presents its recommendations. A lower price alone may leave the stakeholder's main concern unanswered. Evidence of relevant experience, delivery capability and understanding of the organisation is what makes an alternative credible.
 

KEY INSIGHT
Understand what motivates the selection before proposing a different supplier. If the stakeholder is managing risk, price should not be the opening argument.

3. Competition Among the Big Four Alone Moves the Price Little

Where do the larger savings in professional services procurement come from?

Panellists described several routes to value, each tested in their own organisations. Most experience suggested that competition among the Big Four alone moves the price little, and one panellist put the difference between the firms at around 5 to 6%. Some reported better results once every firm starts from the same understanding of the company.

Where panellists wanted double-digit savings, they brought a second-tier or specialist firm into the competition. Those who had seen a challenger win described two conditions in common: a committed senior sponsor, and a challenger able to prove it could deliver. In some cases the challenger has gone on to become the preferred partner for that service.

Other routes focused on how a fee is built and when the organisation goes to market. One organisation builds proofs of concept (POCs) into supplier selection, so stakeholders can experience the proposed solution and delivery team before they commit. Another asks firms to quote the full programme, because a discovery phase can lock the organisation in before competition has done its work.
 

KEY INSIGHT
There is no single route to value. Choose the routes that suit your organisation's maturity and your stakeholders' appetite for change, and expect double-digit savings only where a credible challenger is in the running.

4. New Commercial Offers Are Sending Buyers Back to the Rate Card

Which commercial model gives Procurement the clearest view of cost?

The discussion covered a wide range of commercial models, from time-based charging and fixed fees to milestone payments and success fees. Panellists also described new offers from the major firms. One panellist has been invited to consider success fees across all projects, another is seeing requests to add managed services to transformation contracts, and others are being offered discounts as credits against future work.

These models create different incentives, and each can move cost or dependency somewhere less visible. A success fee rewards the firm for a benefit it may not have created, unless the firm puts some of its own fees at risk. Credits against future work only pay out if future fees hold steady.

Buyers in other indirect categories are reaching a similar conclusion. At a recent CASME RoundTable, marketing procurement leaders said they are returning to rate cards and savings targets, because newer pricing models had become too hard to scrutinise. Consultancy buyers on the panel are heading the same way, building fixed fees up from the rate card.

We think this lesson travels across indirect categories. For services delivered mainly by people, the rate card, set against hours and grades, may be the closest that indirect procurement comes to a cost breakdown. As firms use more AI, the rate card will also need to show which work is done by people and which by technology, and Procurement should ask.
 

KEY INSIGHT
Whatever the commercial model, ask for the rate card and the hours and grades behind the price, so that the cost of the people doing the work stays visible.

5. AI Efficiency Is Not Yet Consistently Reaching the Client

Should AI already be bringing consulting fees down?

The second live poll suggested that many organisations still consider it too early to judge AI's commercial impact on consultancy engagements. Others see efficiency gains that are rarely reflected in pricing, and only 8% said fees and delivery models had improved significantly.

Participants described how challenging it is to understand how suppliers use AI, and whether reduced effort should change the commercial proposal. One view was that governance and security need attention before commercial efficiencies can be pursued, including confidentiality, data access, intellectual property (IP) and ownership of outputs. That helps explain why some organisations are still securing their AI arrangements while they explore the financial benefits.

We expect pressure on fees to build over time. UK trade press has reported sharp cuts to Big Four graduate hiring, linked to AI taking on junior analytical work, and clients will want to see some of that efficiency in what they pay. Some firms already argue that the cost of building models and computing capacity cancels out the saving. However, a clear argument in a negotiation to challenge this is still work in progress.

A practical approach emerged: understand how the work will be delivered before negotiating the benefit. Supplier workshops can help teams see which activities AI will perform and how staffing changes, and technical colleagues can help Procurement test the explanations.
 

KEY INSIGHT
Build the evidence base for the negotiation by understanding how the work will be delivered.

Leadership Is Asking Why Buy Externally at All

What should you take into your next consulting engagement?

The discussion closed on a question several panellists now hear from their own leadership: why buy this externally at all? Some organisations are building their own AI capabilities and pricing the internal option alongside supplier proposals. For one, keeping its data in-house is often the deciding factor, and others use the internal option as a lever in negotiation.

The panel left two questions open: how much AI efficiency clients should expect to receive, and which commercial models link payment to the value delivered. Questions raised on the day took the discussion beyond the prepared agenda and showed how differently peers approach the same decisions.
 

BOTTOM LINE
In professional services procurement, competition among the Big Four alone rarely shifts the price. Peers find more value by bringing in a credible challenger and by keeping the rate card visible, whatever the commercial model. Procurement earns its place with executives by offering insight that the consulting firms have no reason to provide.

How are your peers approaching consultancy spend?

Compare approaches to consulting fees, supplier selection and AI with other procurement practitioners in CASME’s confidential, supplier-free discussions.

Interested in experiencing a Professional Services RoundTable? Enquire about attending as a guest.

Article written by: Graham Crawshaw, Director of Content, and Victoria Folbigg, CEO, CASME
 

SOURCE NOTE

This article draws on CASME's 2026 Panel Discussion Strategic Partner or Strategic Risk? Procurement, the Big Four and Limits of Influence, including two live audience polls. Panellists were experienced procurement leaders from global organisations. The discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule, so no individual or organisation is identified. The reference to graduate hiring draws on UK trade press reporting (Accountancy Age, June 2025).