Two proposals can both promise a practical AI programme while describing different work. One may include preparation, facilitation and a decision record; another may cover only the session. A useful RFP makes those differences visible before the buyer compares price.
Copy a brief providers can answer
Use this outline for the first conversation. A concise, non-confidential brief is enough to start; detailed documents can follow once sharing arrangements are agreed.
| Brief field | What to include |
|---|---|
| Organisation and sponsor | Who commissions the work and owns the decision |
| Business question | The problem to clarify, task to practise or decision to support |
| Audience | Roles, starting knowledge, approximate headcount and accessibility needs |
| Expected output | The document, skill, experiment or next decision you need |
| Constraints | Approved tools, permitted data, confidentiality and review responsibilities |
| Practical arrangements | Preferred dates, location or online format, languages and venue status |
| Budget assumptions | Currency, tax treatment to confirm, included work and approval process |
| Follow-up | Who will use the output and what support, if any, is required afterwards |
| Proposal request | Named team, approach, evidence, scope, exclusions, fees and terms |
If a consulting firm commissions a programme for a client, identify the contractual buyer, client-facing lead and final approver. Agree who receives the deliverables and how the provider may describe the work afterwards.
Compare proposals with the same checklist
Use the grid below to record evidence and unresolved questions, not just a provider’s self-rating.
| Criterion | Ask the provider | Evidence to record |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Which question does the programme answer? | Specific objective and proposed output |
| Team | Who prepares, facilitates and follows up? | Named people, current roles and availability |
| Relevant experience | What comparable work can you demonstrate? | Authorised case, reference or clearly labelled sample |
| Preparation | What do you need from us? | Inputs, interviews, deadlines and preparation responsibilities |
| Method | How will the group produce the output? | Agenda with decisions, activities and review points |
| Tools and data | What is used, shared, retained or deleted? | Required approvals, permitted inputs and accountable owners |
| Deliverables | What will we receive and when? | Format, handover date and acceptance criteria |
| Production | Who owns rooms, AV, access and contingency? | Responsibility table and third-party dependencies |
| Follow-up | What happens after the session? | Scope, owner, review dates and separate fees if applicable |
| Commercial terms | What is included or excluded? | Assumptions, taxes, expenses, cancellation and change terms |
Ask providers to distinguish their own delivery work from programmes they attended, talks they hosted or cases a guest presented. Public-event photographs are evidence of a public event, not proof of a private workshop outcome.
Set gates before weights
Some requirements should be resolved before any ranking: permitted handling of your materials, a person accountable for delivery, a credible output, required accessibility and confirmed external access where relevant.
After those gates, agree weights that reflect your purpose. A board briefing may depend heavily on sector expertise and independence; an internal AI day may depend on audience relevance and production coordination. An immersion requires confirmed hosts and realistic logistics. A hands-on challenge requires tool access, support and a defensible evaluation.
Record why the preferred provider fits and what remains conditional. Do not hide a critical dependency inside a high total score.
Clarify rights and responsibilities
Ask who owns exercise material and participant outputs, whether recording is permitted, what can be shared afterwards and whether subcontractors will be involved. A live session, a recording licence and a team learning licence are different rights. Confirm each one rather than inferring it from the programme fee.
For practical challenges, define permitted data, tool access and prototype ownership before participants begin. Any proposed production use needs its own technical and operational approval process. This checklist helps prepare the questions; it does not replace your organisation’s procurement or legal review.
For visits, ask what is confirmed, what is provisional and what the fallback would be. A named institution in a sample agenda is not a reservation. The Barcelona itinerary template shows how to make that distinction explicit.
Compare price only after scope
Use the programme cost framework to separate preparation, contributors, delivery, production and follow-up. Include internal effort and third-party costs when assessing the total commitment.
Ask what happens if the audience grows, a contributor cancels, tools are unavailable or the business question changes. The answers should identify a responsible person and a commercial change process.
Methodology
About this checklist
AISB editorial procurement aid, published on 4 October 2026. It is an open planning template, not a supplier certification, legal document or independently validated scoring system. It is useful even when AISB is not the selected provider.
Send a clear programme brief
Use the checklist to describe your question, audience and required output.
Frequently asked questions
What should a corporate AI programme RFP include?
The business question, audience, desired output, constraints, dates, location, language, budget assumptions and follow-up owner. Ask providers to explain the named team, preparation, evidence, responsibilities, exclusions and fees.
What evidence should we ask an AI programme provider for?
Ask for relevant experience, a representative deliverable, a clear method and an authorised case or reference where available. Distinguish a delivered client case from a fictional template and distinguish the provider's work from a case presented by a guest speaker.
Should we use a fixed provider score?
No universal weighting fits every programme. Agree your priorities and non-negotiable requirements first. A weighted comparison cannot compensate for unconfirmed access, unacceptable data handling or missing delivery responsibility.
Published by
- AI Summit BarcelonaEditorial team
Related reading
Corporate AI Programme Costs: What to Include
An open scope and budget framework without invented price ranges. Define the actual group, preparation, contributors, logistics and handover before asking for an estimate.
Which AI Learning Format Fits Your Business Problem?
Start with the decision or workflow you need to improve. This comparison explains what each format can produce, when to choose another approach and how to write a useful brief.
AI Executive Readiness Checklist
A practical checklist for leaders commissioning a briefing or workshop. Identify what is clear, what needs evidence and who owns the decision; this is not a maturity score or certification.