An AI solutions provider that owns the whole thing.

An AI solutions provider owns the entire arc - strategy, design, build, integration, and ongoing run - under one engagement, one contract, and one phone number. An AI consultant decides what to build. An AI development shop builds it. An AI integration partner wires it into your stack. The solutions provider is the firm that does all four and is on the hook when any of them fails. The hardest engagements we have ever inherited were ones where those four roles were split across four vendors, and nobody owned the seam where the agent broke.

Best-of-breed sounds disciplined and behaves like a coordination tax. The strategy firm writes a deck the build firm cannot ship. The build firm hands an artifact the integration firm cannot deploy.

The integration firm leaves a system the run firm cannot operate. Every handoff is a place where accountability goes to die and the buyer becomes the systems integrator by accident. We offer the opposite - one team, one SLA, fewer choices - and we are honest that it is a tighter fit for fewer projects. When best-of-breed is genuinely the right shape, we say so on the fit call and refer.

Phase one is a two-week strategy sprint that ends with a prioritized roadmap and a kill list. Phase two is a fourteen-day production proof-of-concept on the highest-ROI use case from phase one, deployed behind a feature flag with a dashboard. Phase three is six to twelve weeks of full implementation - additional agents, integration into your CRM, support, and ops stack, eval scaling, monitoring, drift detection, cost controls, runbook handoff. Phase four is the run-the-system retainer: on-call rotation, eval maintenance, model upgrades, incident response. The same two faces ship every phase. The contract is one document with phase gates, not four contracts stitched together.

Strategy sprints run $25–45k. Production proofs-of-concept run $50–150k. Full implementations start at $150k and scale with integration depth and the number of systems the AI has to touch. The run-the-system retainer is monthly and quoted by scope of the deployed surface - typically a fraction of the implementation cost, billed for as long as you want us on the phone. We publish ranges because we hate the call where you ask the price and three weeks of email-tag begin.

On-call rotation for production incidents. When an alert fires at 2am on a Sunday, there is one phone number, and we wrote the alert that woke us up. Monthly eval maintenance, because your test dataset drifts as your business does. Model upgrades when a new release earns the swap on your eval, not when the vendor's marketing team says so. Cost-control review at the end of each month, with a written note on what we tuned and why. And a quarterly architecture review where we tell you which pieces of the system are aging and what the right rebuild order is. The retainer is the part most providers do not want to sell because the hours are unpredictable; we offer it because the system is not done shipping when the implementation invoice closes.

One number, one inbox, one named on-call engineer per week. We do not route incidents through an account manager or a ticketing portal. Every alert in production is one we wrote and tuned, and every runbook entry is one we are willing to be paged against ourselves. If a vendor API is the cause, we own the comms and the workaround until they fix it. If our code is the cause, we say so in the post-incident note and ship the fix on the same call. We refuse to staff this any other way because the alternative - a layer between the buyer and the engineer - is what makes other providers' incidents take a week instead of a morning.

Yes, mutual NDA before any technical conversation. We do not work for clients with conflicting active engagements in the same competitive set during a quarter - a rule we enforce on ourselves more strictly than most clients ask us to. End-to-end work makes conflicts more serious. We will turn down a contract whose run-the-system phase would conflict with another client's, even when the build phase would have been fine.

If you need a hundred-page program plan delivered by a team of analysts you will never meet again, hire a global systems integrator. If you want one accountable partner from kickoff through the third year of running the system, hire us. The two-person constraint is the feature. There is no junior layer between the buyer and the engineer. The same two faces own strategy, the build, the integration, and the on-call rotation - and they are the same two faces that will be on your incident calls in month eighteen. We will hire when we can do it without breaking this. Not before.