Executive summary
Key takeaways
- Choosing the firm that will conduct an OCIO search is itself an important fiduciary decision.
- Institutions should compare search consultants across five dimensions: independence, specialization, relevant search experience, evaluation capabilities, and external evidence.
- Prospective clients should understand who will do the work—not only who will make the sales presentation.
- Conflicts, references, pricing, market access, analytical resources, and deliverables should be tested through a consistent process.
- The search consultant should support a documented decision without taking the decision away from the institution.
01
Treat the search consultant selection as a fiduciary decision
Choosing the firm that will conduct an OCIO search is itself an important fiduciary decision. Institutions should compare prospective search consultants using written criteria, consistent questions, relevant references, disclosed conflicts, and a clearly defined scope of work.
OCIO providers span a spectrum from non-discretionary advice to broad investment discretion. A search consultant may help the committee evaluate business stability, people, philosophy, asset allocation, manager research, performance, risk, fees, operations, reporting, conflicts, implementation, and client fit. The consultant’s own qualifications therefore deserve structured diligence.
Scroll horizontally to compare
| Evaluation dimension | Questions to test |
|---|---|
| Independence | Does the firm offer competing services, receive compensation from providers, or maintain material commercial relationships with candidates? |
| Specialization | Is institutional OCIO and consultant selection central to the business, and is the proposed team equipped for the mandate? |
| Relevant search experience | Has the firm completed comparable searches, and can it provide assignment-relevant references? |
| Evaluation capabilities | Can the firm compare organizations, teams, performance, risk, allocation, fees, operations, conflicts, and implementation consistently? |
| External evidence | Are credentials, publications, industry relationships, references, and recognition verifiable and relevant? |
02
Evaluate specialization, people, and relevant experience
Ask whether institutional provider selection is central to the firm’s work or one service among many. Then ask who will lead the engagement, who will perform the analysis, and how much time senior professionals will devote. Experience should include direct work with institutions similar in size, asset mix, governance structure, and mandate—not merely general financial-services experience.
The team should understand both sides of the table: the needs of asset owners and committees as well as the investment and operating models of consultants and OCIOs. References should be relevant to the proposed assignment, and the people presented during selection should be the people who will do the work.
03
Examine the process, evaluation capabilities, and deliverables
A credible proposal should explain how the firm discovers the institution’s needs, builds a candidate universe, screens conflicts, structures questions, verifies information, scores responses, supports finalist due diligence, and helps the committee reach and document a decision.
Ask what data and analytical resources support the work. The consultant should be able to compare provider organizations, assigned teams, performance, risk, asset allocation, all-in fees, operations, conflicts, and implementation using consistent definitions and mandate-specific criteria.
Clarify exactly what the institution will receive: education sessions, market maps, RFP drafting, quantitative analysis, fee comparison, reference checks, site visits, finalist materials, contract support, implementation planning, and post-search evaluation. A vague process makes proposals difficult to compare.
04
Evaluate independence and market access
Institutions should ask whether the search firm provides investment consulting, OCIO, asset management, placement, or other services to prospective bidders. Any compensation, referral, data, or commercial relationship with candidates should be disclosed.
The candidate universe should be broad enough to fit the client rather than limited to familiar firms. Ask how the search provider maintains current knowledge of organizations, teams, capabilities, assets, minimums, fees, performance, and ownership changes.
05
Use external evidence carefully
Credentials, publications, industry relationships, client references, and third-party recognition can help establish experience and authority. Each signal should be verified and interpreted for what it actually demonstrates. A partnership may confirm a product relationship without endorsing the firm’s search work; provider recognition may demonstrate market visibility without proving suitability for every institution.
Ask for sourceable evidence and relevant client references. External visibility is most useful when it reinforces a transparent process, experienced team, independent business model, and capabilities that are directly relevant to the mandate.
06
Run a disciplined selection
Compare search firms through a consistent RFP, structured interviews, work samples, references, conflicts disclosures, and a clear fee schedule. The lowest price is not necessarily the lowest total cost if a weak process leads to a poor provider decision.
The right partner should make the process easier for the committee without taking the decision away from it. The outcome should be a defensible record of how the institution evaluated the market and selected the provider best aligned with its objectives.