An advisory practice with conviction — not a reseller storefront.

Kenneth Orr founded the practice in 2013 as The PEO Group. The name described the work accurately at the time: employers wanted help navigating professional employer organizations, and that was the whole brief.

It did not begin from nothing. Kenneth had been advising employers on benefits since the 1990s and had been in the PEO market since 2006, and the practice was separated out because that work had outgrown sitting alongside everything else rather than because it was new.

What employers needed kept widening. The PEO question stopped arriving on its own and started arriving attached to everything around it — a payroll platform that could not handle a second state, a benefits renewal nobody had interrogated, a compliance exposure that had accumulated quietly while the company grew. Advising on the co-employment decision without touching the systems and obligations underneath it produced narrower answers than the situation deserved.

The firm was renamed BRG Advisory Group in 2017 to reflect what the work had become: HR outsourcing and workforce management advisory in the round, rather than one product category. The founding date stays 2013, because the practice and the relationships are continuous — only the scope and the name changed.

One office, in Palm Beach Gardens, serving employers nationally. The kind of company has stayed deliberately constant throughout: large enough that a co-employment or platform decision is consequential, and rarely large enough to have someone in-house whose whole job is getting it right.

What has not changed is who carries the cost of finding out. You are never invoiced for our guidance, our research or the RFP process — not at the start, not if the work runs long, and not if it ends with us telling you to stay exactly where you are. We are paid by the vendor that wins your business, at a fee your own decision-making team sets. So the recommendation to do nothing is the one that costs us the engagement, and we give it anyway. That is the uncomfortable part, and it is the part worth knowing.

Most firms in this market lead with a savings figure. A percentage you will save, a dollar total delivered across all clients, an average per employee per year. We lead with something narrower and more useful: the number that comes out of your own financials.

Every case produces its own number

What an employer pays under any of these arrangements depends on industry, state mix, claims history, wage distribution and headcount. Those variables move the result more than the choice of provider does. So we review the financials on each case and let them guide the decision, rather than handing you an average built from companies that look nothing like you.

A headline figure also anchors badly. Once one is in the room, every subsequent quote gets read against it rather than against your own position — which is precisely why it is published.

The number that would be misleading in our favor

A meaningful share of our evaluations end in a recommendation to change nothing. Those engagements produce no savings figure at all, and they are among the most valuable work we do. Any headline average we published would quietly exclude them — which would make our own results look better by omitting exactly the cases where the honest answer cost us the transaction.

What you get instead

Your own situation modelled against real market quotes, normalized onto one basis, with the spread and its drivers stated plainly. That takes weeks rather than seconds, and it produces a number that applies to you and to nobody else. It costs you nothing to reach, whatever it turns out to say.

What the record actually shows

Nine engagements are published on this site with the figures they produced, and they are worth reading precisely because they do not converge. Medical cost came down 29% for one employer and 12% for another. A state unemployment reduction of 53% appears once and nowhere else. One engagement turned on workers’ compensation classification and one on a participation rule that made a medical plan unobtainable at any price.

We do not add those figures into a headline. The sum would combine annual savings with one-off reductions across companies from twenty-two employees to seven hundred, and the resulting number would describe none of them — which is the same objection we have to everyone else’s headline average, and it does not stop applying because the arithmetic would flatter us.

Being specific about who a practice does not serve is more useful than another paragraph about who it does. We are a poor fit in four situations, and saying so early saves everyone a conversation.

Under roughly 50 employees

Below that, the market works differently. Pooled arrangements are usually straightforwardly good, the platform choice is less consequential, and there is rarely enough at stake to justify a full market process. A competent broker will get you to a reasonable answer faster than we will.

Well above 2,500

At enterprise scale the questions change shape. You likely have a dedicated HRIS function, direct carrier relationships, and enough volume to negotiate on your own account. The judgment we sell is calibrated to companies that do not have those things.

Looking for a quote rather than a decision

If you already know what you want and need someone to source it, that is a procurement task and we are the expensive way to do it. We are useful when the question is what to do, not where to buy it.

Needing the answer this week

Our engagements run in weeks rather than months, but a structural decision compressed into days is a decision made on whatever information happened to be nearby. If a renewal deadline has already closed the window, the honest advice is usually to take a short extension and do the work properly next cycle.

None of that is a filter we apply at arm’s length. It comes up in the first conversation, which is thirty minutes and costs nothing, and we would rather spend it telling you we are the wrong fit than spend a month proving it.