Gate 2 Review: Delivery Strategy

Question 1

Introduction to the Gate Review Process

Accepted Answer

Why Getting Programmes and Projects Right Matters

Good management and control of programmes and projects is essential to the successful delivery of government objectives and protecting value for money. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s (NISTA) Gate Review process is designed to provide a realistic view on a programme and project’s chances of different degrees of success/failure in delivering agreed outcomes to:

time
cost
benefits
quality.

The Gate Review Process

The Gate Review process gives independent guidance to Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), programme and project teams and to the departments who commission their work, on how best to ensure that their programmes and projects are successful. For programmes and projects on the Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) review outcomes will be shared with the Accounting Officers (AOs), HM Treasury (HMT) and Cabinet Office (CO) Leadership to further support successful delivery.

This process is anchored to the Five Case Business Case Model and looks to examine programmes and projects at key decision points in their lifecycle to provide assurance that they can progress successfully to the next stage. Refer to the Government’s Project Delivery Functional Standards for more information on the project delivery lifecycle and key decision points.

SROs and AOs should be aware of the extent and limitations of the various review processes – for example, the fact that a Gate Review has taken place does not replace the need for a full audit opinion on the effectiveness of risk management, (in line with Orange Book principles and the related Programme Risk Assessment Tool) control and governance in the audited area.

The Gate Review Process as part of the Assurance Framework

Every public sector body will have its own structures and resources for carrying out internal reviews, health checks and audits of their activities, including programmes and projects. The Gate Review process provides a snapshot view of progress at a point in time and, therefore, should be seen as complementary to these internal processes, and not a replacement for them.

Organisations should have in place an effective framework to provide a suitable level of assurance for their portfolio of programmes and projects. This requires management to map their assurance needs in an Integrated Assurance and Approvals Plan (IAAP) and identify the potential sources for providing them. Public sector bodies are encouraged to ensure adequate and timely coordination and sharing of information, including plans, between the various internal review functions.

Further, none of these review processes is a substitute for a rigorous governance framework in the organisation to manage key processes including business planning, investment appraisal and business case management (including benefits management and evaluation), programme and project portfolio management, risk management (including the chances of different degrees of project success/failure), procurement/acquisition, and service and contract management.

Tailoring the Gate Review

The Gate Review Workbooks are published by the UK Government and provide guidance on:

The structure of each Gate Review;

The areas of investigation to be addressed by the Review Team; and

Examples of the evidence which would demonstrate to the Review Team the satisfactory nature of responses to the various topics.

These topics and the examples of evidence should be regarded as indicative and not prescriptive. The Review Team should consider whether additional or different topics need to be addressed, and the evidence to be sought. Approaches may vary according to the context of the programme and project. Supplementary guidance is provided for the following major project and programmes types:

Infrastructure
Transformation
Defence
Digital/Information and Communications Technology (ICT).

Using the Gate Review Workbooks

The questions and evidence captured in this workbook align to the Five Case Business Case Model to ensure a consistent approach is followed throughout the Gate Review Process.

The Review Team should start with the core questions captured in this Gate Review Workbook, and also review the specific programme and project type questions and make any amendments as required to ensure the Gate Review is adapted based on the project and programme type. Care should be taken not to adopt a tick box approach, as much attention should be paid to actual progress as to the presence of products.

Net zero and climate adaptation as part of the gate review process

For the first time, the Gate Review Workbooks include tests for net zero and climate adaptation. Although these are high level and have been defined as such to cater to a wide range of project typologies, they are likely to be most applicable to infrastructure and building projects.

For transformation, defence and digital/ICT we would expect review questions to be tailored and aligned with the principles and spirit of these tests namely:

very early consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity and wider environmental targets and the incorporation of these in project definition and option assessment,
use of relevant Green Book and Supplementary Guidance,
strategic alignment with departmental or sectoral strategies and plans as they become available,
consistent estimation, measurement and reporting of GHG emissions, where applicable
proportionality in the application of relevant tests.

Please bear in mind this will be subject to periodic updates to reflect the latest available Government and scientific guidance as well as departmental strategies and plans as they become available.

We would greatly appreciate feedback from project teams regarding the coverage, relevance and applicability of the tests at gateway.helpdesk@nista.gov.uk.

Question 2

Gate 2 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook

Accepted Answer

This Gate Review Workbook supports the Gate 2 Review: Delivery Strategy. This Gate Review investigates the assumptions in the Outline Business Case and proposed approach for delivering the project. If there is a procurement, the delivery strategy will include details of the sourcing options, proposed procurement route and supporting information. This Gate Review will also check that plans for implementation are in place.

Delivery Strategy

Following the Government Gate 1 Review: Business Justification, the delivery strategy should now be defined, focusing on establishing a clear definition of the project and a plan for its implementation. Any outstanding assumptions from the business justification for the project should now be verified.

The Gate 2 Review assesses the projects for:

Viability;
Potential for success;
Value for money;
Proposed approach for achieving the delivery of the project’s objectives; and
If appropriate, readiness to invite proposals or tenders from the market.

This Gate Review assures the Project Board, wider Centre and Departmental/Agency leadership that the proposed delivery approach is appropriate and whether the project involves:

The acquisition of goods or services;
Effecting organisational change;
Policy implementation;
Rollout of services to citizens; or
Other development.

Note that where a strategic partnering arrangement is in place, procurement regulations may still apply along with market benchmarking, value for money assessments and potential contract changes, therefore the Gate 2 Review appraisal must still be undertaken. The Project Team and Review Team must be satisfied that due consideration has been given to all the factors, including choices about proposed commercial (and optimal risk sharing) arrangements with the existing supplier that offer value for money.

A project will normally go through a single Gate 2 Review to validate the proposed delivery strategy before any commitments are made to prospective suppliers or delivery partners about the acquisition process. However, large procurement projects taking many months may need to go through more Gate 2 Reviews as appropriate.

NB: The terms ‘supplier’, ‘bid’, ‘tender’, ‘contract’ etc. in the following sections should be interpreted in the context of the nature of the delivery solution and the likely commercial relationship between the client organisation and the delivery partner organisation.

Purpose of the Gate 2 Review

The purpose of the Gate 2 Review is to:

Confirm that the concept has been selected from the short list of options and that the business case and other documentation for the gate focus on the concept that has been selected;
Confirm that the scope of the project has been fixed ;
Confirm the Outline Business Case (OBC) now the project is fully defined;
Confirm that the objectives, risk profile and desired outputs of the project are still aligned with the programme/project to which it contributes to as outlined in the business case;
Ensure that the delivery strategy is robust and appropriate;
Ensure that the project’s plan through to completion is appropriately detailed and realistic, including any contract management strategy;
Ensure that the project controls and organisation are defined, financial controls are in place and the resources are available;
Confirm funding availability for the whole project;
Confirm that suitable evaluation plans are in place and key milestones and decision points are aligned with the delivery strategy;
Confirm that appropriate project performance measures and tools are being used, including those used to manage environmental impacts;
Confirm that the project has been set-up for risk management cohesion, with strategic plans in place for risk, issue and change management (technical and business), that are shared with suppliers and/or delivery partners;
Confirm that quality management procedures have been applied consistently since the previous Gate Review;
Confirm that required internal and external resources and capabilities will be available for future phases of the project and there is a plan to build these capabilities where they do not already exist;
Confirm that the stakeholders support the project and are committed to its success;
Evaluation of actions taken to manage or mitigate risks made in any earlier assessment of deliverability;
Confirm that the development and delivery approach and mechanisms are still appropriate and manageable;
If appropriate, check that the supplier market capability and track record are fully understood (or existing supplier’s capability and performance), and that there will be an adequate competitive response from the market to the requirement;
Confirm that the project will facilitate good client/supplier relationships in accordance with government initiatives such as the Construction Playbook for a procurement project, and confirm that there is an appropriate procurement plan in place that will ensure compliance with sustainability and legal requirements to all applicable United Kingdom (UK) rules, including government procurement notices on social value, while meeting the project’s objectives and keeping procurement timescales to a minimum;
Confirm that robust internal engagement has been compiled and tested;
For IT-enabled projects, confirm compliance with IT and information security requirements, and IT standards;
For construction projects, confirm compliance with health and safety, environmental and climate change requirements, assumptions and dependencies. Physical security considerations should be in place; and;
For transformation projects, confirm that the impact of the changes are understood.

Question 3

Assessment of the Proposed Solution

Accepted Answer

Core Questions and Evidence

Each question is presented with its category and indicative evidence.

1. Strategic Case

1.1 Strategic – Does the Outline Business Case (OBC) articulate a clear and total project scope and continue to demonstrate business need and contribution to the organisation’s business strategy?

Evidence:

Continued confirmation that the project will meet business needs (including confirmation that priorities remain unchanged where any external factors might have an effect).
Confirmation that the objectives, risk profile and desired outputs of the project are still aligned with the programme to which it contributes, if appropriate.

1.2 Strategic – Has a single option been recommended to proceed with in the next stage? Has the concept been selected and approved by stakeholders?

Evidence:

OBC has a clear recommendation for proceeding with one option.
Clear evidence of rigorous assessment e.g., piloting.
The option aligns to the strategic intent, and the project can demonstrate that alignment and that it has been agreed by stakeholders (and their agreement on the overall strategic intent).
Evidence of approval by stakeholders.

1.3 Strategic – Do stakeholders support the project and is the organisation still fully committed? Do stakeholders support the preferred option (this includes the potential or recommended delivery approach and mechanisms)?

Evidence:

Documented involvement of and endorsement by stakeholders.
Clear approach for continued consultation, involvement, support and endorsement.

1.4 Strategic – Are the assumptions, dependencies, risks and issues relating to business change understood? Is there an initial plan to address these issues?

Evidence:

Account has been taken of relevant impact assessment and appraisal issues such as Regulatory and Policy Impact, Sustainable Development and Environmental Appraisal.
The Project should demonstrate that it has considered the impact it will have on the business and the business change that will be required to deliver the project outcomes.
The risk, issues, dependencies and constraints relating to business change should be clearly set out in the Project Risk, Assumptions, Issues and Dependencies (RAID) Log, with plans in place to address them.

1.5 Strategic – How has policy and strategic alignment, including at a cross-departmental network, other public sector bodies or system level, been considered for this project and programme?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate:
Evidence of continual review of policy and strategic alignment at a cross-departmental network and system level.
Evidence of NetZero in the strategic aims of the project, the procurement strategy and implementation, and a clear quantifiable demonstration of the project’s contribution to the Government’s NetZero target.
Evidence that Departmental commitments to the UN SDGs have been considered and incorporated into the project’s strategic aims and critical success factors.

1.6 Strategic – Does the shortlist of options still address the need (case for change) and is it still compliant with and contribute to environmental and climate policy objectives (including but not limited to the Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended), the 25 Year Environmental Plan (25 YEP) and Climate Resilience)?

Evidence:

Evidence that the shortlisted options are still compliant with and contribute to the most recent climate and environmental legislation, regulation and overall Government policy.

Evidence:

The vision describes the social outcomes of the transformation and defines how the Department will operate.
Vision and purpose workshops to create cohesion between team members.
The vision is owned by those at the top of the Department or Agency but created by people who represent the breadth of the business. Agreed organisational vision has been approved by the SRO and shared with the wider audience.
The vision shows a compelling picture of the future that aligns stakeholders around the purpose of the transformation, the scale of the ambition and the nature of the benefits. The vision reaches a compromise between (short term political aims vs. long term transformation; external events vs. staying true to the vision; ambitious vs. feasible). Criteria, principles, prioritisation etc., can be traced back through the vision.
The vision is articulated in different ways, for example pictures as well as words.
The vision is talked about all the time including by the leader of the project/organisation. It motivates leaders, staff, partners and other stakeholders and allows them to prioritise activities.
The vision has been signed off by key stakeholders.

To demonstrate that people are motivated and bought into the vision project teams should be able to demonstrate:

Case studies from project employees; and
Feedback from the project team.

1.8 Strategic – Has the project embedded the National Infrastructure Commission four recommended design principles?

Carbon emissions mitigation and adaptation to climate change;
People-based outcomes and community engagement;
Local identity and improving environment; and
The realisation of economic, environmental and social benefits to the population.

Evidence:

The project has embedded the four recommended design principles as set out by the National Infrastructure Commission.

Evidence of how the design principles have been discussed at a senior level and embedded in the project.

2. Economic Case

2.1 Economic – Does the project have an approved Greenbook Compliant Strategic Outline Case (SOC), and draft Outline Business Case (OBC)?

Evidence:

The project should have a Greenbook compliant SOC approved by the Dept. Investment Committee and HMT. The project should also have a draft Greenbook compliant OBC which is in review by the Department Investment Committee.
The draft OBC will be assessed along with the other products at the Gate and used by the IPA to provide HMT with a view of the business case’s readiness for approval.
The Project should demonstrate that of the broad range of options put forward at SOC stage, only one is being taken forward in the OBC.
Every business case (strategic case) and Project Execution Document should include a section on scope. This should be baselined and reviewed at each stage gate. Using the same format to demonstrate changes to scope, and the impact on cost and benefit throughout the project lifecycle.

2.2 Economic – If there are several options, how was their robustness tested?

Evidence:

The options analysis considers what is available in the market.
The Economic Case shows sensitivity analysis of all appropriate options on key variables e.g. volumetrics, channel shift.
Major sensitivities included in the risk register.
Interviewees are able to explain how the project has approached option appraisal with an open mind (rather than retrofitting the analysis to pick the already preferred option).
Evidence of engagement with key stakeholders.

2.3 Economic – Is the organisation still realistic about its ability to achieve a successful outcome?

Evidence:

Comparison with similar projects (and similar organisations); assessment of past track record in achieving successful change; plans to manage known weaknesses; where applicable, plans for incremental/modular approaches; contingency plans in place.
If the project traverses organisational boundaries: there are clear governance arrangements to ensure sustainable alignment with the business objectives of all organisations involved.

2.4 Economic – Are the benefits to be delivered by the project understood and agreed with stakeholders? Is there an initial plan for realising and evaluating benefits?

Evidence:

The project can explain the ‘good practice’ they used to define benefits (including optimism bias).
The Project should demonstrate that the benefits strategy, financial and non-financial benefits have been approved by the impacted business areas.
Project outputs, outcomes and benefits are clearly aligned.
Benefits are clearly stated and consider tangible/intangible and cashable/non-cashable benefits. Note, it may be appropriate to consider disbenefits as well.
Initial plan for realising and evaluating the delivery of benefits, e.g. showing costs at each stage offset by improved quality of service and/or savings over the project’s expected life.
Critical success factors (CSF) for the project are still valid and agreed with stakeholders.
Benefits are “specific,” “measurable,” “attainable,” “relevant,” and “time-bound (SMART).
Benefits calculation include the potential impact of macroeconomic factors that could impact them during delivery and the operational life cycle.

2.5 Economic – Is the list of identified risks, constraints and dependencies (including climate mitigation, adaptation, sustainability, environmental and systemic considerations) reflected in the economic modelling assumptions?

Evidence:

Evidence that any relevant Supplementary Green Book Guidance, such as Accounting for the effects of climate change, Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal, Valuing infrastructure spend has been followed in the appraisal of options.
Evidence that an environmental and social screening exercise has taken place and where appropriate a fit for purpose environmental and social impact assessment has been commissioned, ideally at a programme level.

2.6 Economic – What plans does the project have to publish key cost, schedule and performance data at different stages? (access to this information helps to inform robust evaluation).

Evidence:

Plan for reporting on baseline elements: cost, schedule, risk and scope.
A detailed project plan will be in place to outline initial cost for the project (taking into account benefits, dependencies, policies, contingency). The plan will include the proposed schedule for the project.

2.7 Economic – Has, and will, the project follow the principles of making benefits-focussed announcements? When a cost and schedule are announced are they expressing them as a range that will narrow as the project progresses through delivery?

Evidence:

The benefits strategy details the principles of benefit focused announcements at each phase of delivery.
When cost and schedule are announced they should be expressed as a range that will narrow as the project progresses through delivery.
Ministers are actively encouraged to make benefits focused announcements rather than cost based ones.

2.8 Economic – What are the macroeconomic factors that could impact the ability of the government and the supply chain to deliver the project effectively?

Evidence:

Macroeconomic factors and potential impacts included in the benefits map.

2.9 Economic – What long term impact will the project have on the UK economy including opportunities to maximise the scheme’s benefits by joining up different sectors and tiers of government (e.g. transport and housing)?

Evidence:

The wider and long term impact the project will have on the wider UK economy and a benefits map which details how the project will impact wider areas of government included in the benefits strategy.
Evidence of a comprehensive evaluation and benefits realisation plan.
Evidence that the UN SDG goals have been incorporated into the benefits analysis.

2.10 Economic – Have environmental and climate benefits (and disbenefits, where applicable) been comprehensively identified and categorised?

Evidence:

Evidence that a whole life approach (cradle to cradle or cradle to grave, as a minimum) has been taken into account in the estimation of benefits (and disbenefits), including for carbon (e.g. a whole life carbon assessment has been conducted as advised in the Construction Playbook).
Evidence that any relevant Supplementary Green Book Guidance, such as Accounting for the effects of climate change, Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal, Valuing infrastructure spend has been followed in the appraisal of options.

2.11 Economic – Does the baseline and various scenarios used in the economic modelling reflect the latest available information on climate scenarios and is the counterfactual clearly and robustly articulated?

Evidence:

Evidence that any relevant Supplementary Green Book Guidance, such as Accounting for the effects of climate change, Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal, Valuing infrastructure spend has been followed in the appraisal of options.
Evidence that the latest UK Climate Projections have been considered and a Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) has been carried out (where applicable).
Where “future flexibility” (e.g. “future systems resilience” or spare capacity) have been considered in the value for money (vfm) assessment, the rationale for including this should be supported by evidence. Alternatively, the need for “future flexibility” should be reflected in the critical success factors (CSFs) used in the option appraisal or in the application of another suitable appraisal method.

3. Commercial Questions

3.1 Commercial – Is the evaluation strategy aligned to the aims and objectives (including how to demonstrate value for money) accepted by stakeholders and compliant with all relevant procurement rules?

Evidence:

Risks are captured in the risk register, and there is an understanding of how the risks/misalignment are profiled in the ‘way of working’.
Evidence of the alignment of the Departments, IPA, Cabinet Office and the sponsoring department.
Evaluation criteria and model(s) approved by stakeholders.
Key evaluation criteria linked to business objectives and given appropriate weighting.
Financial and non-financial aspects of the evaluation have been separated out.
Evaluation criteria has been included in information to potential tenderers and priorities in meeting that need, where applicable (e.g. quality of service, innovation).
For construction projects, appropriate weight given to health and safety, sustainability, design quality.
Where appropriate, the evaluation includes benchmarking the value for money offered by partnering, internal supplier or framework/call-off arrangement.
Consideration of contract duration, in relation to value for money and whole of life costs.
Consideration of whether to act on behalf of other public sector organisations in the role of a Central Purchasing Body.
Legal advice has been sought on any procurement approach and risks to cost and timeline incorporated into the overall Business Case and plan.

3.2 Commercial – Has the programme/project team understood the strengths and weaknesses of the commercial model and how to manage them as well as the compromises required?

Evidence:

The Project should demonstrate that there has been an evidence based assessment in order to evaluate and select the most suitable commercial model. The commercial model should be signed off in the commercial strategy and there should be evidence of regular review. Viable options have been identified with a focus on optimising Value for Money.
Options appraisal on the commercial/delivery model e.g. prime contractor, Design and Build (D&B), Design and Delivery Partner (DDP).
Analysis of contracting approach (e.g. fixed price, New Engineering and Construction Contract (NEC)3, Time and Material (T&M) etc).
Opportunities offered by the model considered as well as downside/risks and plans to mitigate these risks.
Articulation of the compromises that have been made (e.g. D&B model may lose commercial tension as designs mature, but avoids procurement delays).
Preferred option consistently incorporated into the baseline for the project i.e. cost estimate modelled on selected delivery model and schedule includes the appropriate procurement timelines for the chosen model.

3.3 Commercial – Are the business needs clearly understood by the client organisation and likely to be understood by those involved in delivery?

Evidence:

The project can demonstrate that they understand the market capability and this has been taken into account around timescales.
The project can demonstrate that it has a detailed understanding of the current business operation and runs a comprehensive target operating model design process, a business requirements gathering and user needs analysis process with stakeholders.
Detailed output/outcome-based definition of requirements.
Specification to include key success factors to show how achievement of outputs/outcomes will be assessed.
Appropriate quality criteria applied to information for the delivery organisation (internal or external).

3.4 Commercial – Has climate mitigation, adaptation, sustainability, environmental and systemic considerations been incorporated in the commercial model?

Evidence:

Evidence that the procurement route incorporates in documentation method or other ways these principles and they are cascaded to the entire supply chain, where possible and practical, including approaches that share risk and incentivise innovation.
Evidence that there is alignment with the Construction Playbook guidance and any subsequent procurement guidance or policy which refers to environmental, sustainability or climate related considerations and practices.

3.5 Commercial – Is the contract management strategy robust?

Evidence:

The contract management strategy takes account of key factors such as the required ‘intelligent customer’ skills, proposed relationship, management of single or multiple suppliers.
Evidence of continuity of key project personnel.
The Project should demonstrate that there has been an assessment of all available sourcing options (e.g. use of internal resources, opportunities for collaboration, Shared Services, use of existing frameworks etc.).
The Project should have an approved commercial strategy, and an approved procurement strategy.
The commercial strategy should show what the requirement is for the new service, the proposed commercial approach and what the plan is for the existing service (if replacing).
The procurement strategy should show buying options (including service break down/single or multiple suppliers) both public procurement (Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) or UK equivalent) and UK government frameworks options analysis and pros and cons.

3.6 Commercial – Will the project be attractive to the market?

Evidence:

Evidence that market sounding has been completed and that there is sufficient capacity and capability in the market to deliver the work.
Senior management has sufficiently engaged with the industry and are able to assess supply-side risks.

3.7 Commercial – Is there adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers? Who are the suppliers most likely to succeed?

Evidence:

Adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers has been considered.
Commercial market intelligence, market sources and potential suppliers evident.
Track records from public and private sector considered (public sector’s ability as a customer to work in this way; private sector track record in meeting similar or equivalent business needs).
Indications of the types of suppliers most likely to succeed in delivering the required outcomes.
There is evidence of a clear and consistent strategy for engaging with the industry rather than making sourcing decisions on a piecemeal basis.

3.8 Commercial – Where appropriate, have options for the procurement route been evaluated, including sources of supply?

Evidence:

All appropriate sourcing options examined (e.g. use of internal resources, single or multiple suppliers; opportunities for collaboration, Shared Services, use of existing frameworks, etc).
Prime Contracting, Design and Build and alternative options like Design and Delivery Partner have been fully evaluated. The impact of incentives for schedule/cost/contingency performance has been considered and this modelling is included in the business case.
Comparison with similar projects and analysis, supported by commercial intelligence on market capability. This could include comparator schemes in the UK or overseas.
Reasons for selecting sourcing options documented and justified.

4. Financial Questions

4.1 Finance – Does the project have a comprehensive financial management process in place?

Evidence:

The project can demonstrate that:

It has a comprehensive financial management process in place and risk/contingency calculations have been included in the budget and show that the baseline has an appropriate allowance for risk/contingency.
An appropriate cost baseline including an assured, resource loaded schedule that demonstrates cost by component in accordance with the project work breakdown structure.
Costs are within current budgets, whole life funding is affordable, supported by stakeholders, and committed by departmental Finance and HM Treasury.
How it has been calculated and that it is appropriate for the lifecycle stage – Quantitative Cost Risk Assessment (QCRA)/Revolving Credit Facility (RCF)/optimism bias.
Evidence that optimum bias has been factored into the overall project.
Risks should be presented as a range rather than a single-figure estimate, i.e. an estimate at both the P50 and P80 levels.
A bottom-up approach on how the risk/contingency allowance is calculated.
Where risks cannot be reduced, the costs of managing these risks separately identified and included as a risk allocation provision.
Analysis undertaken of the effects of slippage in time, cost, scope or quality.

4.2 Financial – How has the project approached cost baselining?

Evidence:

An assured, resource loaded schedule that demonstrates cost, scope, schedule and risk are aligned. The schedule should hold a good level of detail and should specify the cost, risk, schedule and scope elements by cost component in accordance with mandated work and cost breakdown structures.
Evidence of an independent shadow cost model.
Interviews with schedule and cost leads to understand the impacts of delays.
Critical path explored to understand pinch points and how associated cost impacts have been modelled.
The project should demonstrate that cost estimates have been built up using a number of planning and estimating techniques and cost benchmarking. The cost range should be wide at this gate with QCRA at P60-P70.

4.3 Financial – Are the costs within current budgets? Is the project’s whole-life funding affordable and supported by the key stakeholders?

Evidence:

Reconciliation of projected whole-life costs with available budget, reviewed and accepted or approved by key stakeholders.
Project costs within organisation’s forecasted spending plans.

4.4 Financial – Is the proposed arrangement likely to achieve whole-life value for money?

Evidence:

Basis for calculating costs (value of requirements) and comparison of delivery approaches (e.g. tenders) agreed with key stakeholders.
Updated Business Case on the basis of the full project definition, market assessment and initial benefits plan.
Delivery strategy reflected in the Business Case.
Examination of sensitivities and financial implications of handling major risks; assessment of their effect on project return.
Projects that are not designed to achieve a financial return should include comparisons with similar successful projects to assess the potential to achieve value for money and to set targets.

4.5 Financial – Does the baseline have an appropriate allowance for risk/contingency? How has that been calculated and is that appropriate for the lifecycle stage and if a Quantitative Cost Risk Assessment (QCRA) has been undertaken, what P value does the contingency represent?

Evidence:

A risk register is in place setting out a good level of detail e.g. risk distribution, impact, values, mean etc with appropriate treatment of uncertainty.
The project is using an underpinning risk methodology (QCRA, Monte Carlo etc) or appropriate to have technical assurance in place on risk calculations.
Optimism bias has been factored into the overall project.
Risk worst case scenarios have been appropriately costed at each phase of delivery.

5. Management Questions

5.1 Management – Is there alignment on the outcomes of the project and has this been approved by key stakeholders?

Evidence:

The Project should demonstrate:
The stakeholders have signed off the scope of the project.
Business objectives stated and Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Timely (SMART), and meet the business needs of the organisation.
The outcomes to be delivered which are soundly based, with leading and lagging indicators.
What constitutes success, and the critical success factors?
Suitable evaluation plans
How will the required quality of performance be measured?
Risks, dependencies, constraints which may impact the project outcomes. Each should have clear owners.
Contingency plans which will be activated to mitigate risk of failure.
Business continuity plans where appropriate.
The required engagement with delivery chains, and the market to achieve the outcomes.
Where suppliers are in place, their ability to deliver has been considered.

5.2 Management – Have the factors that influenced the delivery strategy been addressed?

Evidence:

Documented evidence that key factors influencing the delivery strategy have been identified and impact assessed. E.g. risk appetite, lessons learned from previous projects/phases, market conditions.
Evidence that these factors have been taken into account in the design of the chosen delivery strategy. In addition, efficiency and predictability of the delivery process have been considered, with a process in place for addressing the impact of any deviation from the plan and timetable, and plans for two-way communications with stakeholders and suppliers.

5.3 Management – Is the organisation still realistic about its ability to achieve a successful outcome?

Evidence:

Comparison with similar projects (and similar organisations); assessment of past track record in achieving successful change; plans to manage known weaknesses; where applicable, plans for incremental/modular approaches; contingency plans in place.
If the project traverses organisational boundaries: there are clear governance arrangements to ensure sustainable alignment with the business objectives of all organisations involved.

Evidence:

Evidence that the risks, constraints and dependencies have considered sustainability, environmental and climate resilience, including legal and planning consent requirements that will be integral to the delivery of the various options under consideration.
Evidence that the optimism bias assumptions reflect these considerations.
Evidence that any relevant Supplementary Green Book Guidance, such as Accounting for the Effects of Climate Change, has been followed in the appraisal of options.

5.5 Management – Who is holding the project team to account and ensuring the project is delivering to time, cost and quality baselines?

Evidence:

Clear governance structure in place (Governance ‘Responsible’, ‘Accountable’, ‘Consulted’, ‘Informed’ (RACI)).
Sponsor requirements should be explicit on how cost pressures should be managed.
Governance RACI or development agreed.
Evidence from interviews with the project sponsor team and delivery team.
The project should demonstrate that it has adequate leadership which includes a definitive SRO and Programme, and Project Directors (where the projects are of a certain size and complexity). The governance framework should be clearly outlined with a clear owner for the project.
An SRO appointment letter must be in place.
The SRO must demonstrate that they are undertaking their responsibilities as required in relevant policy initiatives.

5.6 Management – To what extent is the project controlling schedule and benefits as well as cost? The interplays between these perspectives are key – e.g. delays increase costs. To what level are the internal mechanisms within the project organisation capable to maintain and refine the baseline?

Evidence:

Incomplete baseline including a lot of uncertainty. There is evidence the project has the right controls in place to manage the changes in a controlled way and identify the gaps within the baseline.
Interviews with schedule and cost leads to understand the impacts of delays.
Critical path explored to understand pinch points and how associated cost impacts have been modelled.

5.7 Management – Is the project set up for success to work across multiple government departments/other public sector organisations?

Evidence:

A detailed and updated stakeholder map in place, clear reporting rhythm and comms with the various stakeholders.
Evidence that they have agreed to the roles and responsibilities across the different stakeholder groups.
A governance structure is in place which clearly maps interdependencies with other government departments and public sector organisations.
Stakeholder engagement should be included in the Project Execution Document and demonstrate:
A key list of stakeholders, and statement of their needs and support for the project.
Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, and their potential influence on the project, defined and agreed.
End-users for the project identified.
Evidence that the decision-making process is inclusive of all the relevant stakeholders and is both efficient and effective.
Results of consultations documented as part of project stakeholder engagement/communications strategy.
If the project traverses organisational boundaries, there are clear governance arrangements to ensure sustainable alignment with the business objectives of all organisations involved.

5.8 Management – Is the selected delivery strategy defined and endorsed? Is there strong alignment between HMT, Cabinet Office and the sponsoring department?

Evidence:

Clear documentation of sponsoring department, HMT, cabinet office alignment and areas of disagreement. Evidence that these tensions are understood and manageable.
The governance arrangements make it clear which organisation(s) is the project sponsor and which organisation(s) is responsible for delivering the sponsor’s requirements.
Where the cross-government picture is more complex, there should be evidence of robust cross-government Programme Boards with clear Ministerial responsibility for large projects which span multiple departments.
Business continuity and future exit, handover and transition strategies have been considered at a high level.
Confirmation of development, involvement and endorsement of the delivery strategy by the appropriate individuals.
Delivery Strategy to include, as appropriate:
Description of the key objectives, constraints (e.g. timescale) and funding mechanism and risk allocation;
The delivery route (how the strategy will be achieved), including sourcing option and contract strategy;
Procurement procedure (e.g. Competitive Dialogue or Negotiated);
Time plan to include timetable laid down by procurement rules, and time needed for pre-procurement activities, implementation and contingency in the event of unavoidable slippage, with milestones;
Assessment of marketplace/potential suppliers;
The roles, resources and skills needed to manage the delivery strategy;
Alignment with plans for implementation; and
Procurement innovation and sustainability issues have been considered.

5.9 Management – Has entry into live-service been considered and planned for with due consideration for the end user perspective and is there clarity as to who is accountable for making the decision to commission?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate that it has considered the live-service operation, service management and supplier management approach, and have plans to stand up the required capability as part of the project.
The design of the live service should be included in the AS-IS/TO-BE Operating Model document and the requirements should be included in the Business Requirements document, and approved by the business.
Clear approach to transition, traced through to the Management Case. Clear evidence on supplier responsibilities for commissioning, testing and go live.
Consideration of technical assurance to confirm gap analysis has taken place.
An operator exists who will become the project lead through the stages of testing, commissioning and entry into service. This operator should be embedded into the planning for this stage of the project from the outset.

5.10 Management – Does the project have resources with, where required, the appropriate skills and experience?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate that it has the right resources with the right experience including a bottom-up resource model with underpinning assumptions that supports the delivery of the plan.
The Project should demonstrate evidence of robust resource estimation and planning and resource allocation to ensure delivery of the project objectives.

5.11 Management – Has the project set success criteria and agreed measurements against outcomes, to be assessed at the next stage gates and “go/no-go” decision points of the programme?

Evidence:

Detailed plan to identify the go/no go decisions endorsed by senior stakeholders.
Go/No-Go criteria are SMART.
Evidence that social & environmental targets have been set, and are these targets coherent with other existing targets (UK or international, e.g. SDGs) – either equal or more ambitious.

5.12 Management – Does the project have mechanisms in place to learn lessons?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate that it has conducted lessons learnt exercise pre-gate 2 and learnt lessons from other recent similar projects across UK gov and help inform its business case and delivery approach.
The project should demonstrate that there is a mechanism in place to learn lessons from its own delivery regardless of the stage in the project delivery lifecycle.
This mechanism should lead to Project Board reports on lessons learnt when appropriate action is taken. Lessons should also be provided to the Department Portfolio Office for inclusion in Portfolio system learning.

5.13 Management – Does the project have a robust reporting process?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate a mature suite of interconnected reports are maintained where content and insights are identifiable across the suite. Reports are continually reviewed, focussed to support key organisational decision making and strategy and evolve as improved information or technology becomes available. Benchmarking plays a key role in recommended decisions and options based on analytics.
The Project should demonstrate plans and processes are in place to publish key cost, schedule and performance data for each stage of the project delivery lifecycle.
Evidence that the project’s reporting mechanisms are in place to monitor social and environmental performance:
Clearly articulated goals and owners for delivery;
Where indicators are being developed for monitoring the project, there should be considerations of how these indicators can be disaggregated by key characteristics (age, sex, geography, disability) where relevant in order to support the SDG principle of Leave No One Behind.

5.14 Management – Does the project have all of the required products in place, and approved, required for this gate?

Evidence:

The project should have all of the required products produced, and approved by the Project Board before coming to the gate.
Refer to the Project Documentation section for a summary of the products required.

5.15 Management - Does the project have proper controls that hold the project team to account for timely and quality delivery?

Evidence

The Project Execution Document should set out:
The overall programme controls (progress tracking, risk management, issue identification and resolution, impact assessment) are defined.
Interdependencies between other programmes and projects defined, with adequate plans for managing them.
For collaborative programmes, accountabilities and governance arrangements for different organisations defined and agreed.
Parties in the delivery chain identified and an approach to them working together established.
Processes to manage and record key project information and decision-making.
Clear governance structure with a RACI in place.

5.16 Management - Does the project have a clearly defined architecture?

Evidence

Project & Programme business cases and Project Delivery Documents should include a project structure and business case structure that shows:
The perimeter of the programme and its respective Projects.
All business cases that will be included in the project.
How costs and benefits will be tracked and aggregated from Projects to the overarching Programme.
Approved programme/project and business case structures will be reviewed at each gate, any changes must clearly demonstrated and must have gone through formal change controls.

5.17 Management - Does the project have an in-depth understanding of risk, and is there a process to identify, assess, allocate, manage and monitor current, anticipated and emerging risks and issues?

Evidence

Risk management processes are in line with Principle D of the Orange Book and include a RAID.
Project risks are identified through engagement with stakeholders and articulated in terms of severity, proximity and likelihood, with comprehensive mitigating actions and residual risks articulated in the risk tab of the projects RAID log.
The risk register should show risks relating to the strategy, economics, commercials, financials and management (focusing on deliverability) of the project.

5.18 Management - Has the project used robust planning and estimation techniques?

Evidence

Planning and estimation techniques include: Analogous estimation, Parametric estimation, Delphi method, 3 Point Estimate, Expert Judgment, Published Data Estimates, Vendor Bid Analysis, Reserve Analysis, Bottom-Up Analysis, and Simulation.
Projects should demonstrate objectives, planning assumptions, constraints, activities and quality plans alongside schedules. Deliverables and milestones should be defined and agreed for all stages. Detail should be high for the immediate next stage
The Programme/Project should demonstrate that it is controlling its schedule, and the impact of delays on benefits and cost. The schedule should be baselined at each business case stage and changes to the baseline should be reflected in the costs and benefits of the project.

5.19 Management - Have programmes and projects defined an integrated plan for undertaking assurance and approvals (IAAP)?

Evidence

‘Critical friends’ to the project (e.g. internal audit, procurement, specialists and/or peer reviewers coopted onto the Project Board) appointed.
A defined and integrated plan for undertaking assurance and approvals in place, regularly reviewed, updated and maintained, with a plan to do so until closure.
Assurance measures to include:
Health-checks and/or policy reviews incorporated into plans.
2nd Line of defence assurance through the Department Portfolio Office.
Gate assurance through the NISTA.

5.20 Management - Does the project have an adequate Project/Programme Management Office (PMO) capability?

Evidence

The project should demonstrate that the PMO is maintaining the integrity of the business cases (programme and project level), managing the collation and escalation of risk, issues, dependencies, constraints, and reporting at project level.
Programmes and Projects are expected to demonstrate that they have a project office in their project organisation.
Infrastructure Specific Questions and Evidence

2.1 Economic - Has the project completed a Project Outcome Profile to assess how it will contribute to Government’s priority outcomes as set out in the Public Value Framework?

Evidence

A completed Project Outcome Profile (e.g. productivity, carbon emissions, regional increase in Gross Value Added (GVA) etc.).
A defined plan for driving performance across the lifecycle with well articulated, measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track progress.
A defined approach that describes the interfaces with the Supply Chain and how performance of the Supply Chain will be measured and monitored.
Articulated how the project fits into the SNAP model (System, Networks, Assets, Projects) for Infrastructure and how benefits are realised across departments and other stakeholders such as local authorities, combined authorities etc.
Peer reviewed economic models should be in place which underpin the project’s benefit forecasts. reviewed economic models should be in place which underpin the project’s benefit forecasts.
Earned value reporting should be embedded.
A project risk register should exist. The project QCRA should be regularly updated to provide an up to date contingency drawdown curve to support monthly progress meetings.

2.2 Economic - Do the benefits reflect what society wants and are these benefits shared widely? Have the range of views of communities affected by the infrastructure been taken into account and are they reflected in the design?

Evidence

Evidence of consultation rounds with impacted user groups and external stakeholders.
Project vision and benefits plan agreed, signed off and published.

2.3 Economic - Do the benefits reflect what society wants and are these benefits shared widely? Have the range of views of communities affected by the infrastructure been taken into account and are they reflected in the design?

Evidence

Evidence of consultation rounds with impacted user groups and external stakeholders.
Project vision and benefits plan agreed, signed off and published.

2.4 Economic - How does the project fit within a national context, including existing and planned infrastructure projects, networks and systems and has it examined opportunities to join up different sectors (e.g. transport and housing)?

Evidence

There must be a clear understanding of the benefits that the project brings – e.g. how the project aligns with the national context and future infrastructure projects – documented within the benefits strategy.
Consideration of impact to future infrastructure projects.
Consideration and articulation of UK economic benefits.
Clear articulation and evidence of how the project links to priority outcomes at a Department and Government level, as set out in the Public Value Framework and agreed through Outcome Delivery Plan.
Use of Project Outcome Profile to demonstrate the link between cross-government priorities, department priorities and project priorities and outcomes.

3.1 Management - Does the design of the infrastructure project provide a sense of identity? Does it improve the environment and does it support the local ecology?

Evidence

The Business Case articulates how the benefits improve the local ecology. A benefits plan should be in place and should demonstrate the wider benefits of the ecosystem.

3.2 Management - What is the approach to whole life cycle performance management of the assets being built and contractors delivering the project?

Evidence

Evidence that the project and its objectives are continually reviewed as well as evidence that the contractors are reviewed.

3.3 Management - Is there a detailed plan for managing planning, consenting and regulatory requirements, and is the schedule optimised to progress with work in parallel where reasonable to do so?

Evidence

The comprehensive plan should include benchmarking of schedules broken down into agreed project stages: Feasibility, Appraise & Select, Define, Deliver, Operate; and justification for how the proposed schedule compares against the benchmarks.

3.4 Management - Are the benchmarking learnings and developments integrated with wider estimating and cost planning skill developments? Is training in place to support the development of the Benchmarking subject matter experts?

Evidence

Clear track record of learning from experience on e.g. benchmarking, cost forecasting, risk allowance.

3.5 Management - Does the design of the infrastructure project provide a sense of identity? Does it improve the environment and does it support the local ecology?

Evidence

The Business Case articulates how the benefits improve the local ecology. A benefits plan should be in place and should demonstrate the wider benefits of the ecosystem.

Defence Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 Management - Is it clear how the system will operate?

Evidence

A System Requirements Document (SRD).
An overall system design to underpin the detailed design of the subsystems.
Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 Strategic- What is the impact of the recommended option on the customer experience and journey? How has this been assessed?

Evidence

Detailed assessment of user impact and preferences.
Positive user/employee engagement / results of surveys, i.e. customer satisfaction surveys.

1.2 Strategic - How well is the project collaborating across boundaries?

Evidence

The project is engaging across teams, departments, government, private sector, third sector to align outcomes.
Regular stakeholder analysis and strong relationships factored into options appraisal.
Evidence of joint decisions being made.
Roles reflect the need for collaboration across boundaries.
Collaborative behaviours displayed at all levels.
Decisions, designs etc., have been changed on the basis of stakeholder feedback.

1.3 Strategic - Does the project have a clear view of the outcomes and benefits that they are targeting?

Evidence

The outcomes and benefits which are to be delivered have been chosen and have been tested with stakeholders and there is evidence of user feedback.
The Project should be able to demonstrate flexibility in their thinking when selecting the project outcomes and benefits.
Outcomes and benefits are clearly aligned to the overall Transformation Vision.

1.4 Strategic - Is there sufficient operational experience in the leadership team for the transformation and throughout the delivery teams?

Evidence

Evidence that the leadership team is supportive of the change.
Evidence that the leadership team has the required operational leadership experience.

1.5 Strategic - Is the proposed design realistic?

Evidence

The Project is able to demonstrate that the design has been tested by operational elements of the business and operational SMEs to ensure it is robust.
There is evidence that testing has been done prior to full delivery.
It is clear how the delivery plan, including timing and costing, links to individual design elements.

2.1 Economic - Are the benefits and regulatory requirements clearly defined and being used to prioritise the development and delivery of capabilities to the business including consideration of quick wins or early benefit approach?

Evidence

Initial plan for realising and evaluating delivery of benefits, showing costs offset (e.g. by improved quality of service and/or savings over the project’s expected life).
Clear benefits delivery phasing with robust strategic/operational rationale.

3.1 Management - Has the project used the 7 lenses approach to frame its delivery and does it understand its maturity level?

Evidence

The project makes use of the 7 lenses (Vision, Design, Plan, Transformational Leadership, Collaboration, Accountability and People).
The project has used the Maturity Matrix tool to assess and determine the degree of maturity of its transformation.
The project has set out and has a good understanding of its clear strengths and weaknesses as a result of applying the maturity matrix.
Improvement plans are in place if required and are actioned.
Projects are particularly focused on the Vision, Design and Plan elements at this stage.

Evidence

The vision describes the social outcomes of the transformation and defines how the Department will operate.
Vision and purpose workshops have been used to create cohesion between team members.
The vision is owned by those at the top of the Department or Agency but created by people who represent the breadth of the business.
Agreed organisational vision has been approved by the SRO and shared with the wider audience.
The vision shows a compelling picture of the future that aligns stakeholders around the purpose of the transformation, the scale of the ambition and the nature of the benefits. The vision reaches a compromise between; short term political aims vs. long term transformation; external events vs. staying true to the vision; ambitious vs. feasible
The vision is articulated in different ways, for example pictures as well as words.
The vision is talked about all the time including by the leader of the project/organisation. It motivates leaders, staff, partners and other stakeholders and allows them to prioritise activities.
To demonstrate that people are motivated and bought into the vision, project teams should be able to demonstrate:
Case studies from project employees
Feedback from the project team
There is evidence that the Design Authority (or equivalent) is operational and is playing a key role in ensuring that the user perspective continues to be core to the project and that core design principles are not breached as things are changed and adapted.

3.3 Management - What new stakeholders come into play as the Target Operating Model (TOM) changes as a consequence of the transformation? For example, new lines of defence e.g. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance bodies? What is the planned approach for engaging with these new stakeholders?

Evidence

Stakeholder management plans are in place to understand which stakeholders are required for the TOM. The plan should detail the approach to engaging with these stakeholders at each phase and the most effective form of engagement.
There should be evidence that Business Stakeholders are engaged, understand and are bought into the change journey.
Evidence that the TOM shows that the right people are in place, the processes (underpinned with the technology solution) are described and evidence the culture supports this.
Evidence that the Project has taken into consideration the time required to adapt to the new system.
A clear people plan with clear dependency mapping between people and technical elements (validated with key stakeholders).
The end-user should have a clear understanding of the transformation and the impact on them.user should have a clear understanding of the transformation and the impact on them.

3.4 Management - If using, is there a clear rationale for an agile delivery methodology?

Evidence

If using Agile, the project likely displays the following characteristics:
Deliverables can be broken down and benefit can be gained from the component parts.
Requirements could change significantly or are difficult to define at the outset.
The solution is not clear and the choices around technology, design and implementation need to be flexible.
End users are available for regular feedback and testing.
Small tightknit project team that is close geographically (or has regular access to collaborative technology).knit project team that is close geographically (or has regular access to collaborative technology).
Deliverables can be produced without significant dependencies outside the project that would preclude an agile approach.

3.5 Management - Does the detailed delivery timetable account for the combination of Business as Usual (BAU) work during transition and protecting BAU work?

Evidence

The Project is able to demonstrate that the detailed level delivery timetable accounts for BAU work during transition.
Defence Specific Questions and Evidence (Commercial)

1.1 Commercial - Are the necessary international agreements in place for the acquisition of military equipment from overseas?

Evidence

Evidence that the right agreements and treaties are in place and still valid to support the international partnerships e.g. Foreign Military Sales. The documentation to support these agreements should be readily available from the Project Team.
Digital/ICT Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 Strategic - How is the user perspective being considered?

Evidence

A plan should be agreed and signed off which details when stakeholders should be engaged at key points in the project’s lifecycle.
Understanding of how the customer experience and journey will be impacted.
An approach to managing user satisfaction and journey efficiency considered.

2.1 Management - How have requirements (both functional and nonfunctional) been identified and prioritised? Are they achievable inside the scope/ affordability envelope of the project and met by the proposed option?

Evidence

Functional and nonfunctional requirements are defined and prioritised (e.g. MOSCOW).
A broad range of stakeholders have been consulted on the identification and prioritisation of requirements.
Activities are in place to ensure that the requirements and their prioritisation are reviewed and adjusted on an ongoing basis.
The project has incorporated a discovery phase.
The Business Case is in line with the documented requirements, i.e. confirmation that nonfunctional requirements are achievable within the financial envelope.

2.2 Management - Is the project plan for the remaining stages realistic for a complex digital/Information Communication and Technology (ICT) project?

Evidence

End to end project plan that includes systems, integration, commissioning.
Plan includes sufficient time allowed for mobilisation/discovery.
Plan includes sufficient time for testing activities and data migration. May be appropriate to understand deterministic and/or probabilistic schedules to understand key pinch points and risks.

2.3 Management - Does the project have a multidisciplinary team in place that has a range of skills to successfully build and run a digital service?

Evidence

In the Alpha Phase the team (minimal) has a ‘service owner’ that demonstrates the skills to: explore ideas and build prototypes and solve the harder potential problems.

3.1 Other: Data - What are the data implications of the programme/project?

Evidence

Clear consideration of the data implication is required backed up by a data management plan.

The following will be considered:

What data will be generated and where the data will be stored?
What potential implications are there for privacy/consents?
How are the data aspects of the programme being managed e.g., separate team, integrated team, inside or outside of the programme etc?
What considerations have been made in relation to confidence in the use of, and assurance of, emerging technologies?
What consideration has been given to the impact of emerging technology, such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Robotic Process Automation?

3.2 Other: Data - What is the data architecture?

Evidence

A data architecture/model documentation and Entity Relationship Diagrams showing:
A clear relationship between the organisation as a concept (typically made up of customers, employees, projects, policies, locations, products, suppliers etc.) and how the data/information is stored/recorded in systems/solutions.
Recommended option clearly articulates if concepts are common across solutions in the organisation or bespoke for this solution.
Any constraints on the use of data due to licence conditions.
Consideration has been given to whether the same or similar data/information is stored/collected in multiple locations / duplicated / copied across multiple locations.

3.3 Other: Security - What has been the approach and considerations in relation to security threats, provisions and considerations on this project and how will they manage changes going forward?

Evidence

A security management plan should be detailed and approved by the SRO.
Evidence, if appropriate, that a Security Considerations Assessment (SCA) has been completed and that operational requirements have been considered for physical build.
Risks are identified, impact assessed, costed (with clear allowance for security in the budget) and mitigated as required.
Evidence should also demonstrate owners are assigned to these risks.
The project has assessed their ability to perform or procure the capabilities to actually perform vulnerability scanning.
The project is planning to have/use defined KPIs in Management Information (MI) on this.
Evidence that the project has incorporated plans to ensure business continuity services/activities are maintained within the defined Recovery Time Objectives (RT).
The project plan incorporates ensuring a backup system is in place. For data backup a disaster recovery strategy is in place and tested.
Evidence of supplier assurance processes and considerations.
Data protection considerations have been made for offshoring.

Question 4

Project Documentation

Accepted Answer

The areas of investigation together with examples of evidence should be available before the Gate Review starts. The information is likely to be found in the documents and products suggested below, but may be located in other programme or project documents or elsewhere in the organisation’s documentation system:

A Greenbook compliant Strategic Outline Case (SOC) approved by the Department Investment Committee and HMT.
A draft Greenbook compliant Outline Business Case (OBC) which is in review by the Department Investment Committee.
Project Execution Document (PED) which sets out:
The overall project scope, objectives and intended delivery outcomes (including project plans);
The overall programme controls (progress tracking, risk management, issue identification and resolution, impact assessment);
The overall governance and structure of the project (including roles and responsibilities, Terms of References, resourcing plan and a work breakdown structure);
Communication and stakeholder strategy and plan;
Interdependencies between other programmes and projects defined, with adequate plans for managing them;
For collaborative programmes, accountabilities and governance arrangements for different organisations defined and agreed;
Parties in the delivery chain identified and an approach to them working together established;
Processes to manage and record key project information and decision-making;
Approach to assessing and piloting the proposed delivery outcomes;
An assessment of the market attractiveness of the project, including outcomes of any business, commercial or technical benchmarking;
Benefits management strategy; and
Contingency plans.
Stakeholder Map which visually represents all of the people who can influence the project and how they are connected.
Risk, Assumptions, Issues and Dependencies (RAID) log which includes the Risk Register (with risks categorised by the 5 case business case model and baselined at each gate with updates showing changes since the last gate), an Issues Register, a Dependencies Register, an Assumptions Register, a Decisions Register, a Constraints Register. Each register should reference the other, and should show which level in the project structure an item relates to, and if it has been included in Project Board reporting, or escalated.
Lessons learned register.
Project financial tracker, which can demonstrate the following:
A comprehensive financial management process in place and risk/contingency calculations included in the budget and show that the baseline has an appropriate allowance for risk/contingency.
An appropriate cost baseline has been established and includes an assured, resource loaded schedule that demonstrates cost by component in accordance with the project work breakdown structure.
That costs are within current budgets, whole life funding is affordable, supported by stakeholders, and committed by Dept. Finance and HMT.
Planning Products which include a: Resource Plan; High Level Plan and Work Breakdown Structure; and Schedule.
The Project should supply the last three months of Project Executive Reporting and Board Papers.
Last quarterly GMPP return.
Operating Model (TO BE and AS IS): The project should document their ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ ways of working. By doing this, they demonstrate that it has a detailed understanding of the current business operation and detailed target operating model which has been approved by business stakeholders.
Business Requirements Document: The business requirements associated with the delivery of the Target Operating Model (TOM) should be documented in a Business Requirements Document (BRD). This document should be approved by the key stakeholders in the business areas that are changing.
Business Change Management Documents: The approach to business change should be articulated in a Business Change Management document and updated for this gate which sets out:
The business forums which are being used to take the business through the change journey.
The user needs.
The business requirements.
Impact assessment approach.
Cut-over management approach.
Change checklist.
Go-no-go decision processes.
Procurement Strategy which outlines the planned approach of cost-effectively procuring the services of a preferred supplier, taking into consideration several elements and factors such as the timeline for procurement, the funding and budget, the projected risks and opportunities, among others.
Business and technical policies.
Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan. Note: only required if changes have been made since the last review. If changes have been made, evidence of change control is required.
A Commercial Strategy and Plan that set out the Project’s vision and objectives that align with the Project’s overall strategy and financial plan. The commercial strategy and plan should include: Commercial Model, Roadmap for delivery; Required resources and targets.
Accounting Officer assessment.
Risk Potential Assessment.
Signed SRO Appointment Letter.

Question 5

Supporting Guidance

Accepted Answer

Produced by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA).

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk

Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Any queries regarding this publication should be sent to us at gateway.helpdesk@nista.gov.uk

Cookies on GOV.UK

Introduction to the Gate Review Process

Why Getting Programmes and Projects Right Matters

The Gate Review Process

The Gate Review Process as part of the Assurance Framework

Tailoring the Gate Review

Using the Gate Review Workbooks

Net zero and climate adaptation as part of the gate review process

Gate 2 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook

Delivery Strategy

Purpose of the Gate 2 Review

Assessment of the Proposed Solution

Core Questions and Evidence

1. Strategic Case

1.1 Strategic – Does the Outline Business Case (OBC) articulate a clear and total project scope and continue to demonstrate business need and contribution to the organisation’s business strategy?

1.2 Strategic – Has a single option been recommended to proceed with in the next stage? Has the concept been selected and approved by stakeholders?

1.3 Strategic – Do stakeholders support the project and is the organisation still fully committed? Do stakeholders support the preferred option (this includes the potential or recommended delivery approach and mechanisms)?

1.4 Strategic – Are the assumptions, dependencies, risks and issues relating to business change understood? Is there an initial plan to address these issues?

1.5 Strategic – How has policy and strategic alignment, including at a cross-departmental network, other public sector bodies or system level, been considered for this project and programme?

1.7 Strategic – Does the vision and objectives consider social outcomes and have they been endorsed by key stakeholders?

1.8 Strategic – Has the project embedded the National Infrastructure Commission four recommended design principles?

2. Economic Case

2.1 Economic – Does the project have an approved Greenbook Compliant Strategic Outline Case (SOC), and draft Outline Business Case (OBC)?

2.2 Economic – If there are several options, how was their robustness tested?

2.3 Economic – Is the organisation still realistic about its ability to achieve a successful outcome?

2.4 Economic – Are the benefits to be delivered by the project understood and agreed with stakeholders? Is there an initial plan for realising and evaluating benefits?

2.5 Economic – Is the list of identified risks, constraints and dependencies (including climate mitigation, adaptation, sustainability, environmental and systemic considerations) reflected in the economic modelling assumptions?

2.6 Economic – What plans does the project have to publish key cost, schedule and performance data at different stages? (access to this information helps to inform robust evaluation).

2.7 Economic – Has, and will, the project follow the principles of making benefits-focussed announcements? When a cost and schedule are announced are they expressing them as a range that will narrow as the project progresses through delivery?

2.8 Economic – What are the macroeconomic factors that could impact the ability of the government and the supply chain to deliver the project effectively?

2.9 Economic – What long term impact will the project have on the UK economy including opportunities to maximise the scheme’s benefits by joining up different sectors and tiers of government (e.g. transport and housing)?

2.10 Economic – Have environmental and climate benefits (and disbenefits, where applicable) been comprehensively identified and categorised?

2.11 Economic – Does the baseline and various scenarios used in the economic modelling reflect the latest available information on climate scenarios and is the counterfactual clearly and robustly articulated?

3. Commercial Questions

3.1 Commercial – Is the evaluation strategy aligned to the aims and objectives (including how to demonstrate value for money) accepted by stakeholders and compliant with all relevant procurement rules?

3.2 Commercial – Has the programme/project team understood the strengths and weaknesses of the commercial model and how to manage them as well as the compromises required?

3.3 Commercial – Are the business needs clearly understood by the client organisation and likely to be understood by those involved in delivery?

3.4 Commercial – Has climate mitigation, adaptation, sustainability, environmental and systemic considerations been incorporated in the commercial model?

3.5 Commercial – Is the contract management strategy robust?

3.6 Commercial – Will the project be attractive to the market?

3.7 Commercial – Is there adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers? Who are the suppliers most likely to succeed?

3.8 Commercial – Where appropriate, have options for the procurement route been evaluated, including sources of supply?

4. Financial Questions

4.1 Finance – Does the project have a comprehensive financial management process in place?

4.2 Financial – How has the project approached cost baselining?

4.3 Financial – Are the costs within current budgets? Is the project’s whole-life funding affordable and supported by the key stakeholders?

4.4 Financial – Is the proposed arrangement likely to achieve whole-life value for money?

4.5 Financial – Does the baseline have an appropriate allowance for risk/contingency? How has that been calculated and is that appropriate for the lifecycle stage and if a Quantitative Cost Risk Assessment (QCRA) has been undertaken, what P value does the contingency represent?

5. Management Questions

5.1 Management – Is there alignment on the outcomes of the project and has this been approved by key stakeholders?

5.2 Management – Have the factors that influenced the delivery strategy been addressed?

5.3 Management – Is the organisation still realistic about its ability to achieve a successful outcome?

5.4 Management – Is the list of identified risks, constraints and dependencies (including sustainability, environmental and climate resilience considerations and any related legal and planning consent matters) reflected in the optimism bias assumptions used?

5.5 Management – Who is holding the project team to account and ensuring the project is delivering to time, cost and quality baselines?

5.7 Management – Is the project set up for success to work across multiple government departments/other public sector organisations?

5.8 Management – Is the selected delivery strategy defined and endorsed? Is there strong alignment between HMT, Cabinet Office and the sponsoring department?

5.9 Management – Has entry into live-service been considered and planned for with due consideration for the end user perspective and is there clarity as to who is accountable for making the decision to commission?

5.10 Management – Does the project have resources with, where required, the appropriate skills and experience?

5.11 Management – Has the project set success criteria and agreed measurements against outcomes, to be assessed at the next stage gates and “go/no-go” decision points of the programme?

5.12 Management – Does the project have mechanisms in place to learn lessons?

5.13 Management – Does the project have a robust reporting process?

5.14 Management – Does the project have all of the required products in place, and approved, required for this gate?

5.15 Management - Does the project have proper controls that hold the project team to account for timely and quality delivery?

5.16 Management - Does the project have a clearly defined architecture?

5.17 Management - Does the project have an in-depth understanding of risk, and is there a process to identify, assess, allocate, manage and monitor current, anticipated and emerging risks and issues?

5.18 Management - Has the project used robust planning and estimation techniques?

5.19 Management - Have programmes and projects defined an integrated plan for undertaking assurance and approvals (IAAP)?

5.20 Management - Does the project have an adequate Project/Programme Management Office (PMO) capability?

2.1 Economic - Has the project completed a Project Outcome Profile to assess how it will contribute to Government’s priority outcomes as set out in the Public Value Framework?

2.2 Economic - Do the benefits reflect what society wants and are these benefits shared widely? Have the range of views of communities affected by the infrastructure been taken into account and are they reflected in the design?

2.3 Economic - Do the benefits reflect what society wants and are these benefits shared widely? Have the range of views of communities affected by the infrastructure been taken into account and are they reflected in the design?

2.4 Economic - How does the project fit within a national context, including existing and planned infrastructure projects, networks and systems and has it examined opportunities to join up different sectors (e.g. transport and housing)?

3.1 Management - Does the design of the infrastructure project provide a sense of identity? Does it improve the environment and does it support the local ecology?

3.2 Management - What is the approach to whole life cycle performance management of the assets being built and contractors delivering the project?

3.3 Management - Is there a detailed plan for managing planning, consenting and regulatory requirements, and is the schedule optimised to progress with work in parallel where reasonable to do so?

3.4 Management - Are the benchmarking learnings and developments integrated with wider estimating and cost planning skill developments? Is training in place to support the development of the Benchmarking subject matter experts?

3.5 Management - Does the design of the infrastructure project provide a sense of identity? Does it improve the environment and does it support the local ecology?

Defence Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 Management - Is it clear how the system will operate?

1.1 Strategic- What is the impact of the recommended option on the customer experience and journey? How has this been assessed?