Gate 3 Review: Investment Decision

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 protection of value for money. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s (NISTA) Gate Review process is designed to provide a realistic view of a programme or 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 projects and programmes 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
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 what evidence should be sought. Approaches may vary according to the context of the programme and project. Supplementary guidance is provided for the following major programme and project 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 programme and project 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 designed 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 incorporating 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 greenhouse gas (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.

Gate 3 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook

This Gate Review Workbook supports the Government Gate 3 Review: Investment Decision. This Gate Review investigates the Full Business Case (FBC) and the governance arrangements for the investment decision to confirm that the project is still required, affordable and achievable within the proposed time. The Gate Review will also check whether the implementation plans are robust.

Decision

The Gate 2 Review: Delivery Strategy examined the delivery strategy for achievement of the project’s objectives:

For a procurement project, it reviewed the procurement strategy before the organisation invited proposals or tenders against the fully developed requirements specification.
For organisations with existing commercial arrangements, it reviewed similar information and decisions about achievability, affordability and value for money.

To be reviewed at Gate 3: Investment Decision the project must have met the below requirements:

Potential suppliers, partners and/or other delivery organisations (including internal units, where relevant) have submitted their proposals or tenders.
An evaluation panel that has analysed the proposals on a ‘like-for-like’ basis and recommended a proposal (delivery solution) that:
Meets all of the needs of the clients and end-users;
Offers the best value for money;
Meets current government priorities of Net Zero; and
For infrastructure projects, uses modern methods of construction.

This Gate 3 Review should come before placing a work order with a supplier or other delivery partner, or at the preferred bidder stage and before the award of contract. The Gate 3 Review confirms that the recommended investment decision is appropriate before the contract is placed with a supplier or partner (or a work order placed with an existing supplier or other delivery partner). It provides assurances on the processes used to select a supplier (not the supplier selection decision itself). The Review will also assess whether:

The process has been well managed
The business needs are being met
Both client and supplier can implement and manage the proposed solution and key risks (and who is best placed to manage them) are identified and assessed.
The necessary processes are in place to achieve successful delivery to agreed time, cost and quality after contract award (or equivalent)

The Project Team and Review Team must be satisfied that due consideration has been given to all factors, including choices about proposed commercial (and optimal risk sharing) arrangements with any existing suppliers, where this offers value for money. A project will normally go through one Gate 3 Review. However, in some circumstances it may be necessary to repeat Gate 3. For example:

For construction projects there may be a requirement for more than one Gate 3 Review when the investment decision for the project is made or If there is a second investment decision (such as for two-stage Design and Build) there may be a need for a first Gate 3 Review for the contract award and a subsequent Gate 3 Review to confirm the investment decision based on the construction price.

Similarly, for some IT-enabled and service enhancement projects there may be a need for a first Gate 3 Review before a pilot implementation or initial design contract is undertaken, and a subsequent Gate 3 Review to confirm the investment decision before full implementation.

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 proposed commercial relationship between the client organisation and the recommended delivery partner organisation.

Purpose of the Gate 3 Review

The purpose of the Gate 3 Review is to:

Confirm that the FBC and Benefits Plan now has the relevant information, confirmed by potential suppliers and /or delivery partners and benefit owners, including that the project has the necessary funds and authority to proceed;
Confirm that the objectives and desired outputs of the project are still aligned with the programme to which it contributes and/or the wider organisation’s business strategy and risk profile;
Check that all necessary statutory and procedural requirements were followed throughout the procurement/evaluation process;
Confirm that the recommended contract decision or procurement execution decision, if properly executed within a standard lawful agreement (where appropriate), is likely to deliver the specified outputs/outcomes on time, within budget, to quality, and provide value for money;
Ensure that management controls are in place to manage the project through to completion, including contract management;
Ensure there is continuing support for the project;
Confirm that the approved delivery strategy has been followed;
Confirm that the development and implementation plans of both client and supplier/partner are sound and achievable;
Check that the business has prepared for development, implementation, transition and operation of new services/facilities, and that relevant staff are or will be prepared for the business change;
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 the project is delivering a Net Zero outcome - or explains why not;
Evaluation of actions taken to implement recommendations made in earlier assessments of deliverability;
Confirm that the project has considered lessons learned and previous evaluation not just within the organisation, but more broadly through engagement with others who have done similar projects;
Confirm that the project has scoped and resourced a proportionate evaluation plan to understand the impact of the programme and learn lessons for the future.
Confirm that the technical implications, such as ‘buildability’ for construction projects; and for IT-enabled projects, information assurance and security, the impact of e-government frameworks (such as e-GIF, e-business and external infrastructure) have been addressed; and
For construction projects, confirm that the project is using modern methods of construction that drive efficiency.

Question 2

Assessment of the Proposed Solution

Accepted Answer

Core Questions and Evidence

Each question is presented with its category and indicative evidence.

1. General

1.1 General - How realistic and integrated is the business case?

Evidence:

Completed and internally agreed business case, setting out the cost over the lifecycle of the project.
A bottom-up approach with underpinning assumptions is taken and agreed to support the overall outcome of the business case. Dependencies consider the impact if assumptions change.
There is tangible evidence that the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) and senior leaders in the Department believe in the delivery model.
There is evidence that the project still meets the business need.
There is consistency between the 5 cases – e.g. risks in strategic case, commercial case and management case are aligned.
The business case is continually updated to take into account any slippage and other changes, including an impact assessment.

2. Strategic

2.1 Strategic – Is there a clear link between the project and the organisation’s key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success?

Evidence:

The Full Business Case (FBC) strategic case aligned with wider organisational strategy.
Interviewees can consistently explain how the project fits with organisational strategy and can demonstrate the key strategic priorities. Measures of success are agreed with the project team/Governance, SRO, Department, HMT (where required).
The FBC management case addresses benefits identification and management.
The benefits realisation plan is consistent with the wider project plan (e.g. milestones are aligned).
List of critical interdependencies and evidence on how projects/programmes keep track of interdependencies and synergies. This should also include a slippage impact assessment.
Interviewees can explain how the project’s risk profile aligns with the wider strategic risk profile of the organisation and how they get confidence in the effectiveness of risk management arrangements.
Business continuity plans including rollback arrangements.

2.2 Strategic – How has policy and strategic alignment, including at cross-departmental network or system level, been considered?

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 of continual review of policy and strategic alignment at a cross-departmental network and system level.
Evidence of a clear strategy for business change both in the organisation and the supplier.
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.

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

Principles:

Carbon emissions mitigation and adaptation to climate change
People-based outcomes and community engagement
Local identity and improving environment
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.

3. Economic

3.1 Economic – Does the project have a Green Book–compliant Outlined Business Case (OBC) and a draft Full Business Case (FBC)?

Evidence:

The OBC should have been approved by the Department Investment Committee.
The draft FBC 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 cases readiness for approval. The business case should demonstrate:
Benefits are thoroughly detailed in the Economic Case with clear evidence of what the project used as a measure e.g. ‘good practice’ to define benefits and a compelling benefits case which includes optimism bias and consideration of macroeconomic factors e.g. inflation.
Analysis on non-preferred options is sufficiently rigorous to confirm that these would not offer better value and stakeholders have agreed the cost to end users is affordable.
The financial case demonstrates how a whole life view of value (rather than just upfront capex) has informed options appraisal, design, option selection and commercial strategy.
The project can demonstrate adequate approaches for estimating, monitoring and controlling the total expenditure.
The strategic case is aligned with wider organisational strategy.
The management case addresses benefits identification and management. The benefits realisation plan is consistent with the wider project plan (e.g. milestones are aligned).
The management and financial cases should show the emergence of any new risks which were not considered/cost/or underestimated at the OBC stage, but have come to light subsequent to negotiations with the Preferred Bidder. Also any new external developments which may have occurred such as a change in Economic or Political scene which may render the project more difficult to procure and execute.
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.

3.2 Economic – Is there an agreed benefits realisation plan built using good practice and including optimism bias?

Evidence:

Benefits are thoroughly detailed in the Economic Case with clear evidence of what the project used as a measure e.g. ‘good practice’ to define benefits.
A compelling benefits case which includes optimism bias and consideration of macroeconomic factors e.g. inflation.
Analysis on non-preferred options is sufficiently rigorous to confirm that these would not offer better value for money and stakeholders have agreed the cost to end users is affordable.
An internally approved FBC Management case that sets out the high level benefits realisation approach.
The benefits realisation plan is approved and agreed with stakeholders (including wider government, clients and suppliers) who are still supportive of the projects Critical Success Factors.
Assumptions that underpin benefit realisation are documented, agreed with the relevant parties and signed off.
Thought has been given to whether the project can be split into phases designed to deliver benefits earlier, learn lessons, and mitigate key risks.

3.3 Economic - Does the project have a fully-costed, robust evaluation plan to assess whether the project has successfully delivered its stated outcomes?

Evidence:

An updated, completed and agreed evaluation plan which is compliant with the HMT Magenta Book. The evaluation should assess the impact of the programme against its stated outcomes and be designed to enable lessons to be learnt for future delivery within the project lifecycle and beyond.
Evaluation plans have been developed with analysts and signed off by the Director of Analysis.
The evaluation plan has been quality assured and has stakeholder buy-in.

3.4 Economic - To avoid ‘loss of value’ – Have the original intended benefits been considered as part of any change control process (for example by using a Project Outcome Profile)?

Evidence:

The intended benefits are considered as part of the change control.
Clear explanation of how benefits are calculated on projects and how risks to achieving them are managed.
The change control procedures (both technical and business) are defined, agreed and included in the contract.
There is a well-articulated plan for implementing change and plans for handling future change.
There is an updated and signed off change tracker in place.
Evidence of a structured Change Control approach for the project. This is to ensure effective management due to the many external stakeholders/decision makers/suppliers.
Use of Project Outcome Profile to demonstrate the link between cross-government priorities, department priorities and project priorities and outcomes.

4.1 Commercial - Does the commercial arrangement represent value for money, with an appropriate level of quality over the whole life of the project?

Evidence:

The commercial strategy has been tested and socialised with the industry (e.g. evidence of market soundings, use of EOIs etc.) and approved via the appropriate Governance structure.
The commercial strategy outlines clear commercial objectives and the path to achieving these, with clear evidence for how value for money will be demonstrated throughout the lifecycle of the project.
The project team can demonstrate that the strategy supports the optimal allocation of risk between the parties that is consistent with the client’s risk appetite, and are satisfied that the supplier has a comprehensive risk management framework in place, including a comprehensive risk management plan that covers political and market risks and clear mitigation strategies outlined if the risks materialise. If these have changed since the appointment of a Preferred Bidder, the project team should demonstrate how the overall risk profile, including the affordability and Value for Money, has changed.
The contract reflects standard terms and conditions and an appropriate allocation of risk with evidence of Government Legal Services (GLS) review and further legal and Crown Commercial Services (CCS) and Government Commercial Function (GCF) support.
There has been input from wider commercial functions outside of the project to test/validate/confirm approach e.g. Departmental commercial teams, CCS or GCF (Complex Transactions).

4.2 Commercial - Is there evidence the supplier’s funding is all in place? Is the project able to demonstrate there is little or no exposure of public funds or additional financial burden?

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate:
That the supplier’s funding is all in place, with little or no exposure of public funds or additional financial burden.
That all required resources and associated client-side funding is in place or will be once the FBC is approved by HMT.
Funding for the Project has been approved in the Spending Review by the Department’s Finance Director.
The Project and HMT have been in dialogue about the full business case and HMT are ready for the review of the final FBC.
CO controls have been sighted on the draft FBC and the project has satisfied the CO controls teams’ commercial and technology spend control requirements.

4.3 Commercial - Have suitable stakeholders, business and end user representatives been involved and have they approved the tender evaluation report and draft contract?

Evidence:

Appropriate stakeholder involvement in marking the tenders (e.g. business representation).
Clear tender evaluation report that has been reviewed and approved by appropriate stakeholders.
Draft contract ready with evidence of consultation with GCF (plus GLS or CCS as required).
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.

4.4 Commercial – Are the service management plan, administration and service level agreements complete and is the client ready for delivery and implementation?

Evidence:

Operating parameters are updated as needs change and documented in change control.
Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
Service delivery measured against those parameters.
Measures to address poor/non-performance are proving effective.
Acceptance criteria for key milestones are agreed.

4.5 Commercial - Are the sector suppliers experienced? Is the project able to demonstrate the supplier resources are skilled, available and that they get the right support?

Evidence:

A resource model from the client side setting out the number of resources and the associated skills that will deliver the work
Clear communication has taken place with the client and supplier throughout the lifecycle of the project.
The client and the supplier have been involved in the development of the plan so are aware of the timescales for implementation, transition and operation of the project itself.

4.6 Commercial - Is supplier resilience considered from a cross-government perspective or just from a project perspective?

Evidence:

Regular communication takes place between the sponsoring department and the project to understand the supplier resilience and wider implications in the market to assess whether there are any other risks that the project should take into account.

4.7 Commercial - Is there a reliance on one contractor?

Evidence:

Taken with other departmental commitments, do the contractual arrangements create an undue reliance on one supplier?

4.8 Commercial - Is there a contract in place to support the equipment, asset or service? – Operations and maintenance with appropriate KPIs to provide through life support to the capability?

Evidence:

Set of clear KPIs to measure performance to support the capability or asset. KPIs should be aligned with the Critical Success Factors of the Project as set out in the SOC.

4.9 Commercial - Are the procurement needs aligned to the contracting strategy? Has the project team recognised the need for contracts to be sufficiently flexible, especially for ‘first of its kind’ or long-term projects?

Evidence:

Contract plus input from Government Legal Service (GLS)/Government Commercial Function (GCF) on contract preparation.
Rigorous approach to commercial terms/contracts e.g. pricing/methodology such as fixed price, cost plus, New Engineering Contract (NEC).
A suitable contract management plan has been prepared and the project is ready to operate contracts once awarded.
A tender evaluation plan is in place.

4.10 Commercial - Does the project understand how the project sits within the overall portfolio of the government? Does the project have a good understanding of what this means for the supply chain.

Evidence:

Appropriate market consultation has been performed and the centre has been consulted on any associated risks.
The market capacity has been understood and appropriate actions taken (i.e. request of additional funding, delay project, permission to explore subsidies/funding to support the supply chain).

5.1 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 including allowances for risk-informed contingencies. Contingency funding (informed by an assessment of risks and levels of impact) is part of the project budget, with a clear risk-driven process of how this will be allocated and monitored.
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 – 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 are separately identified and included as a risk allocation provision.
Analysis undertaken of the effects of slippage in time, cost, scope or quality.

5.2 Financial - Is the evaluation based on whole-life value for money, taking account of capital, maintenance and service costs and does it:

allow us to balance financial factors against quality and security of delivery?
take account of business criticality and affordability?
demonstrate it is business driven?

Evidence:

*The Financial Case of the FBC demonstrates how a whole life view of value (rather than just upfront capex) has informed options appraisal, design, option selection and the commercial strategy. * The project can demonstrate adequate approaches for estimating, monitoring and controlling the total expenditure on projects.

5.3 Financial - Are all resources and internal funds (the ‘client-side budget’) in place?

Evidence:

Profiled budget in place showing opex/capex expenditure that has been approved, including:
Budget provision
Resource provision agreed
Subsequent years’ expenditure included in programme or project budgets
Authorisation/approval process for payments to suppliers
Process for expenditure reporting and reconciliation
Insurances established by suppliers where required.

5.4 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 holds 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.
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.
May have undertaken Quantitative Schedule Risk Analysis (QSRA) and an appropriate allowance for risk/contingency is in place as part of the baseline cost.
Risks are presented as a probabilistic range (i.e. estimates at P50, P80 or higher levels as appropriate) rather than a single-figure estimates or non-probabilistic ranges.
A bottom-up approach on how the risk/contingency allowance is calculated is in place.

5.5 Financial - Does the financial case consider, where applicable, potential changes to the financial model due to carbon pricing or other changes in the cost of financing (e.g. risk of stranded assets)?

Evidence:

Evidence that the financial modelling has considered, where relevant, implications of future changes in the carbon pricing or other financing costs due to, but not limited to, climate (e.g. stranded assets) or other such systemic risk implications.

** 6.1 Management - Has (or/and will) the project followed the principles of making benefits-focussed announcements?

Evidence:

The benefits strategy details the principles of benefit focused announcements i.e., when cost and schedule are announced they are expressed as a range that has narrowed as the project progresses through delivery. These should include environmental, climate and social benefits.
Where practical, communication of project benefits should include reference to how the project contributes to the SDGs.

6.2 Management - Is there alignment of the outcomes of the project and has this been agreed by key stakeholders?

Evidence:

The Project should demonstrate it has a fully-costed, robust approved evaluation plan (to assess whether the project successfully delivers its stated outcomes at Gate 5). The project has consulted with stakeholders on the evaluation plan and their acceptance of the proposed solution is documented. The Project should demonstrate a clear understanding of:
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.
How the required quality of performance will be measured.
Strategic Risk Profile and overall Risk Management effectiveness, including a firm handle on and clear ownership of the risks, dependencies and constraints which can impact key project outcomes.
Contingency plans.
Evidence of approval by key stakeholders.

6.3 Management - Does the project have a deep understanding of the live service operation, service management and supplier management approach, and have plans to stand up the required capability as part of the project?

Evidence:

The project can evidence:
That it has considered and planned for entry into service with due consideration for the end user perspective and that there is clarity on who is accountable for making decision go/no-go decisions.
A clear approach to transition, traced through to the Management Case.
Clear evidence on supplier responsibilities for commissioning, testing and go live.
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.
It has used Information, Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) or other Service Management methodologies to ensure that all elements of the service are in place with the required processes, engagement, operating hand books, Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and commercial management.
An intelligent client function.
The change control procedures (both technical and business) are defined, agreed and included in the contract.
There is a well articulated plan for implementing change and plans for handling future change.
There is an updated and signed off change tracker in place.
The exit and disposal/decommission of the existing service (if replacement) have been built into the business case and plan and the required discussions are in progress with existing suppliers.

6.4 Management - Is there a robust delivery strategy in place and has this been agreed by key stakeholders?

Evidence:

The Project should demonstrate a clear delivery strategy showing:
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.
Efficiency and predictability of the delivery process has 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.
Endorsement by the Dept, Cabinet Office and HMT. Clear documentation of sponsoring department, HMT, Cabinet Office alignment and areas of disagreement. Evidence that these tensions are understood and manageable.
Business continuity and future exit, handover and transition strategies have been considered at a high level.
Evidence of approval by key stakeholders.

6.5 Management - Is there an effective governance structure with clearly aligned goals and incentives?

Evidence:

A clear Governance ‘Responsible’, ‘Accountable’, ‘Consulted’ and ‘Informed’ RACI is in place.
Formal Project Portfolio Management (PPM) methodologies are in use.
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, risk profile 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.

Evidence:

Defined Sponsor requirements that can be traced through to the scope used to drive the project baseline.
Interviewees show a consistent understanding of respective responsibilities and healthy tension between sponsor and delivery team.
Signed Osmotherley letter in place.
Governance structure (including terms of reference) with clearly aligned goals and incentives.
Formal Project Portfolio Management (PPM) methodologies are in use.

6.7 Management - Does the project have resources with, where required, the appropriate skills and experience?

Evidence:

There is a clear understanding of the capabilities required for the delivery phase of the project, in particular those required to manage the supply chain.

6.8 Management - How is the project managing the risks overall including in relation to resource constraints and overall market capacity? This is particularly relevant for novel technology.

Evidence:

There is a robust risk management framework in line with the Orange Book and the related Programme Risk Assessment Tool.
Use of Quantitative Risk Assessment techniques with confidence in P50, P80 (and higher) estimates.
Risk Registers are regularly updated and clearly show trends, evidence of changes to risk ratings, ownership and how mitigating actions are being managed.
Key Risks, changes and the effectiveness of mitigations are reviewed and challenged at every Programme Board meeting.
Programme Board has a clearly articulated Risk Appetite aligned with the wider organisation’s risk appetite and actively manages risk to ensure the overall programme risk does not exceed agreed tolerance levels.

6.9 Management - Does the project management team have a clear view of the interdependencies between projects, the benefits, and the criteria against which success will be judged?

Evidence:

List of critical interdependencies and evidence on how projects/programmes keep track of this.
Evidence that the project has the right capacity/capability to deliver the project, covering a wide range of skills.

6.10 Management - Is the delivery body ready to stand up and move into delivery?

Evidence:

Matured governance, the right people in the leadership (capability and experience) and evidence that they are working well together.
A delivery RACI between the supplier and the organisation is in place.
Evidence that contract managers are in place who understand the contract.

6.11 Management - Are there business contingency and continuity arrangements and plans that aim to minimise the impact on the business in the event of major problems during implementation and rollout? Has this been approved by key stakeholders.

Evidence:

Risk assessment.
Business continuity plans including rollback arrangements.
Data security plan and strategy is in place.
Evidence of approval by key stakeholders.

6.12 Management - Is the organisation ready for business change?

Evidence:

Staff are well prepared and trained.
Evidence plans for business preparation and the operational phases are in place.
The Project should demonstrate that it has a detailed understanding of the impact it will have on the business and a detailed plan for the business change that will be required to deliver the project outcomes.
Evidence that a change impact assessment has been completed to ensure that the change is not going to stretch the organisation too far.

6.13 Management - Does the reporting and reporting structure support robust and timely decision making?

Evidence:

Evidence that evaluation findings, including interim findings, are aligned to key delivery decision points to support better decision-making.
Evidence of comprehensive management of reports and the use of technology where possible to improve information over time.
A mature suite of interconnected reports are maintained where content and insights are identifiable across the suite.
Reports are received by the right individuals/boards or groups to facilitate timely decision-making.
Reports are continually reviewed, focussed to support key organisational decision making and strategy and evolve as improved information or technology becomes available.
Reports should highlight progress to date, whether the current work scope is likely to be completed to plan, prevailing risks and issues and any decisions or direction required.
Reporting should include commentary on the overall risk profile, assessment of key risks (inherent and residual) and the effectiveness of mitigating actions.
Planned vs actual expenditure/ activity up to FBC has been in line with previous plans.

6.14 Management – Is the project founded upon realistic timescales, taking account of statutory lead times, and showing critical dependencies (including external) such that any delays can be handled?

Evidence:

Key planning assumptions documented and signed off.
Risks identified, and suitable allowances/contingencies included to cover possible deviations from key planning assumptions.
Interviewees have a consistent understanding of the schedule challenges.
Clear path to delivery with limited dependencies.
Risk allowance included for any key assumptions.
No imposed changes expected to the agreed schedule.
The supply chain is incentivised to deliver on time.
Assess the adequacy of the time for testing, commissioning and system integration.
Key handover criteria defined in construction contracts.

6.15 Management – Is there an implementation plan with clear milestones and handover phases identified? Is there an implementation strategy?

Evidence:

Signed off implementation strategy that is aligned with contractual requirements for key suppliers.

6.16 Management – Does the monitoring and evaluation plan include all necessary indicators and methods of collection and analysis?

Evidence:

Evidence that the monitoring and evaluation plan includes indicators to capture in a meaningful way the economic, social, environmental and climate benefits of the initiative. For climate mitigation and adaptation, projects can refer to the most recent CCC list of key indicators for adaptation and mitigation or to their departmental and wider Government commitments and relevant metrics on sustainability, climate mitigation, adaptation or the environment.
Evidence that a system and processes are in place to monitor, report and use GHG emissions data from project implementation stages such as PAS2080 or similar as advised in the Construction Playbook.
Where relevant, projects are encouraged to draw on existing SDG indicators (if closely aligned and fit for purpose).
Where indicators are being developed for monitoring the project, there should be a consideration 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.

6.17 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.

6.18 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.

6.19 Management – Does the project have the capability to deliver the project?

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.

6.20 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.

6.21 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 be clearly demonstrated and must have gone through formal change controls.

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

Evidence:

The project should demonstrate that it has conducted a lessons learnt exercise pre-gate 3 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.

6.23 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 Log.
Project risks are identified through engagement with stakeholders and articulated in terms of servery, 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.

6.24 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.

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

Evidence:

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

6.26 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.
Projects and programmes are expected to demonstrate that they have a project office in their project organisation.

Infrastructure Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 General – Is the project planning to publish a summary of its business case in line with requirements set out in the National Infrastructure Strategy?

Evidence:

All Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) infrastructure and construction projects must publish a summary of their business case within four months of receiving final approval from HMT

1.2 Strategic – How are off-site construction methods being applied in this programme and project?

Evidence:

Project team demonstrates the use of digital technologies and standardisation of assets e.g. the adoption of best practice from the manufacturing sector, such as off-site construction.
Evidence that off-site construction methods have been considered by the project team.

1.3 Strategic – How has the project explored opportunities for incorporating emerging digital and manufacturing technologies, such as Artificial Technology (AI) and smart sensors?

Evidence:

Evidence of consideration for the use of emerging digital and manufacturing technologies in their work.

2.1 Strategic – Has the project completed a Project Outcome Profile to assess how the programme/project 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 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 projects benefit forecasts.
Earned value reporting should be embedded.
A project risk register should exist. The project Quantitative Cost Risk Analysis (QCRA) should be regularly updated to provide an up to date contingency drawdown curve to support monthly progress meetings.

3.1 Commercial – How is the supply chain being incentivised to use emerging digital and manufacturing technologies to achieve for example increased productivity and whole life requirements?

Evidence:

Demonstrating the use of collaborative business models.
Integrated supply chain management practices creating skilled jobs in manufacturing and digital design.
Regular consultation with supply chain and delivery partners.

3.2 Commercial – What operational performance and contract management system will be employed as the asset goes into service?

Evidence:

Evaluation of available systems and input (including sign off) from the SRO and appropriate governance received.
Evidence of performance indicators.
Operations and maintenance requirements have been appropriately incorporated into sponsor requirements.

3.3 Commercial – How will the supplier ensure that the facility is safe to operate and maintain?

Evidence:

Information on how the assets are being satisfactorily maintained, especially the ‘hidden’ ones such as mechanical and electrical systems.
Plans for the delivery of maintenance over the lifecycle of the asset.
Clear plans to meet or exceed sustainability targets met or exceeded.
Plans and methodology for assessing customer/stakeholder experience and satisfaction.

4.1 Financial – Are cost estimates robust and benchmarked? How has the programme/project assured themselves that the baseline is credible and how is this implemented?

Evidence:

The cost estimates are underpinned by a bottom-up approach supported by a clear set of signed off assumptions. The Project should demonstrate how the original Cost Model compares to the estimates submitted by the bidders and the Preferred Bidder.
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 P90.
For the largest schemes, it is expected to see independent assurance on the processes used to derive cost estimates plus benchmarking to validate against national/ international comparators.
Regular reports are produced which detail S curves and the project’s spend profile, the reports should also detail risks and proposed contingencies.
A top down benchmarking exercise has been completed to validate the cost estimate.
There may be benchmarking between suppliers on the scheme or benchmarking between similar national/ international comparators. May include unit cost comparison (e.g. £/ km or per asset e.g. viaducts).
A ‘bottom-up’ benchmarking exercise has been carried out to validate the key rates & pricing. This should also consider indirect costs e.g. overall project management/ oversight.

5.1 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.

5.2 Management – Is the project planning to enter service cautiously and is it clear who is accountable for making the decision to commission?

Evidence: 

Clear approach to transition, traced through to the Management Case.
Clear evidence on supplier responsibilities for commissioning, testing and go live.
May consider 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, a good example being that of the West Coast Partnership vis a vis the testing, commissioning and handover of HS2.
The end user perspective is considered when making decisions.
Service entry has been considered from early in the life cycle.
There are appropriate resources/capabilities in place to start this phase.

5.3 Management: Planning regimes – have the impact of planning/ consents been appropriately reflected in the schedule?

Evidence:

Comprehensive plan detailing considerations for planning regime and consent.
Planning permissions/ consents included in the timeline.
Sufficient time allowed for approvals.
Performed QSRA, clear pinch points are identified. The risks informing the critical path are understood.

5.4 Management – For transport projects, do plans go beyond the construction of the civil works?

Evidence:

Evidence of plans for e.g. rolling stock, system integration, commissioning, concession/ franchise appointment, phased introduction including key pinch points for operations like timetable changes.

5.5 Management: Commissioning – has the project planned from right to left to consider the impact of the commissioning regime (particularly from regulators) to ensure safety and readiness for operation?

Evidence:

Comprehensive plan detailing commissioning regimes (where appropriate).
Evidence that data security is being delivered inline with Government Digital Services (GDS).

5.6 Management – Have the results of the surveys, trials, tests and pilots been evaluated? Do they show positive results?

Evidence:

Surveying is a particular key for construction works (i.e. regular site surveys, ground condition surveys, environmental/ asbestos surveys).
Surveying reports should demonstrate trial testing has taken place and shows positive results.
Lessons learned, identified and evidence that the approach has been varied where previous problems have arisen.

Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence

1. Strategic

1.1 Strategic – Do people and staff own and advocate the vision? And are they strongly motivated to achieve shared outcomes?

Evidence:

Case studies from project employees.
Feedback from the project team.
Feedback from users impacted by the changes.
Criteria, principles, prioritisation etc., can be traced back through the vision.
Do those impacted understand how and why their roles/services will change.

1.2 Strategic – What is the impact on the customer experience and journey? How has this been assessed?

Evidence:

A plan to understand how customer/user experience and journey can be measured.
Positive employee engagement/results of surveys i.e. customer satisfaction surveys.

1.3 Strategic – How well is the project collaborating across boundaries?

Evidence:

The project is actively working across departments, government, private sector, third sector to meet outcomes.
Regular stakeholder analysis leading to building of relationships and refining delivery models as a result.
Change plans/operating models align across the department, government
Joint decisions being made?
Roles reflect the need for collaboration across boundaries?
Collaborative behaviours displayed at all levels?
The solution has been validated through collaboration with relevant stakeholders (citizen or use).
Decisions, designs etc., has been changed on the basis of stakeholder feedback.

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

Evidence:

The outcomes and benefits have each been trialled, tested and piloted.
The Project should be able to demonstrate that the benefits and options are robust, and not resting on preconceived notions.

1.5 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.

1.6 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.
Any updates to the design are clearly reflected in overall updates to time, cost and benefit projections.

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? What is the quick wins or early benefit approach? How effective has this been to date?

Evidence:

Evidence of ‘good practice’ e.g. what they used to define benefits, compelling benefits case (including optimism bias):
Benefits are clearly stated.
Initial plan for realising and evaluating delivery of benefits, showing costs offset (e.g. improved quality of service and/or savings over the project’s expected life).
Critical success factors for the project are still valid, and agreed with stakeholders.

2.2 Economic – Is the project delivering releasable savings or service improvements? If releasable savings how are they ensuring they are met?

Evidence:

A comprehensive plan outlining where and how efficiency savings will be made.
An assessment of the change resource and capital needed to deliver the plan is completed.
An assessment of the BAU resource required just to keep operating is completed.
Are the plan and savings clearly tied to the detailed design and overall vision.

3.1 Financial – How is the project managing uncertainty and how has contingency been approached in the financial model?

Evidence:

Financial forecasts have been adjusted to take into account iterative working cycles. An iterative approach has been used for financial planning and the management of benefits.
There is quantification of outputs from each iteration of their financial planning and management of benefits – In agile software development Story Points can be used.
There is an application of rules around the cost of an iteration. For example, each iteration is a fixed time period, uses a fixed team size and produces a fixed number of Story Points as outputs. So productivity is fixed. Implementation of these measures serve to install some level of control and certainty around the iterations. In turn they can feed into more certain financial planning in an iterative context.

Evidence:

Technology failure risks are built into the risk register.
Risks regarding cyber-attacks and changes to technology used by the department are built into the risk register.
Wider consideration for funding of ongoing improvements and maintenance of the service after go-live should be in place at this stage.

3.3 Financial – Are the impacts on other teams, the wider department and broad stakeholder groups accounted for and costed?

Evidence:

Impact assessments agreed at the right level.
Articulation of how transformational change aligns with the wider strategy.
The change elements of the project (comms, training, etc.) properly costed and accounted for with appropriate attention paid to them in the business case.
Run costs of these changes and other Operating Model changes have been properl2y budgeted for.

4.1 Management – Has the project used the 7 lenses approach to frame the Transformation conversation? Does the project understand its maturity level? Is there a realistic improvement plan and is it being actioned?

Evidence:

Evidence that the project makes use of the 7 lenses (vision, Design, Plan, Transformational Leadership, Collaboration, Accountability and People).
Evidence 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 early on in the lifecycle can decide to prioritise and focus on the Vision, Design and Plan first, instead of focussing on all 7 ‘lenses’.

4.2 Management – How is the user perspective being considered?

Evidence:

Stakeholder communication plan and stakeholder maps include user engagement.
There is consistency in messaging to users, regular events/meetings are facilitated to drive a coherent approach.
Users understand what is required of them and where they could access help.
There is evidence that the Design Authority (or equivalent) is operational and is playing a key role in ensuring that user perspective continues to be core to the project and that core design principles are not breached as things are changed and adapted.

4.3 Management – What new stakeholders come into play as the Target Operating Model (TOM) changes as a consequence of the digital transformation? What is the planned approach for engaging with these new stakeholders?

Evidence:

Stakeholder management plan should be in place to understand which stakeholders are required for the TOM. The plan should detail the approach to engaging with these stakeholders and the most effective form of engagement
There should be evidence that Business Stakeholders are engaged, understand and are brought into the change journey.
The TOM shows that the right people are in place, the processes (underpinned with the technology solution) are described, evidence the culture supports this.
There should be evidence that the Project has taken into consideration the time required to adapt to the new system.
There should be a clear people plan with clear dependency mapping between people and technical elements (which has been validated with key stakeholders).
Evidence that the design is well rounded e.g., equal detail for technical and people elements rather than focusing particularly on areas that the design/ project team are strongest on.

4.4 Management – Does the TOM reflect the vision?

Evidence:

Evidence that the Project Team can clearly trace the design decisions back to the vision.
Evidence that the design decisions align to priorities and principles driven from the vision.

4.5 Management – Has the Project considered different ways to deliver the TOM and assessed options robustly?

Evidence:

Evidence that the Project has identified opportunities to deliver early benefits in the order of delivery.
Evidence that the Project is looking to iterate and improve as they go and gain real world data.

4.6 Management – Does the detailed delivery timetable and plan account for the combination of 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.
The plan should differentiate between immovable and flexible targets. Keeping flexibility in order to adapt the plan to emerging changes in the design vs maintaining key milestones and managing more immoveable targets such as people moves.

Defence Specific Questions and Evidence

1.1 Economic – Are benefits to the UK industry identified and does the military capability align with industrial strategies?

Evidence:

Internal agreements are in place where required between other parts of Defence and/or other parts of Government.
Wider UK benefits are identified and communicated with the wider government bodies.

2.1 Commercial – Have the technical integration risks been adequately scoped and managed? Do the risks of procuring new bespoke equipment really outweigh the benefits of pursuing lower risk, off-the shelf options?

Evidence:

Evidence that the risks are understood and there is appropriate contingency should they manifest.

2.2 Commercial – Are the necessary international agreements still 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 have requirements (both functional and non-functional) been identified and prioritised? Are the functional and non-functional requirements achievable inside the scope/ affordability envelope of the project?

Evidence:

Functional and non-functional requirements are defined and prioritised (e.g. MOSCOW).
A broad range of stakeholders have been consulted on the identification and prioritisation of requirements.
Security standards are clearly defined and proportionate to the nature of the activity required.
Activities are in place to ensure that the requirements and their prioritisation is reviewed and adjusted on an ongoing basis.
The requirements are reflected in the procurement.
The business case is in line with the documented requirements i.e. confirmation that non-functional requirements are achievable within the financial envelope.

1.2 Strategic – What is the impact on the customer experience and journey? How has this been assessed?

Evidence:

A plan to understand how customer experience and journey can be measured.

2.1 Economic – Has the benefits management approach been flexed to accommodate the use of emerging technologies?

Evidence:

The project makes use of flexible technology components and platforms to create an environment where emerging technologies can be used and integrated at scale.
Technology standards are in place to protect the user (benefits).
Best practice with regards to the specific emerging technology has been shared.

3.1 Financial – Does the project budget include security as a specific item?

Evidence:

Security is a separate line in the budget.
The estimate for security is a bottom-up approach and appropriate assumptions are in place to support the build-up of the budget.

4.1 Management – If Agile, how has the governance of the project been adapted to support agile delivery? Have the boundaries for the agile teams been defined, with appropriate controls?

Evidence:

Defined governance to support the project team has been rolled out and established. This is to ensure agile delivery is supported.
The boundaries for an agile team should be defined and agreed with the SRO. This should be communicated to the wider team. To support this, appropriate controls are in place to enable the agile teams to deliver at pace.

4.2 Management – Is the project developed and managed to ensure it aligns to the agreed design or Minimum Viable Product?

Evidence:

A high level design has been completed and approved by the appropriate stakeholders and is under document change control.
The high level design includes architecture principles that provide the project with the boundaries within which they are able to operate.
The High level design defines the Minimum Viable Product to a sufficient level of detail to support the Product Owner objectives and guide the project.
A design authority is established with a clear ‘terms of reference’ and process for impact assessing any changes to the high level design or Minimum Viable Product.

4.3 Management – If Agile, are project team members trained in Agile and are they able to operate within an Agile methodology?

Evidence:

Clear RACI in place.
Training provided to the project team members where necessary to ensure they are able to deliver in their role.
An Agile methodology is clearly documented and accessible to all team members.

4.4 Management – How is the project applying Government Digital Services (GDS) Design Principles?

Evidence:

Clear explanation of how the project has approached these design principles.
GDS assessment that principles are being applied.

4.5 Management – How is the project complying with the GDS Technology Code of Practice?

Evidence:

This should be documented as part of the Business Case or spend approval controls.
Close engagement with GDS.

4.6 Management – How is the project following the GDS Service Standard?

Evidence:

Clear explanation of how the project has applied the Service Standard requirements.
GDS assessment that Service Standard is being met.

4.7 Management: Data/information migration – is there a clear plan for migrating data/information into/from the solution at inception/cut over?

Evidence:

Data Strategy, which includes a Data migration plan, data migration scripts and plans for data integration and data sharing.

4.8 Management – How has the testing plan been developed and approved? Does it appropriately address the risks and is it fully resourced?

Evidence:

Approved end to end testing plan should be agreed and in place covering both functional and nonfunctional requirements.
Test plan covers Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT), User Acceptance Testing (UAT), system integration testing, data testing, plus non-functional aspects such as penetration testing, disaster recovery and performance.
Severity ratings are defined and used consistently.
Tolerances are defined e.g. for number of defects, severity or use of workarounds (e.g. cannot go live with Sev 1 defects). May need to cover both positive and negative testing.
The testing is taking place in line with the planned approach (i.e. consistent coverage with no significant omissions).

4.9 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 Beta phase the team is capable of demonstrating that they have the skills and capabilities in place to make frequent iterations based on regular user testing.

4.10 Management – Is the project operating at a manageable pace to achieve the planned sprints?

Evidence:

Sprints are planned with appropriate effort limits applied.
Agile working arrangements are documented and include a delivery plan.
Resource plans/capacity charts exist and accurately reflect the commitments from all team members.

5.1 Other: Data – Accuracy and Quality of Data/Information – is the data/information within the outputs and within associated systems of records/documents accurate/of good quality? (Timely, of an appropriate granularity etc.)

Evidence:

Tools and processes for measuring and correcting data quality.
Master data catalogues, clear ownership of master data domains and rules/processes on CRUD (create, read, update, delete).
Evidence of data management, governance and security considerations.

Question 3

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 Outline Business Case (OBC) approved by the Departmental Investment Committee and HMT.
A draft Greenbook compliant Full Business Case (FBC) which has been reviewed by the business stakeholders and agreed in principle subject to the addition of the costs of the winning supplier(s) once the procurement(s) have finished ahead of submission for internal investment committee approval and HMT submission.
A Project Execution Document (PED) which includes the following:
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;
Contingency plans;
Detailed planning;
Project quality plans;
Security management and disaster recovery plans;
Performance management plan;
Assurance documentation; and
Benefits Strategy.
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.
Benefits Realisation Plan which outlines all of the required activities needed to achieve the planned benefits. It should identify the timeline, tools and resources necessary to ensure the benefits are fully realised overtime and include the associated assumptions and how each benefit will be achieved.
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.
The Project should supply the last three months of Project Executive Reporting and Board Papers.
The contract between the department and the supplier(s).
Spend control forms.
Advice received from Government Legal Department, Government Digital Service and Government Commercial Function.
Tender Evaluation Report which includes a comprehensive evaluation plan and scoring method for the procurement with the right representation from the business in the evaluation.
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.
Contract Management and Service Management Plan which outline how the live service operation will work, the target operating model, the role of the supplier(s) and how the suppliers will be managed in live service.
Test Commissioning Plans which demonstrate that all new system/service/business process testing and commissioning procedures are completed. It should include the Test Strategy and Plan.
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.
Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan.
Last quarterly GMPP return.

Note: only required if changes have been made since the last review. If changes have been made, evidence of change control is required.

Accounting Officer Assessment.
Risk Potential Assessment.
Signed SRO Appointment Letter.
Business and technical policies.

Question 4

Supporting Guidance

Accepted Answer

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 3 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook

Decision

Purpose of the Gate 3 Review

Assessment of the Proposed Solution

Core Questions and Evidence

1. General

1.1 General - How realistic and integrated is the business case?

2. Strategic

2.1 Strategic – Is there a clear link between the project and the organisation’s key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success?

2.2 Strategic – How has policy and strategic alignment, including at cross-departmental network or system level, been considered?

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

3. Economic

3.1 Economic – Does the project have a Green Book–compliant Outlined Business Case (OBC) and a draft Full Business Case (FBC)?

3.2 Economic – Is there an agreed benefits realisation plan built using good practice and including optimism bias?

3.3 Economic - Does the project have a fully-costed, robust evaluation plan to assess whether the project has successfully delivered its stated outcomes?

3.4 Economic - To avoid ‘loss of value’ – Have the original intended benefits been considered as part of any change control process (for example by using a Project Outcome Profile)?

4.1 Commercial - Does the commercial arrangement represent value for money, with an appropriate level of quality over the whole life of the project?

4.2 Commercial - Is there evidence the supplier’s funding is all in place? Is the project able to demonstrate there is little or no exposure of public funds or additional financial burden?

4.3 Commercial - Have suitable stakeholders, business and end user representatives been involved and have they approved the tender evaluation report and draft contract?

4.4 Commercial – Are the service management plan, administration and service level agreements complete and is the client ready for delivery and implementation?

4.5 Commercial - Are the sector suppliers experienced? Is the project able to demonstrate the supplier resources are skilled, available and that they get the right support?

4.6 Commercial - Is supplier resilience considered from a cross-government perspective or just from a project perspective?

4.7 Commercial - Is there a reliance on one contractor?

4.8 Commercial - Is there a contract in place to support the equipment, asset or service? – Operations and maintenance with appropriate KPIs to provide through life support to the capability?

4.9 Commercial - Are the procurement needs aligned to the contracting strategy? Has the project team recognised the need for contracts to be sufficiently flexible, especially for ‘first of its kind’ or long-term projects?

4.10 Commercial - Does the project understand how the project sits within the overall portfolio of the government? Does the project have a good understanding of what this means for the supply chain.

5.1 Finance - Does the project have a comprehensive financial management process in place?

5.2 Financial - Is the evaluation based on whole-life value for money, taking account of capital, maintenance and service costs and does it:

5.3 Financial - Are all resources and internal funds (the ‘client-side budget’) in place?

5.4 Financial - How has the project approached cost baselining?

5.5 Financial - Does the financial case consider, where applicable, potential changes to the financial model due to carbon pricing or other changes in the cost of financing (e.g. risk of stranded assets)?

6.2 Management - Is there alignment of the outcomes of the project and has this been agreed by key stakeholders?

6.3 Management - Does the project have a deep understanding of the live service operation, service management and supplier management approach, and have plans to stand up the required capability as part of the project?

6.4 Management - Is there a robust delivery strategy in place and has this been agreed by key stakeholders?

6.5 Management - Is there an effective governance structure with clearly aligned goals and incentives?

6.6 Management – Does the project have an effective Sponsor function in place? Is the project able to demonstrate the interface and roles and responsibilities between the SRO/Sponsor/Accounting Officer (AO) (Arms Length Body (ALB)/Department)?

6.7 Management - Does the project have resources with, where required, the appropriate skills and experience?

6.8 Management - How is the project managing the risks overall including in relation to resource constraints and overall market capacity? This is particularly relevant for novel technology.

6.9 Management - Does the project management team have a clear view of the interdependencies between projects, the benefits, and the criteria against which success will be judged?

6.10 Management - Is the delivery body ready to stand up and move into delivery?

6.11 Management - Are there business contingency and continuity arrangements and plans that aim to minimise the impact on the business in the event of major problems during implementation and rollout? Has this been approved by key stakeholders.

6.12 Management - Is the organisation ready for business change?

6.13 Management - Does the reporting and reporting structure support robust and timely decision making?

6.14 Management – Is the project founded upon realistic timescales, taking account of statutory lead times, and showing critical dependencies (including external) such that any delays can be handled?

6.15 Management – Is there an implementation plan with clear milestones and handover phases identified? Is there an implementation strategy?

6.16 Management – Does the monitoring and evaluation plan include all necessary indicators and methods of collection and analysis?

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

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

6.19 Management – Does the project have the capability to deliver the project?

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

6.21 Management – Does the project have a clearly defined architecture?

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

6.23 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?

6.24 Management – Has the project used robust planning and estimation techniques?

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

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

1.1 General – Is the project planning to publish a summary of its business case in line with requirements set out in the National Infrastructure Strategy?

1.2 Strategic – How are off-site construction methods being applied in this programme and project?

2.1 Strategic – Has the project completed a Project Outcome Profile to assess how the programme/project will contribute to government’s priority outcomes as set out in the Public Value Framework?

3.1 Commercial – How is the supply chain being incentivised to use emerging digital and manufacturing technologies to achieve for example increased productivity and whole life requirements?

3.2 Commercial – What operational performance and contract management system will be employed as the asset goes into service?

3.3 Commercial – How will the supplier ensure that the facility is safe to operate and maintain?

4.1 Financial – Are cost estimates robust and benchmarked? How has the programme/project assured themselves that the baseline is credible and how is this implemented?

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

5.2 Management – Is the project planning to enter service cautiously and is it clear who is accountable for making the decision to commission?

5.3 Management: Planning regimes – have the impact of planning/ consents been appropriately reflected in the schedule?

5.4 Management – For transport projects, do plans go beyond the construction of the civil works?

5.5 Management: Commissioning – has the project planned from right to left to consider the impact of the commissioning regime (particularly from regulators) to ensure safety and readiness for operation?

5.6 Management – Have the results of the surveys, trials, tests and pilots been evaluated? Do they show positive results?

Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence

1. Strategic

1.1 Strategic – Do people and staff own and advocate the vision? And are they strongly motivated to achieve shared outcomes?