Guidance

Gate 4 Review: Readiness for Service

Updated 20 August 2026

Introduction to the Gate Review Process 

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 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 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 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 s 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. 

NetZero and climate adaptation as part of the gate review process 

For the first time, the Gate Review Workbooks include tests for NetZero 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. 

Gate 4 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook 

This Gate Review Workbook supports the Gate 4 Review: Readiness for Service. This Gate Review investigates the organisation’s readiness to make the transition from the specification/solution to implementation and to ‘go live’. Where appropriate it will assess the capabilities of delivery partners and service providers. 

The emphasis of the Gate 4 review is to ensure that the project is well advanced in the planning for the end of the project, and that all normal and standard operating considerations, funding and commercial dimensions, are now well established. 

Readiness for Service 

The Gate 3 Review: Investment Decision covered the activity up to contract signature or agreement to place work with an existing supplier or partner. This Gate Review focuses on: 

• Whether the solution is robust before implementation and meets the agreed policy and strategic need 

• How ready the organisation is to implement the business changes that occur before and after delivery 

• Confirming that the contract management arrangements are in place or being arranged 

• Whether there is a robust plan for evaluating ongoing performance/impact  

For property/construction projects, this Gate Review takes place after the project has been approved as ready for use. Commissioning will have taken place, although this will not be completed until after occupation, as systems are re-balanced to take account of the effect of occupancy. 

For IT-enabled projects, this Gate Review takes place after all testing, including business integration and business assurance testing, has been completed and before rollout or release into production. 

Purpose of the Gate 4 Review 

The purpose of the Gate 4 Review is to: 

• Check that the current phase of the contract is properly completed and commercial documentation is completed; 

• Ensure that the contractual arrangements are up-to-date; 

• Check that the Business Case is still valid and unaffected by internal and external events or changes; 

• Check that the original projected business benefit is likely to be achieved, that they can be realised in the wider system and that the project will still deliver the policy and strategic intent; 

• Ensure that there are processes and procedures to ensure long-term success of the project as it transitions into business as usual (BAU); 

• Confirm that processes and reporting requirements for monitoring operational performance against agreed and contracted measures, such as energy efficiency, water usage, climate resilience, apprenticeships and jobs are in place; 

• Confirm that all necessary testing is done (e.g. commissioning of buildings, business integration and user acceptance testing) to the client’s satisfaction and that the client is ready to approve implementation; 

• Check that there are feasible and tested business contingency, continuity and/or reversion arrangements in place; 

• Ensure that all ongoing dependencies, risks and issues are being managed effectively and do not threaten implementation; 

• Evaluate the risk of proceeding with the implementation where there are any unresolved issues – this must include for the wider system as well as the project; 

• Confirm the business has the necessary resources and that it is ready to implement the services and the business change – this should include timely delivery of other enabling projects or initiatives; 

• Confirm that the client and supplier implementation plans are still achievable; 

• Confirm that there are management and organisational controls to manage the project through implementation and operation; 

• Confirm that contract management arrangements are in place to manage the operational phase of the contract; 

• Confirm arrangements for handover of the project from the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) to the operational business owner; 

• Confirm that all parties have agreed plans for training, communication, rollout, production release and support as required; 

• Confirm that all parties have agreed plans for managing risk; 

• Confirm that there are client-side plans for managing the working relationship, with reporting arrangements at appropriate levels in the organisation, reciprocated on the supplier side; 

• Confirm information assurance accreditation/certification; 

• Confirm that defects or incomplete works are identified and recorded – with a plan to remediate them; 

• Check that lessons for future projects are identified and recorded; and  

• Confirm that there are proportionate evaluation plans in place ahead of delivery commencing and that these plans have been resourced appropriately. 

Assessment of the Proposed Solution 

Core Questions and Evidence 

Each question is presented with its category and indicative evidence. 

1. Strategic Case  

1.1 Strategic – Does the project still align with the Outcome Delivery Plan and wider strategy? 

Evidence: 

• The project should demonstrate: departmental network and system level 

• 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. 

1.2 Strategic – Is the buy-in and approval of a defined set of objectives linked to the Departmental strategy? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence benefits are linked to the departmental strategy 

• Evidence benefits are signed off by the leadership and SRO 

1.3 Strategic – How do the design and build stage performance outcomes compare to the intended outcomes for this stage? 

Evidence: 

• Ensure that the design and build stage outcomes are reflected upon the original planned outcome at the stage in the project. Where different, ensure that lessons have been learned and documented and shared with wider projects where appropriate. If outcomes have changed, the project should demonstrate that the consequences have been understood. 

1.4 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 

• 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 

2.1 Economic – Does the project have a Green Book compliant Full Business Case (FBC) approved by the Department Investment Committee and HM Treasury? 

Evidence: 

• The project should demonstrate tangible evidence that the SRO and the senior leaders in the departments believe in the delivery model.  

• 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 evaluation and benefits realisation plan is consistent with the wider project plan (e.g. milestones are aligned). 

• 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 – Is there collaboration with wider internal and external stakeholders on benchmark driven performance and productivity improvement? 

Evidence: 

• Industry wide meetups happen regularly to share and collaborate on benchmark driven performance and productivity improvement. 

• Comms from industry wide meetups are shared with the wider team to benchmark performance and enhance productivity improvement. 

• There are regular events/benchmarking ‘clubs’ with related digital platforms used for sharing common frameworks and standards. 

2.3 Economic – Does the project have a fully costed, robust evaluation plan to assess whether the project is successfully delivering its stated outcomes? 

Evidence: 

• An updated, completed proportionate and signed-off evaluation plan which assesses the impact of the programme’s stated outcomes is in place. 

• The programme has a clear theory of change in place. 

• The project has logged its evaluation plans on the Evaluation Registry. 

• SRO has identified an evaluation lead for the programme. 

• The project has consulted with stakeholders about evaluation and their acceptance of the proposed approach is documented. Including the consequences if they are delivering less than was initially built into the case. 

2.4 Economic – Is there a process to manage and measure benefits? 

Evidence: 

• A benefits management plan is in place which is aligned to the full evaluation plan. 

• Means of measuring benefits agreed with service providers/partners. 

• For collaborative projects, all parties understand and agree their responsibilities and arrangements for benefits realisation. 

• The SRO has identified the business owner for the operational service, where applicable. All changes should be clearly understood and signed off.  

• The SRO has identified and agreed the critical success factors with the business owner. 

• Handover responsibilities and arrangements documented and agreed by both parties.  

• The project should demonstrate that there is a clear, resourced structure in place to measure benefits and governance around benefits management. 

• The project should demonstrate that the benefits strategy, financial and non-financial benefits have been approved by the impacted business areas. 

• Financial benefits should be defined as either cashable or non-cashable. 

• Cashable benefits should be allocated to business units, and scheduled to come off of their budgets in financial forecasts when the benefits are due. 

• The project should ensure:  

• Benefits are clearly stated. They should consider tangible/intangible and cashable/non-cashable. May be appropriate to consider disbenefits as well. 

• There is a detailed plan for the evaluation and realisation of benefits. 

• Benefits are Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Timely (SMART  

• Benefits calculations include the potential impact of macroeconomic factors that could impact them during delivery and operational life cycle.  

• There is 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. 

2.5 Economic – Are the benefits management activities supported and driven by real information? Are they integrated into other project management activities as much as possible? 

Evidence: 

• Benefits are defined and benchmarked. 

• Benefits are SMART. 

• Benefits are aligned to Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) categories. 

• There are clear, resourced structures in place to measure benefits and governance around benefits management. 

2.6 Economic – Has the project conducted business justification to confirm benefits can be realised and that risks can be managed within the organisation’s risk appetite? 

Evidence: 

• Benefits and risks are regularly reviewed with the appropriate Governance forums. 

• Unjustified work is terminated. 

3. Commercial 

3.1 Commercial – Have any changes to the contract been previously forecast, accurately recorded and approved? 

Evidence: 

• Issues and ongoing costs relating to maintenance (of buildings and/or IT infrastructure and applications as appropriate) monitored against expectations and addressed. 

3.2 Commercial – Is the long-term contract management process in place? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence the project teams have suitable qualified personnel managing the contract. Subsequently, be able to provide evidence that they are managing the contract effectively and efficiently utilising the contractual levers to guarantee the department is maximising the potential of the contract. 

• Evidence of the value of the partnership and how the partnership will work long term. 

• The project should demonstrate: 

• That contract management arrangements are fully in place, and catered for in both the supplier contract(s) and the live service operating model. 

• The supplier contract(s) have been awarded. 

• The supplier contracts have been executed. 

• That unsuccessful suppliers have been correctly notified.  

• That executed contracts have been uploaded onto contract finder.  

• That suppliers have been on boarded and are delivering against the contract. 

• That a robust contract management process is in place and suppliers are being managed against SLAs. 

• The supplier is delivering in line with contracted deliverables to the desired level of quality and to time.  

• That suitable qualified personnel are managing the contract effectively and efficiently. Utilising the contractual levers to guarantee the department is maximising the potential of the contract.  

• Delivery and handover risks are clearly understood by all parties involved and risk management responsibilities are agreed.  

• The client side team (intelligent customer) is fully established, supporting project delivery and ready to receive the service from the project team 

• The contract management and live service arrangements should include:  

• Arrangements for managing single/ multiple suppliers.  

• Where multiple suppliers are appointed detailed processes are in place to manage the interfaces. 

• 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. 

3.3 Commercial – Is the organisation ready to manage the contract in the operational environment? 

Evidence: 

• A bottom up person power plan with corresponding assumptions should be in place. 

• Evidence the commercial team is in place to manage the operational environment with appropriate capacity/capability. 

3.4 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. 

3.5 Commercial – Has the supplier performance and quality been monitored and accepted after verification against the contractual requirements? 

Evidence: 

• A contract management system and process is in place. 

• The suppliers performance is monitored frequently and progress updates on KPIs are shared between parties. 

4. Financial 

4.1 Financial – 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 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 – Does the project have a profiled budget in place showing opex and capex that has been approved by Department Finance? 

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 Departments Finance Director. 

• The Project and HMT have been in dialogue about the full business case and HMT and both the Department Finance Director and HMT have signed off the FBC. 

• Cabinet Office (CO) controls have been sighted on the FBC and the project has satisfied the CO controls teams commercial and technology spend control requirements. 

• That it is under control, and funds are being managed with agreed tolerances and transparent financial reporting is being produced. 

• The project should demonstrate that profiled budget is in place showing opex/capex expenditure that has been approved by Department Finance, including: 

• Budget provision; 

• Resource provision agreed; 

• Subsequent years’ expenditure included in project budgets; 

• Authorisation/approval process for payments to suppliers; 

• Process for expenditure reporting and reconciliation; 

• Insurances established by suppliers where required. 

4.3 Financial – Is the project under control? Is it running according to plan and budget? 

Evidence: 

• Reconciliations of cost with budget and actual schedule with planned schedule. 

• Updated risk register and issue log. 

• Status reports for communication and external relations activities. 

• Reports on environmental performance, where applicable. If not available, consequences are understood. 

• Compliance with statutory requirements (e.g. health and safety, data protection). 

• Contractual issues resolved and recorded.  

• Project controls are in place to monitor costs, risk, schedule and scope elements. 

4.4 Financial – Is the Business Case still valid and project still required? 

Evidence: 

• Updated project plan (and programme plan if appropriate) and Business Case justifying implementation: meeting business needs likely to deliver value for money, affordable and achievable, with implementation broken down into modules/increments where appropriate. 

• Evidence the project delivered the agreed benefits. 

• Evidence the project has no commercial bills outstanding and that all commercial agreements are closed. 

• Evidence that the business case has been maintained as a “living” document, not just for investment approval. 

4.5 Financial – What is the approach to whole life cycle performance management and performance of contractors? Have ongoing operation and maintenance been considered in detail? 

Evidence: 

• Issues and ongoing costs relating to maintenance (of buildings and/or IT infrastructure and applications as appropriate) monitored against expectations and addressed. 

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

• Responsibilities for ongoing performance management, beyond the lifecycle of the project, are clear and deliverable. 

5. Management 

5.1 Management – If there are unresolved issues, what are the risks of implementing rather than delaying? 

Evidence: 

• Project risk management strategy in place, developed in line with best practice.  

• Assessment of all remaining issues and risks, with responsibility for management of residual risks clearly defined. 

• Evaluation report on the risk and impact of cancelling, delaying or proceeding with implementation that considers: the project outcome and wider programme of change benefits realisation consequences for supplier, client, business, stakeholders, users, etc other factors such as financial outcome, political issues and delivery. 

• Options and management plans for all scenarios and a recommendation based on sensitivity analysis. 

• The Project Board has ratified the recommendation to delay or proceed with implementation. 

5.2 Management – Is the project ready to stand up a live-service? 

Evidence: 

• The project should demonstrate:  

• 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 is the project lead through the stages of testing, commissioning and entry into service. 

• It has used 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, SLAs and commercial management. 

• There is an intelligent client function (if appropriate).  

• The change control procedures (both technical and business) are defined, agreed and included in the contract(s).  

• There is a well articulated plan for implementing change and plans for handling future change. 

• Project risk management strategy in place and there is an evaluation report on the risk and impact of cancelling, delaying or proceeding with implementation that considers: the project outcome and wider programme of change, benefits realisation consequences for supplier, client, business, stakeholders, users, etc. other factors such as financial outcome, political issues and delivery. 

• Options and management plans for all scenarios and a recommendation based on sensitivity analysis. The Project Board has ratified the recommendation to delay or proceed with implementation. 

• The exit and disposal/decommission of the existing service (if replacement) has been fully planned and the plan agreed with the incumbent supplier(s). 

5.3 Management – Have all new system/service/business process testing and commissioning/acceptance (or transition) procedures been completed? 

Evidence: 

• Commissioning/test plans, results and analysis of products against acceptance criteria. 

• Commissioning/test results that conform to the pre-defined criteria. 

• Ratified test reports and logs. 

• Commissioning/testing team with relevant skills and experience. 

• Confirmed ‘end-to-end’ testing, including changed or new business processes.  

• Testing takes into account future modules or deliverables. 

• Missing or incomplete items and agreed corrective action documents in place. 

• Evidence that a rollback business continuity strategy is in place, which demonstrates that the blackout period is understood.  

• The results have been accepted by relevant stakeholders. 

5.4 Management – Does the total service or facility meet the acceptance criteria? 

Evidence: 

• Internal and external commitment to provide the resources required. 

• Job descriptions for key project staff are in place.  

• Skills appraisal and plans for addressing any shortfalls. 

• Appropriate allocation of key project roles between internal staff and consultants or contractors. 

5.5 Management – Is change management effective? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence of regular review of change management policies. 

• Evidence an approval process is in place. 

• Forward looking reviews that identify possible change. 

• The project can evidence that stakeholders are engaged. 

• 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. 

5.6 Management – Are there workable and tested business contingency, continuity and/or reversion plans for rollout, implementation and operation? 

Evidence: 

• Fully documented and timetabled decision paths for key aspects (eg go/no go decisions on rollout) with decision makers clearly identified and informed. 

• Where appropriate, plans should cover IT components as well as the business.  

• Endorsement by Project Board and supplier. 

• Listed roles and responsibilities, resources allocated and staff trained.  

• Commissioning/testing represented expected scenario(s).  

• Commissioning/test plans, results and analysis of products against acceptance criteria.  

• Commissioning/test results that conform to the pre-defined criteria.  

• Plans for transition to new ways of working, where applicable.  

• Plans for handover to facilities management, where applicable.  

• Training plans and relevant supporting material, if required plans for a user support helpdesk, where applicable. 

5.7 Management – Can the organisation implement the new services and maintain existing services? 

Evidence: 

• Resource plan, showing: capacity and capability resources available to meet commitments. Would expect to see relevant risks for capacity, ongoing operational performance etc in the risk register.  

• 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. 

5.8 Management – Is the project planning to enter service cautiously? 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.  

• Potentially 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 have been embedded into the planning for this stage of the project from the outset. 

5.9 Management – Is the end user perspective considered when making decisions? 

Evidence: 

• The go-live approach has been refined based on user feedback engagement. 

• User groups engaged which, are reflective of the user community.  

• There is a clear approach to engagement and training, reflected in the plan, resourced and cost. 

5.10 Management – Is there a robust delivery strategy in place? 

Evidence: 

• The Project should demonstrate a clear delivery strategy showing:  

• Evidence that key factors influencing the delivery strategy have been identified and the impact has been 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 Department, CO and HMT. Clear documentation of sponsoring department, HMT, CO 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. 

• The delivery strategy should include, as appropriate: 

• Description of the key objectives, constraints (e.g. timescale), funding mechanism and risk allocation. 

• The delivery route (how the strategy will be achieved), including sourcing options and contracting strategy; procurement procedure (e.g. Competitive Dialogue or Negotiated). 

• Time plan to include timetable laid down by procurement regulations, 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. 

• Sustainability issues have been considered. 

5.11 Management – Has the delivery stage complied with the environmental, climate resilience and sustainability targets and standards defined as part of the preferred option and commercial agreement? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence of the record of environmental, climate and sustainability aspects defined as part of the preferred solution and agreed as part of the commercial agreement(s). 

• Evidence of any changes to the delivery and how these changes have affected the agreed environmental, climate and sustainability targets. 

• Evidence of any implications (positive or negative) for the benefits case. 

5.12 Management – Is the approach for business change articulated in a business change management document which has been updated for this gate? 

Evidence: 

• The Business Change Management Document 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.  

• Test Management approach. 

• Cutover management approach. 

• Change checklist. 

• Go-no-go decision processes.  

• Account has been taken of relevant impact assessment and appraisal issues such as Regulatory Impact, Sustainable Development and Environmental Appraisal. 

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 environmental and social indicators are being monitored, with 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. 

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 the right leadership in place? 

Evidence: 

• 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. 

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

Evidence: 

• Project Execution Document sets 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. 

5.17 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. 

5.18 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 4 and learnt lessons from other recent similar projects across UK gov and help inform its business case and delivery approach. This should be appropriately aligned with the full programme evaluation. 

• 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. 

5.19 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 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. Each business case that is produced should include the relevant risks in the relevant case and show how the risk has changed since the last Gate. 

5.20 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. 

5.21 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. 

5.22 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 – Has the project published a close out report 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 close out report within six months of completing construction. 

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. 

2.1 Management – Does the project have a framework for Resilience in place? 

Evidence: 

• The project can evidence resilience standards inline with the ‘Anticipate, React, Recover, Resilient Infrastructure Systems Report by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC). 

2.2 Management – What is the approach to whole life cycle performance management of the assets being built and contractors delivering the project? This is important in view of the preference for off-site construction methods, and whether they represent Value for Money in view of WLAC. 

Evidence: 

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

2.3 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). 

2.4 Management – Is system integration work satisfactory? 

Evidence: 

• Sufficient time and effort has been placed on commissioning, trialling and testing and contingency built in where necessary. 

• Wider stakeholder community is satisfied about the working of the end-to-end system. 

• Operational testing has taken place. 

Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence 

1.1 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. 

2.1 Economic – What level of stakeholder engagement will be required to deliver the planned benefits? Are the blockers understood? 

Evidence: 

• Early stakeholder and citizen engagement have happened to identify the barriers and enablers to change. The different stakeholders are set out in a stakeholder map to gain an early understanding of the level of receptiveness of different demographic groups to the changes required of them. 

• There exists a clear list of identified and agreed barriers and enablers to change with a clear approach and owner for each.  

• There is a plan in place to further engage with stakeholders through the change. Supporting people through transitions will help them to be more adaptable to cumulative change and encourage their continual learning. This support is paramount when the change requires a radical shift in behaviours, e.g. using online approaches for the first time. 

2.2 Economic – How has the project approached behavioural change and tested its assumptions? 

Evidence: 

• There has been regular and deep citizen/ end user engagement throughout delivery, approaches have been changed on the basis of this interaction when required. 

• Assumptions have been tested with citizens/ end-users, perhaps through pilots, and have been robustly challenged. 

• There has been significant resource and a strategic effort to sustain and encourage wider behaviour change beyond “business as usual” activities. 

• There are clear KPIs in place for whether behaviour change is successful and planned contingency. 

• There is an approach to track benefits aligned to behaviour change. 

3.1 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: 

• The project actively 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 shows a high level of maturity across all lenses and has plans to improve further. 

3.2 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 

• Evidence 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 is a clear, logical sequence to elements of the TOM going live and a related people plan in each area. 

• There is a financial plan that details the impact of the operating model and future/budgeting and maintenance. The financial plan needs to understand the long-term impact of maintenance to any systems which will be rolled out. 

• The Design Authority (or equivalent) has signed off that the end user is a core part of the solution, and the core design principles have not been breached as things are changed and adapted. 

• There is evidence that the Project has executed all comms, training and engagement as part their people plan. 

• Where there have been design changes, these are clearly articulated, have been signed off at the right level with due consideration for the impact to benefits. 

• The design continues to support the overall vision. 

3.3 Management – Will the project’s go live plan have an impact on the delivery of core organisational business? 

Evidence 

• The Project is able to demonstrate that there will not be an unacceptable impact on the delivery of core organisation business. 

• If there will be significant disruption, the Project is able to demonstrate that this was agreed at the right level. 

Defence Specific Questions and Evidence 

1.1 Strategic – Who is the sponsor? Is sponsorship single service, StratCom or Ministry of Defence (MoD) Head Quarters (HQ)? Have budgets been delegated separately? 

Evidence 

• Evidence of Sponsorship. 

• Evidence of budget transfer. 

1.2 Strategic – Does the Project demonstrate integration of MoD Lines of Development Leadership as a basis for comprehensive project plan, implementation and interoperability? 

Evidence 

• The Project can demonstrate the Defence Lines of Development (DLoDs) – engagement in project and governance structures and IPA gate Review interview list: 

• Training 

• Equipment 

• Personnel 

• Information 

• Concepts and doctrine 

• Organisation 

• Infrastructure 

• Logistics (i.e., sustainability) 

1.3 Strategic – If not a single service sponsorship or programme, have Single Services been directly involved where necessary and appropriate? 

Evidence 

• Programme boards and government membership. 

• Programme work strand engagement in key assumptions. 

1.4 Strategic – Does the programme align to other programmes across-MoD targeting the same domain?  

Evidence 

• Are sim lanes clearly identified for each programme? Is there a requirement for an over-arching strategy from e.g., StratComm? 

2.1 Commercial – Is the capability an enduring requirement of Defence Policy? 

Is there a contract in place to support the equipment? – operations and maintenance with appropriate KPIs to provide through life support to the capability? 

Evidence 

• Clearly identified Frontline Capability Owner. 

• Contract in place to support equipment, operations and maintenance. 

• Set of clear KPIs to measure performance to support the capability. 

2.2 Commercial – Is there an introduction to service strategy and plan? 

Evidence 

• Signed off introduction to service strategy effectively utilising the DLODS framework that is aligned with contractual requirements for key suppliers. 

2.3 Commercial – Are arrangements and funding future product upgrades and refits (software and hardware) included in financial plans? 

• Plans to maintain configuration with other operations and international partners. 

3.1 Management – Has the equipment and systems been tested and operated in a representative operational scenario? 

Evidence 

• Evidence showing the equipment and systems due to be implemented has been evaluated in the appropriate climatic and environmental conditions that are representative of its intended operating environment. 

3.2 Management – Are the relationships with other agencies and dependent bodies working effectively? 

Evidence 

• Personnel show consistent understanding of their respective responsibilities and healthy tension between sponsor and delivery team. 

• Consistent sharing and monitoring of data between personnel throughout the services lines would promote congruous work. 

• Well defined and robust set of accountabilities between all parties. 

• A delivery strategy detailing the objectives and expectations from Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) should be in place. 

3.3 Management – Has the risk of threat changes and subsequent necessary scope upgrades during programme lifetime been adequately considered? 

Evidence 

• Project has used a systematic approach, utilising the DLODS framework and should ensure training, personnel, equipment, infrastructure requirements etc are identified and included in the planned scope and show evidence of regularly reconfirming scope/rigorous change control. 

3.4 Management – For military platforms, have the wider impacts of data acquisition, exploitation and dissemination been addressed fully? 

Evidence 

• Is Defence Digital closely engaged in the project and its governance? 

• Are working relationships with Defence Digital satisfactory? 

• Are plans in hand to ensure that information from the new platform asset is fully exploited? 

Digital/ICT Specific Questions and Evidence 

1.1 Management – Have all parties accepted the commissioning/test results and any action plans required? 

Evidence 

• Plans and procedures by supplier and client should cover Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT), User Acceptance Testing (UAT), System Integration Testing (SIT), Alpha/Beta testing as well as non-functional testing (e.g. accreditation/pen testing, performance testing, Disaster Recovery (DR) testing). 

1.2 Management – Is the go/no go process understood, documented and sufficiently rigorous? 

Evidence 

• Documented go/no go process with supporting Management Information (MI). 

• Clear decision-making protocols in place. 

• Interviewees should have a clear, consistent understanding of inputs, their roles, how the post go live process will work. 

• Process in place for making the rollback decision if required. 

• Evidence of plans for early life support and handover to the agreed support model. 

• Evidence of plans to decommission any existing services or contracts. 

1.3 Management – How is the project applying GDS’s Design Principles? 

Evidence 

• Clear explanation of how the project has approached these design principles. 

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

Evidence 

• Should be documented as part of the Business Case or spend approval controls. Would expect to see close engagement with GDS. 

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

Evidence 

• Clear explanation of how the project has applied the Service Standard requirements. 

1.6 Management – Alignment of data/information to stated strategy – do the data/information outputs cover the Critical Success Factors (CSF)/Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are needed to measure the strategy/objectives/analyse whether benefits are being achieved? 

Evidence 

• Documented CSFs/KPIs. 

• Evidence that the outputs highlight their success or otherwise. 

1.7 Management – Clarity and readability of project data/information outputs – are data information outputs clear, visual, succinct and use a good blend of narrative, graphical elements including colour? 

Evidence 

• Evidence that there is a clear structure, manageable structure of data/information outputs. Data output design guide/design rules. 

2.1 Other: Data – Is the go live solution in line with the planned requirements (both functional and nonfunctional)? Can the project reconcile planned vs actual delivery on requirements (both functional and nonfunctional)? How will outstanding requirements be addressed? 

Evidence 

• The project can show which requirements are ready for go live – this should include both functional and nonfunctional requirements and be included in the full data strategy. 

• The project can reconcile against planned scope and set out exclusions and the associated rationale (e.g. no longer required or priority has changed). 

• The project can explain how outstanding requirements will be delivered (e.g. timing). There should be a clear position on outstanding security issues (e.g. from penetration testing) and the required remediation that have been reviewed by the Departmental Security Officer. 

2.2 Other: Data – Is there a strong approach to data management and access? 

Evidence 

• Master Data Catalogue. 

• Master data management strategy with clear lists of key data with controls to minimise create of new and duplicate records. 

• Data Dictionary document. 

• Data owners and stewards in place. 

• Data governance and controls plan/framework in place. 

• Clear rules around sharing, storage, capture and creation of data and appropriate access restrictions. 

• Manual and automated compliance checks. 

• Data usage and storage has been profiled for the future (e.g. bandwidth licenses, cloud capacity) using usage statistics and there is a commercial model that meets projects and the costs are approved. 

2.3 Other: Data – Does data/information move between systems in an automated fashion and if so are there controls around frequency and what to do should an integration interface fail? 

Evidence 

• Data integration architecture, data mapping document, documentation on interface recovery including support owners and escalation processes. 

2.4 Other: Data – Has testing of data quality/information within the solution and within the outputs been undertaken? 

Evidence 

• Data testing plans, data testing scripts including automation. 

2.5 Other: Data/Information Migration – is there a clear plan for migrating data/information into/from the solution at inception/cut over? 

Evidence 

• Data migration plan and data migration scripts. This should include archiving data where appropriate and agreed data retention timescales with plans to manage time. 

• Evidence that data quality issues and unnecessary duplication of data will be delivered. 

• Evidence that dependencies with other data/ services have been considered 

2.6 Other: Data – Are there approved business rules/logic around key data/information calculations/algorithms/data led decisions? 

Evidence 

• Business rules documentation including calculations. 

• Signed off strategy/principles regarding use of AI/ML in decision making. 

• Validated trace outputs of AI/ML models. 

• There may have been specialist technical assurance to confirm an approach is appropriate. 

2.7 Other: Data – Are incident management procedures in place and how mature are these? 

Evidence 

• Roles and responsibilities are articulated to ensure a swift response to an incident. 

• Security play books have considered security incidents. 

2.8 Other: Data – What is the approach to user access, including throughout the programme lifecycle and beyond? What tools are being deployed to systematically support this and mitigate user error and risks relating to sensitive access, SoD, access recertification and role provisioning? 

Evidence 

• Clear understanding of user access and journey including throughout the programme/project lifecycle and beyond. 

• Understanding that tools are being deployed to systematically support this and mitigate user error and risks relating to sensitive access, SoD, access recertification and role provisioning. 

• The project makes a clear distinction around its management of privileged accounts to just standard user accounts. 

Project Documentation 

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 FBC approved by the Department Investment Committee and HMT. 

• A Magenta Book compliant Evaluation Plan approved by the Department Investment Committee and HMT if appropriate. The project should demonstrate that it has robust plans to understand the impact of the project on its intended outcomes, its value for money, and learn lessons for future delivery.   

• 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 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. 

• 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. 

• Cutover 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. 

• Operating Handbook which demonstrates how the live service will operate and the interactions between parties allowing operation without the constant use of the Contract. 

• 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. 

Supporting Guidance

• Gate Review Book: A Workbook for each Gate Review provides detailed questions and evidence points to support each review. The workbooks can be downloaded from the IPA Assurance Toolkit on GOV.UK
• HMT Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government – and supporting supplements
• HMT Orange Book: Management of Risk, Principles and Concepts
• HMT Orange Book Annex : Portfolio Risk Management Guidance
• Programme Risk Assessment Tool (Orange Book related)
• HMT Magenta Book: Guidance on what to consider when designing an evaluation
• Evaluation Demonstrators
• Evaluation Registry
• IPA Assurance Toolkit
• Treasury Approval Process for Programmes and Projects
• Project Delivery Functional Standards
• IPA Principles for Success
• The Art of Brilliance
• Project Initiation Routemap
• 7 Lens of Maturity
• Accounting Officer Assessment
• The role of the SRO
• Achieving NetZero
• UN Sustainable Development Goals
• Modern Methods of Construction
• Resilient Infrastructure Systems
• National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) principals
• Transforming Infrastructure Performance
• Project Outcome Profile
• The Evaluation Registry

© Crown copyright 2026

Produced by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.

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