Guidance

Gate Review 5: Operational Review and Benefits Realisation

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; and 
• 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; and 

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

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

• Infrastructure; 

• Transformation; 

• Defence; and 

• 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 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 5 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook 

This Gate Review Workbook supports the Gate 5 Review: Operations Review and Benefits Realisation. This Gate Review confirms that the benefits set out in the Business Case are being achieved and that the operational service (or facility) is running smoothly and the agreed strategic outcomes are being met. This Gate Review can be repeated throughout the life of the service, with the first Gate Review typically occurring when the project is about to hand over to Business as Usual (BAU) operation and then 6–12 months after handover to the new owner and a final Gate Review shortly before the end of a service contract. This Gate Review can also be used on a one-off basis, to check that a project has delivered its intended outputs. 

The Gate 5 Review can also be used for portfolio projects delivering change through grants or funds to assess if the strategic aims have been met. 

Operations Review and Benefits Realisation 

The Gate 5 Review: Operations Review and Benefits Realisation is for the operational phase, after the project has delivered its agreed outputs contributing to the outcomes of a programme. This might be a new facility, Information Technology (IT) asset or a soft output such as training. Unlike the earlier phases of the project lifecycle, the operational phase is likely to be long term and consume a significant proportion of the whole-life costs of the investment within the Business Case. 

The Gate 5 Review will typically occur several times over the life of the operational service. 

The first Gate 5 Review concentrates on the Business Case and how well arrangements have been set up for the service delivery, the associated contract management and also the mechanism for benefits monitoring and delivery. In addition to this, it will also focus on programme closure, lessons learnt and planning to transition to BAU. 

Depending on the lifespan of the operational service there may be a number of repeating midterm Gate 5 Reviews to check operational management and benefits realisation. 

The final Gate 5 Review will concentrate on the project activities concerned with closing down the current service contract and ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place for the future as well as focus on lessons learned. 

Gate 5 link to other Gate Reviews 

It’s important to note that benefits may not all be delivered at the same time – e.g. new ways of working will need to be established in (say) a new type of school environment, before improvements in educational results are seen. Key things to note: 

• At appropriate points the findings from the Gate 5 Reviews will inform any programme level decision points and Gate 0 Reviews. 

• At Gate 4 Review the timing of the initial Gate 5 Review will be planned to coincide with the key decision points following the Post Implementation Review. The operational business owner will decide on the timings of subsequent Gate 5 Reviews. 

• The Post Implementation Review is an internal project assurance for the SRO, to confirm that the investment in the Business Case was justified and that lessons learned have been captured. The Gate 5 Review is an external assurance review that includes the Post Implementation Review as a major input to its investigation. 

• Handover from the project’s Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) to the operational business owner typically occurs within a year of the start of the operational service. It will be the business owner’s responsibility to ensure the expected benefits are delivered and the operational service runs smoothly. It will also be their responsibility to close the current arrangements and report back to senior/corporate management, feeding as necessary into new initiatives as required. 

Purpose of the Gate 5 Review 

The purpose of the Gate 5 Review is to: 

• Assess whether the delivery metrics in the business case were correct, and ensure that they are shared with the relevant stakeholders to inform benchmarks, including environmental benchmarks such as whole life carbon; 

• Confirm that the strategic objectives as set out in the business case have been met, and that expected outcomes are on the path to being realised; 

• Confirm that there is still a business need for the investment; 

• Assess whether the benefits as defined in the project Business Case have been delivered, or are on track to be delivered; 

• Assess whether there is effective governance in place to manage and measure the future benefits realisation including risks to achieving them; 

• Confirm that there continues to be accountability for benefits realisation and, where required, there is agreement from the lines of business for hand-over of benefits delivery; 

• Assess the effectiveness of the ongoing contract management processes; 

• Confirm that the client side, or Business as Usual (BAU) environment, continues to have the necessary resources to manage the contract, service or asset successfully; 

• Confirm continuity and capability of key personnel involved in contract management/‘intelligent customer’ roles; 

• Where changes have been agreed, check that they do not compromise the original delivery strategy or move away from the original policy intent; 

• Assess the ongoing requirement for the contract to meet business needs; 

• Ensure that if circumstances have changed, the service delivery and contract are adapting to the new situation. Changing circumstances could affect: partner management; relationship management; service management; change management; contract management; benefits management; performance management; risk management; 

• Check that there is ongoing contract development to improve value for money and appropriate systems are in place to make sure that the contract delivers e.g., Key Performance Indicator (KPI) reporting; 

• Confirm that there are plans to manage the contract, or service, to its conclusion; 

• Where applicable, confirm the validity of exit strategy and arrangements for re-competition; 

• Confirm that there is a realistic and agreed overall project closure plan; 

• Confirm that there will be appropriate, and agreed, post closure governance to monitor any continuing spend and the delivery of benefits; 

• Confirm the workstreams continuing post-closure have clear lines of accountability; 

• Confirm that there is an appropriate project staff redeployment plan; 

• Confirm that there is a mechanism in place for logging and sharing the lessons learned; 

• Confirm that the programme evaluation is underway and that there is an appropriate plan for governance and resourcing this if it is due to continue post programme closure; 

• Confirm that all actions arising from previous assurance recommendations have been completed appropriately or an appropriate, and agreed, action plan is in place; 

• Confirm that the project has sufficiently delivered the policy objectives originally agreed; 

• Assess whether consequential assurance or intervention from the IPA is required to ensure that the project is delivered and benefits realised; and 

• Recommended readiness of the project to exit the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) at the next reporting quarter following the review, and the governance to track any remaining actions post GMPP exit. 

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 – Has the project still met the strategic intent? 

Evidence: 

• Clear understanding of the benefits that the project brings and when the benefits are forecast to be realised. Benefits documented within the business case and detailed in the benefits realisation plan. 

• A dependencies/benefit map and evidence of consideration of impact to future projects. 

• Needs of the business, end users and stakeholders have been monitored for changes and a projection of future changes is in place. 

• Comparison of current business and end user needs with those identified in Gate 3 and 4 Reviews. 

1.2 Strategic – Does the organisation have a well-defined, implemented and effective process for embedding improvements based on the lessons learned from the project? 

Evidence: 

• Project has conducted a lessons learnt exercise and learnt lessons from other recent similar projects across UK government to help inform its business case and delivery approach. 

• Project has a plan for utilising the findings of their full evaluation to inform future delivery. 

• Mechanism in place to learn lessons from its own delivery regardless of the stage in the project delivery lifecycle. 

• Mechanism leads to Project Board reports on lessons learnt when appropriate action is taken. 

• Lessons provided to the Department Portfolio Office for inclusion in portfolio system learning, and consideration given to mechanisms to share lessons across government. 

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

Evidence: 

• Evidence of continual review of the project to ensure alignment with policy and strategic context, at a cross-departmental network and system level. 

• Evidence of considering project alignment with government priorities, for example inclusion of Net Zero 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 Net Zero target. 

• Evidence of alignment with government best practice and sector specific research, such as National Infrastructure Commission four recommended design principles. 

1.4 Strategic – Is the live solution in line with Net Zero targets? 

Evidence: 

• The design demonstrates its alignment to Net Zero. 

• Stakeholders understand how the scheme contributes to Net Zero. 

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

1. Carbon emissions mitigation and adaptation to climate change; 

2. People-based outcomes and community engagement; 

3. Local identity and improving environment; and 

4. 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. 

• Evidence that the service or asset is resilient to climate changes. 

• Evidence that the service or asset is meeting resource efficiency and social value targets. 

2.1 Economic – Has the project assessed the benefits and the costs post go-live? 

Evidence: 

• The project should demonstrate that it has assessed the benefits and the costs post go-live and documented them relative to the Greenbook compliant Full Business Case (FBC) demonstrating and justifying variances. This should then be annexed to the FBC as an updated version which demonstrates the post go-live cost/benefit of the project. 

2.2 Economic – Do benefit projections remain realistic? 

Evidence: 

• The assumptions have been tested, validated and signed off to ensure they align with the actual results. Models have been updated and signed off where appropriate. 

• The project should ensure: 

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

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

• Benefits are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time Bound (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 Full Business Case (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 underpinning benefit realisation are documented, agreed and signed off. 

2.3 Economic – Are the business benefits being realised as set out in the Business Case? Did the organisation achieve more or less than expected? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence of a comprehensive benefits realisation plan with appropriate monitoring/ MI e.g. showing costs offset by improved quality of service and/or savings over the project’s expected life. Clarity on who is responsible for benefits realisation. 

• Findings from internal Post Implementation Review/post project review or equivalent major review, including: 

• Project success criteria met; 

• Project performance criteria and key performance indicators (including Design Quality Indicators) met or exceeded; 

• Whole-life value targets achieved; 

• Contribution to programme/project benefits (as appropriate); 

• Strategic outcomes tracked. 

• Updated benefits capture plans compared with Gate 3 and Gate 4 Review. 

• Assessment of benefits in the current operating regime using the benefits measurement basis confirmed by Gate Review 4. 

• Anticipated future benefits and consequences are understood, and are being moved to the ongoing drive for continuous improvement. 

2.4 Economic – Is the project tracking its benefits against a fully-costed, robust evaluation plan and existing baseline to assess whether the project successfully delivered its stated outcomes? 

Evidence: 

• Benefits measurement have been tested and the value of results understood. The project may have worked with performance management specialists to do this. 

• The project has tracked and measured benefits delivered during and after project delivery as soon as possible to understand outturn performance, and compared this to the benefits baseline set out at the last gate. 

• The project continues to have a clear, resourced structure in place to measure benefits and governance around benefits management. 

• The agreed evaluation plan is underway (either externally commissioned and/or conducted in house). This evaluation has been logged as ongoing on the Evaluation Registry. 

• The project has consulted with stakeholders during evaluation and their acceptance of the proposed solution is documented. 

• Clear traceability on how performance measures relate to an existing baseline. 

• Baseline was agreed at an earlier stage and any change has gone through appropriate change control and sign off. 

• The project has tracked and measured benefits delivered during and after project delivery as soon as possible to understand outturn performance. 

2.5 Economic – Has ongoing management of the asset or service been fully considered? 

Evidence: 

• A comprehensive handover plan detailing risks, issues, actions and benefits tracking. 

• A clear contract management strategy is in place that drives continuous improvements. 

• The project can demonstrate that services that have been replaced by the project are fully decommissioned or that decommissioning of these services is being delivered with clear plans and ownership in place. 

2.6 Economic – How do the operational benefits measurement plans take into account the wider system and network around the asset? 

Evidence: 

• The operational benefit measurement plans take into account the wider system and networks. 

• These benefits have been reviewed periodically with appropriate Governance forums. 

• Benefits management is aligned to the Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted during the planning stages and provides an estimate of the benefits and demonstrates benefits for the wider system and network around the asset. 

• Benefits management activities have been integrated into other project management activities as much as possible. 

3. Commercial Case 

3.1 Commercial – Are the contract management arrangements fully in place? 

Evidence: 

• 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 Service Level Agreement (SLAs). 

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

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

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

3.2 Commercial – Are the contract management arrangements fully in place?  

Evidence: 

• It has established clear benchmarks for contract related processes. E.g. how the same supplier or category is managed across the Department. 

• There is a clear exit strategy avoiding being locked in and there are agreements to ensure the handover is as smooth as possible.  

• Commercial incentives are working and the supplier is demonstrating good performance. 

• Value for money has been revisited with the supplier and assessed. 

3.3 Commercial – Is there an ongoing need for the service? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence that the need for the service is monitored. Evidence that the business case is updated. 

3.4 Commercial – Has the organisation benchmarked its contract-related processes by comparing with other equivalent organisations involved in similar relationships? 

Evidence: 

• Clear benchmarks are in place for contract related processes. E.g. how the same supplier or category is managed across the Department. 

• May be useful to consider internal audit review for complex, high risk or high value contracts, particularly for those of long duration. 

3.5 Commercial – Are commercial mechanisms providing appropriate incentives? 

Evidence: 

• The commercial mechanisms are providing appropriate incentives. 

• Contract performance is in line or exceeding expectations – based on regular commercial review and complete, accurate and timely MI. 

• Examples of other evidence could include: 

• Payments to the provider dependent on the benefits derived from implementing a particular programme of change. 

• Provider has incentives to deliver and also for ensuring that individual investments are well planned, achievable and will deliver value. 

• Clear business justification with robust benefits identified on each occasion. 

• Target incentive mechanisms where work is task-based. 

• The Provider is given incentives to submit optimum resource estimates for a task. 

3.6 Commercial – Have all of the commercial arrangements that have ended been handed over as per the contract? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence that the commercial agreement has been reviewed, handed over (if required) and that lessons learned are drawn from it and being built into the contract management plan and reporting. 

3.7 Commercial – Do the selected performance measures offer clear and demonstrable evidence of the success (or otherwise) of the contract? Have the risk profiles changed? 

Evidence: 

• Performance measures are clear and evidence of success of the contract is made clear. Would expect to be able to trace back to project outcomes/benefits. 

• The performance measures properly reflect user and stakeholder perceptions and are amenable to identifying the need for supporting or remedial action as part of the contract management activity. 

• Evidence that performance measures are in place and working as designed. Performance measures relating to: 

• cost and value obtained; 

• performance and customer satisfaction surveys;  

• delivery improvement and added value;  

• delivery capability;  

• benefits realised;  

• relationship strength and responsiveness 

• Details of the roles responsible for taking the measurements. 

• Details on how the information is used and followed up. 

• Effect of any contract refresh or rebalancing of the performance measurement system. 

3.8 Commercial – Have issues that could impact recompetition of the current contract been considered? 

Evidence: 

• The project has considered this and is tracking the below against a range of services with clear SMART measures for each: 

• If the provider could cope with the range of services provided or if there are significant weaknesses; 

• The relationship is adaptable to both foreseen and unexpected changes in the nature and level of demand; 

• The client/customer/user/citizens react and adapt to the service provided by the third party 

• There is a clear exit strategy and there are agreements to ensure the handover is as smooth as possible. 

• A clear handover plan. 

• Exception reporting from regular client/ provider progress meetings.  

• Reports from contract and service management functions. 

3.9 Commercial – Is the service/facility operating to defined parameters? 

Evidence: 

• Operating parameters updated as needs change, documented in change control and updated Service Level Agreements (SLAs). 

• Service delivery measured against those parameters. 

• Measures to address poor/non-performance are proving effective. 

• Customer/stakeholder satisfaction experiences assessed. 

4. Financial Case 

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

Evidence: 

The project can demonstrate that: 

• It has a comprehensive financial management process in place 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 – Quantitative Cost Risk Assessment (QCRA)/Revolving Credit Facility (RCF)/ optimism bias. 

• Evidence that optimum bias has been factored into the overall project. 

• Risks should be presented as a range rather than a single-figure estimate, i.e. an estimate at both the P50 and P80 levels. 

• A bottom-up approach on how the risk/ contingency allowance is calculated. 

• Where risks cannot be reduced, the costs of managing these risks separately identified and included as a risk allocation provision. 

• Analysis undertaken of the effects of slippage in time, cost, scope or quality. 

4.2 Financial – What is the scope for improved value for money: 

• can more be done for less? 

• could the provider deliver better service quality at the same price? 

• can maintenance costs be driven down? 

Evidence: 

• Value for money re-visited and assessed. 

• Commercial intelligence about the provider’s track record with others and/or comparison with other providers offering similar services. 

• Details of efficiency gains expected and achieved. 

5. Management Case 

5.1 Management – Is the operational service running smoothly? 

Evidence: 

The project should demonstrate: 

• There is a clearly accountable business owner of the service(s) and that the SRO of the project has formally handed the project over to the business owner(s). 

• That the live service operation is working as per the operating model document. 

• That the operational handbook is being used by staff to operate the service. 

• That the go-live has occurred and any post-go live issues have been well managed and addressed, or have an action plan and owner if not yet addressed. 

• The change checklist should be fully updated to demonstrate that all activities have been completed and risks have been managed. 

• That all governance and stakeholder issues have been addressed (including the statutory process; communications; external relations; environmental issues; personnel). 

• That there is appropriate governance of the live service. 

• The exit and disposal/decommission of the existing service (if replacement) has been completed or is in progress with a clear plan for completion with the supplier operating in harmony. 

• 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. 

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

• It has established clear benchmarks for contract related processes. E.g. how the same supplier or category is managed across the Department. 

• There is a clear exit strategy avoiding being locked in and there are agreements to ensure the handover is as smooth as possible. 

• Commercial incentives are working and the supplier is demonstrating good performance. 

• Value for money has been revisited with the supplier and assessed 

5.2 Management – Who will own the service/asset going forward and are they monitoring it appropriately? 

Evidence: 

• There is a clear sponsoring body accountable for the asset or service. 

• There is clear accountability for the delivery of benefits long term (not just the running of the service/asset) and clear accountability for benefits measurement in the long-term.  

• Core sets of performance information that meet multiple purposes are consistent and complementary.  

• Ongoing assessment of appropriateness of performance information. 

• Responsibilities for performance management are defined and understood by organisation and supplier. 

• Direct links between planning and results. 

• Ongoing monitoring of performance and periodic evaluation. 

• Integration with corporate and business planning. 

5.3 Management – Have all the governance and stakeholder issues been addressed? (These include: the statutory process; communications; external relations; environmental issues; personnel.) 

Evidence: 

• Operational communications strategy updated, Communications Plan and Issues Log updated. 

• Governance structure including representatives of key stakeholders reciprocated in both client and provider organisation. 

• Issues escalated to the appropriate level in client’s and provider’s organisations to ensure resolution. 

• Empowerment given to people who are required to make decisions. 

• Representatives of stakeholders involved appropriately. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

5.4 Management – Is the organisation setting realistic targets for continuous improvement year-on-year from this service? Are the targets Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, and Timely (SMART)? 

Evidence: 

• SMART targets are regularly reviewed and updated. 

• Understanding and use of key techniques such as Balanced Scorecard, Business Excellence Model, ongoing stakeholder analysis, benchmarking, goal/question/metric approach. 

• Client and partner working collaboratively to identify opportunities for improvements. 

• Details of innovation achieved in service delivery by possibly using industry surveys, benchmarking, reviews by external consultants and reports from the service provider. 

• People at all levels have the ability to contribute and this is encouraged by using feedback and staff suggestion schemes. 

5.5 Management – Are operations delivering the expected contributions to the UN SDGs? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence that the SDG departmental aspirations have been translated into operational actions. 

• Evidence of regular monitoring and reporting of environmental and social performance. 

• Evidence of any negative impacts on the SDGs and confirmation of mitigation measures taken. 

5.6 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. 

• The project should have a robust plan for publishing findings (including interim findings) from their full evaluation.  

5.7 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. 

5.8 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 long-term evaluation of social and economic benefits 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 long-term evaluation of their social and economic benefits between five and ten years into operation. 

1.2 Strategic – Is it clear how the infrastructure assets fit into the wider current and future planned built environment and wider policy initiatives? 

Evidence: 

• There is clear evidence of consideration of impact on future infrastructure and the wider policy intent they meet. 

• Evidence that the business case and Project Outcome Profile aligns to the project’s governance and department policy priorities and outcomes; long term benefits realisation and management/operations approach reflects government, departmental and organisational priorities and has been developed in partnership with key stakeholders, who are aware of and supportive of the project. 

2.1 Economic - Is there a plan in place to monitor/assess the long-term benefits of the asset? 

Evidence: 

• Evaluation Team in place for any longer term impact studies. This is likely to be particularly relevant for infrastructure/transport projects that will have a use case stretching over many decades. 

2.2 Economic - Has the specific network around the asset been considered as part of benefit realisation? 

Evidence: 

• For transport projects this should consider other organisations (e.g. Network Rail, Train Operating Companies), devolved administrations (e.g. this could include Transport for the North, Transport for Greater Manchester, West Midlands Combined Authority) and should also take account of different modes (e.g. roads/air/rail/ports). 

3.1 Commercial - Has the condition of the asset (where appropriate) at the end of the contract period been predicted? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence could include: 

• That the condition of the asset was predicted (where appropriate) at the end of the contract period. 

• Supplier maintenance plans and client’s understanding of these (e.g. responsibility for updating software). 

3.2 Commercial - Is the service/facility operating to defined parameters? 

Evidence: 

• Facility safe to operate and maintain.  

• 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.  

• Sustainability targets met or exceeded – and appropriately aligned to Net Zero. 

4.1 Economic - Are the business benefits being realised as set out in the Business Case? Did the organisation achieve more or less than expected? 

Evidence: 

• Evidence of a comprehensive benefits realisation plan with appropriate monitoring/MI e.g. showing costs offset by improved quality of service and/ or savings over the project’s expected life. Clarity on who is responsible for benefits realisation. 

• Findings from internal Post Implementation Review/post project review or equivalent major review, including project success criteria met; project performance criteria and key performance indicators (including Design Quality Indicators) met or exceeded; whole-life value targets achieved Contribution to programme/ project benefits (as appropriate) and strategic outcomes tracked. 

• Updated benefits capture plans compared with Gate 3 and 4 Reviews. 

• Assessment of benefits in the current operating regime using the benefits measurement basis confirmed by Gate 4 Review. 

• Anticipated future benefits. 

4.2 Economic - Is the project tracking its benefits against a fully-costed, robust evaluation plan and existing baseline to assess whether the project successfully delivered its stated outcomes? 

Evidence: 

• Benefits measurement has been tested and the value of results understood. The project may have worked with performance management specialists to do this. 

• The agreed evaluation plan should now be underway, either externally contracted or conducted in-house. This should be logged as ongoing on the Evaluation Registry. 

• A robust plan for reporting and publishing evaluation findings, including interim findings.  

• The project has consulted with stakeholders during evaluation and their acceptance of the proposed solution is documented. 

• Clear alignment on how performance measures relate to an existing baseline. 

• Baseline was agreed at an earlier stage and any change has gone through the appropriate change control and signoff. 

• The project has tracked and measured benefits delivered during and after project delivery as soon as possible to understand outturn performance. 

5.1 Management - Does the Project have a framework for Resilience in place? 

Evidence: 

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

• The project has a plan in place to undertake regular stress tests, and develop and implement plans to address vulnerabilities identified by stress tests. 

• The project has a plan in place to develop and maintain long term resilience strategies. 

5.2 Management - Is the ongoing management plan specific to the asset? 

Evidence: 

• For infrastructure projects, this should take account of who will maintain the asset and who will run operational services, e.g. for a rail project, this could include Network Rail and the relevant Train Operating Companies. 

Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence 

Category / Question / Evidence 

1.1 Strategic - Is the transformation vision now a reality? 

Evidence: 

• The new ways of operating are clearly aligned to the agreed and signedoff vision. 

• Staff can articulate the vision and their place in it. 

• There is ongoing ownership of the vision in the organisation and it is used in the organisation’s BAU activity. 

• Are there any major design elements that that are outstanding. 

1.2 Strategic - Is the service level journey consistent? 

• Cross government departmental stakeholders have all accepted the change and ownership of elements is clear amongst them. 

• Ongoing governance is appropriate to maintain alignment between different bodies in BAU operations. 

• The customer/user is the primary unit of analysis for bodies and is seen in the light of total interactions. 

1.3 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 Management - What are the mechanisms for continuous improvement? 

Evidence: 

• There is a “transformation culture” with mechanisms in place to continually review performance and ways of working to incrementally improve. 

2.2 Management - Is the workforce confident operating in the new environment? 

Evidence: 

• New systems and processes are being used as designed/planned. 

• There is comprehensive onboarding and training for staff and this is fully costed as part of BAU. 

• Ways of working are consistent across individuals and teams. 

• Team members understand how their work relates to the organisation’s vision. 

2.3 Management - Are users/customers/citizens satisfied with the service and are there strong feedback mechanisms? 

Evidence: 

• Key satisfaction metrics agreed based on engagement. 

• Regular surveys of user/customer experience. 

• Feedback gathered on areas to improve and acted on as part of continuous improvement effort. 

Digital/ICT Specific Questions and Evidence 

Category / Question / Evidence 

1.1 Strategic - Has delivery enabled the organisation to remain flexible and take advantage of emerging technology? 

Evidence: 

• The project has made 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 users (benefits). 

• Best practice with regards to the specific emerging technology has been shared. 

• The organisation has the capability required to identify and take advantage of emerging technology (i.e., the level of technical debt should have been reduced by the ICT change). 

2.1 Management - Has the organisation got an ongoing approach to security? 

Evidence: 

• Security is part of the ongoing budget and there is clear organisational capability. 

• Evidence procedural and policy documents are in place, updated and adhered to.  

• There needs to be consideration of regulatory obligations in relation to data archiving e.g. General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)/ equivalent UK standards. 

2.2 Management - Is there an approach to ongoing system improvement? 

Evidence: 

• For agile builds particularly the organisation maintains agile capability to drive continuous improvement within the BAU environment. 

• For projects with multiple suppliers, there should be evidence of a SIAM (Service Integration and Management) approach. 

2.3 Management - Is ongoing operation in line with GDS’s Design Principles, Technology Code of Practice and Service Standards? 

Evidence: 

• Where a project is delivering a digital service, there should be a clear explanation of how operations meet these design principles. 

3.1 Other – Data - Is the updated approach to data embedded in the organisation? 

Evidence: 

• Clear data standards on how data/information can be stored/captured/created (for example the length of a name, the format of a postcode) are part of user training and users understand and work to the standards. 

• Standards encompass legal requirements and these are monitored/audited regularly. 

• Users are making use of effective and accessible tools that allow them to digest data/information in ways commensurate with their job role (for example executive style reporting, slice and dice analysis, self service, ability to query data directly, ability for users to run their own tools and analytical processes against data from the solution in a controlled and validated manner). 

3.2 Other – Data - Has the cost of data storage/management been budgeted into ongoing costs for the organisation? 

Evidence: 

• Data/information usage and storage needs are understood and storage, bandwidth, licences etc. are suitable, extendable and costed into the ongoing budget. 

• Costing and profiling has been done against wider organisational strategy in a joined up way. 

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. 

• Green Book compliant Full Business Case (FBC). The project should demonstrate that it has assessed the benefits and the costs post go-live and documented them relative to the Greenbook compliant FBC demonstrating and justifying variances. This should then be annexed to the FBC as an updated version which demonstrates the post go-live cost/ benefit of the project 

• 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.  

• 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 Reference, 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: 

• Risk Register (with risks categorised by the Five Case Business Case model and baselined at each gate, with updates showing changes since the last gate). 

• Issues Register. 

• Dependencies Register. 

• Assumptions Register. 

• Decisions Register. 

• Constraints Register. 

Each register should reference the others, 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. 

• Project financial tracker which can demonstrate the following: 

• A comprehensive financial management process in place and risk/contingency calculations included in the budget, showing 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 departmental Finance and HM Treasury. 

Planning products 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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

• A Benefits Performance Report which provides an audit of what benefits have been achieved and includes a forward look as to how future benefits will be realised. 

• Monthly/Quarterly Service Management Report which provides a summary of achievements for the supplier both operationally and strategically against the SLAs. 

• Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan (IAAP). 

• Last quarterly GMPP return. 

• A Project Close Out Report (if it is the last Gate 5) which includes: 

• The Lessons Learned Report. 

• A summary of the project results and outcomes. 

• Description of the project scope, project schedule and project costs. 

• Performance analysis. 

• Recommendations based on lessons learned. 

• Comprehensive handover plan. 

• BAU governance. 

• Benefits tracking responsibility. 

• 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. 

• Operating Model (TO BE and AS IS): : The project should document their ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ ways of working. By doing this, the demonstrate that it has a detailed understanding of the current business operation and detailed target operating model which has been approved by business stakeholders. 

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 NISTA 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 Projects and Programmes. 

• 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 Net Zero. 

• UN Sustainable Development Goals. 

• Modern Methods of Construction. 

• Resilient Infrastructure Systems. 

• National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) principles. 

• Transforming Infrastructure Performance. 

• Project Outcome Profile. 

Copyright 

© Crown copyright 2026 Produced by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority 

You may reuse 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 any third party copyright material has been identified you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. 

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