• End-users for the project identified and documented. • Confirmation that that the decision-making process includes all the relevant stakeholders and is both efficient and effective. • Analysis of potential conflicts between stakeholder groups and contingency plan for dealing with such conflicts. • Results of consultations documented as part of the communications strategy. 3.2 Do stakeholders support the preferred option? (This includes the potential or recommended delivery approach and mechanisms.) • Documentation supporting the consultation, involvement, support and endorsement of stakeholders. 3.3 Are stakeholder issues being addressed? These include: • communications • public relations • environmental issues • personnel • statutory processes • A communication plan for dealing with various stakeholders showing responsibilities. • Plans for dealing with statutory consultation requirements. • Flexibility and ability to react to changes in stakeholder interests and concerns. • Governance arrangements clearly articulate opportunities for stakeholder concerns to be aired and addressed. Risk Management Areas to probe Evidence expected 4.1 Are there processes in place to identify, assess and monitor current, anticipated and emerging risks? • A list of risks and key issues, categorised as strategic, political and/or reputational; legislative, implementation and operational service risks including business, technical, financial and commercial and/or contractual risks. • For IT-enabled projects, information security risks; for e-government, risks relating to poor take-up. • For construction projects, relating to health and safety. • For policy projects, regulatory impact assessment carried out. • A risk management strategy developed in accordance with best practice. • An individual identified as responsible for managing risk across the project, mitigation options and contingency plans. • Defined responsibilities and processes for managing issues and risk with clearly defined routes for bringing issues and risks to the attention of senior management. 4.2 Have any issues raised in a previous review been resolved satisfactorily? • Updated issue and risk logs, with details of actions taken.
2.9 Has the proposed procurement procedure been evaluated? • An open, select or direct route is identified • Reasons for following the procedure are understood; related risks (such as effect on timescales and tender costs for suppliers) are evaluated, and the decision is justified and documented. 2.10 Is there adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers? • Confirmation that adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers has been considered. • Confirmation of commercial market intelligence, market sources and potential suppliers. • Documentation of the consideration of track records from the public and private sectors, showing: • The public sector’s ability as a client to work in this way. • The private sector’s track record in meeting similar or equivalent business need). • Indications of the types of suppliers most likely to succeed in delivering the required outcomes. 2.11 Is the contract management strategy robust? • Contract management strategy takes account of key factors such as the required skills, proposed relationship, and management of single or multiple suppliers; and • Documentation showing the continuity of key project personnel. 2.12 Has the project team complied with the relevant procurement policies and guidelines in preparation of the tender documents? • Documentation of the procurement process complying with the PGPA Procurement Rules and the entity’s AAIs. • Tender documents reviewed, and shown to be complete and containing an accurate description; for construction projects, include requirements for suppliers to provide relevant occupational health and safety information. 2.13 Is the evaluation strategy (including how to demonstrate value for money) accepted by stakeholders and compliant with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules? • Evaluation criteria and model(s) approved by stakeholders. • Key evaluation criteria linked to business objectives and appropriate weighting. • Separated financial and non-financial aspects of the evaluation. • Evaluation criteria and weightings included in tender documents. • For construction projects, adherence to building code, occupational health and safety guidelines, and sustainability requirements. 3. Review of Current Phase Areas to probe Evidence expected 3.1 Is the project managed in accordance with its governance framework, stakeholder engagement plan, project plan and other critical documents? • The project running to schedule and costs within budget, as shown in project budget and timetable reports. • A governance framework in place and the project is managed accordingly. 3.2 What caused any variations such as over-runs or • Reconciliations made against the budget and timeframe, according to risk allowances.
• Reconciliations supported by variance reports which explain the reasons for, and actions taken in response to, variances. 3.3 What actions are necessary to prevent variations recurring in other phases? • Project management documentation, showing current analysis and plans which are continually reviewed and updated. 3.4 Were there any assumptions made at Gate 1, or earlier reviews that have not been verified? • A log of outstanding assumptions, with to verify them; (should be categorised and managed as issues where applicable). 4. Risk Management Areas to probe Evidence expected 4.1 Are the major risks identified, understood, financially evaluated and considered in determining the procurement strategy? • A log of major issues and risks. • Interdependencies with other projects and programmes identified. • For construction projects, occupational health and safety risks identified. • For IT-related projects, relating to IT innovation, infrastructure, security and take-up identified. • Each risk assessed financially and included in business case as a sensitivity or contingency. • An escalation process is in place for upward referral of risks. • A log of issues and risks regularly reviewed by project team; evidence of appropriate action taken. 4.2 Are there risk management plans in place? • Risk management plans for each risk, with responsibilities for managing them clearly identified and allocated; plans are approved by stakeholders. • A process for the ongoing identification, allocation and management of risks, approved by stakeholders, where appropriate. • A risk reporting process in place for upward referral of risks. • A contingency plan, if required. 4.3 Have all issues raised in previous review(s), and during the course of the project, been satisfactorily resolved? • The risk management plan and issues register/log is regularly reviewed by the project team; with evidence of appropriate action taken. 4.4 Are the following external issues being addressed: • statutory processes • communications • public relations • environmental issues? • A list of external issues and related stakeholders. • An external relations plan developed and implemented as part of communications plan/ strategy. 5. Readiness for Next Phase (Investment Decision) Areas to probe Evidence expected 5.1 Is the project plan for the remaining phases realistic? • A project plan detailing clear objectives, deliverables, resourcing and milestones for the remaining phases.
2.6 Are the entity and supplier prepared for the development (where there are new systems and processes), implementation, transition and of any new services? • The proposed supplier’s development and implementation plans are included in the bid and presented to the appropriate entity endorsement and governance bodies/committees. • The entity’s implementation plan is agreed by users and other internal/external stakeholders. 2.7 Are there plans and processes to address future issues, both business and technical? • A strategy for managing change is agreed by all parties, including the supplier. 2.8 Is there clear allocation and understanding of responsibilities between all parties, in addition to any contractual obligations? • Responsibilities defined and allocated among the entity officials, the supplier organisation and personnel. • For cross-portfolio projects, a Memorandum of Understanding (or equivalent), defining responsibilities, relationships and interaction between entities. • Documentation identifying internal relationships and interactions (describing ‘who does what’) with the supplier. • A statement from the supplier outlining reciprocal arrangements, including senior management roles. • If a single supplier, a description of how the project management team will manage the supply chain. • If multiple suppliers, details of how the entity will manage the interaction. • Documentation confirming that the entity and supply team will work together as an integrated project team. • A documented exit strategy exists. 2.9 Are resources available for the supplier to fulfil its obligations within the contract? • A plan for implementing the new contract, identifying the quantity, type and quality of resources required. • Formal management acceptance of resource requirements. 2.10 Have the technical implications been assessed? • Documentation demonstrating that the proposal is technically acceptable and has considered relevant implications such as sustainability and legacy systems etc. 2.11 Does the project have resources with the appropriate skills and experience to achieve the intended outcomes of the investment? • Plans for building client capability, with nominated staff allocated to the major roles • Confirmation of internal and external commitment to provide the resources required. • Job descriptions for key project • A skills appraisal undertaken, with plans for addressing shortfalls, if any. 2.12 Is the proposed procurement within financial approvals and is adequate budget to accommodate the procurement? • Documentation confirming that required financial approvals exist. • Documentation detailing the required budget and timing of milestone payments, referring to the relevant budget measure(s). 3. Review of Current Phase Areas to probe Evidence expected
5.1 Is the working relationship likely to succeed? • A realistic assessment of management behaviours of entity and supplier. • Reporting arrangements identified at appropriate levels of entity and supplier. • Plans for integrating the project team, where appropriate. 5.2 Are all resources and internal funds in place? • Budget provision (including provision for future years). • The provision of human resources is agreed. • An authorisation/approval process for payments to suppliers • A process for expenditure reporting and reconciliation. 5.3 Are the supplier’s project, risk and management plans adequate and realistic? • Confirmation that the supplier’s project plan meets timeframes for achieving the outcome of the investment. • Confirmation that the supplier has adequate insurance arrangements • Confirmation that the supplier has realistic implementation and risk management plans. 5.4 Does the entity’s plan reflect the supplier’s plans? • The updated project management plan reflects tender proposals. • Personnel and responsibilities have been defined and organised for the entity. • Supplier’s personnel have been vetted to meet project requirements. • A process exists for resolving issues, and is agreed with supplier. • Confirmation that all plans have been reviewed, agreed and included in the contract. 5.5 Are the long-term contract, administration plan and performance measurement process complete? • A long-term plan with a contract management strategy and a detailed service delivery plan exists. • Key performance measures agreed with supplier. • An analysis of the project plan showing that resource requirements are identified, planned, budgeted and available when required. • Required resources and sourcing identified. • Roles and responsibilities have been defined. 5.6 Are all mechanisms and processes for the next phase in place? • The project plan confirms arrangements for management, monitoring, transition and implementation. 5.7 Are the service management plan, administration and service level arrangements complete? • A documented service management strategy and plan for the entity. • Defined and agreed service level management, service levels, service quality and measurement between the entity and supplier is confirmed. • Responsibilities for each party agreed. • Defined and agreed standards for services exist. • Defined and agreed monitoring, reporting and review mechanism exists.
1.6 Can the organisation implement the new services whilst maintaining existing services? • A resource plan, exists showing that the entity can demonstrate capacity and capability and that resources are available to meet commitments. 1.7 Are there appropriately skilled and experienced staff available? •Confirmation that there is internal and external commitment to provide the staff required. • Job descriptions exist for key project staff. • skills appraisal and exist for addressing any staffing shortfalls. 2. Review of Current Phase Areas to probe Evidence expected 2.1 Do the products and/or services delivered meet the acceptance criteria? • Justification and authorisation of any changes to original specification (Gate 3 Review). • Analysis of products and/or services to show how the solution complies with acceptance criteria. 2.2 Is the project under control (i.e. running to plan and budget)? • Reconciliations of cost with budget and actual with planned schedule. • Updated risk and issue logs, apart from commissioning issues. • Status reports for communication and external relations activities. • Reports on environmental performance, where applicable. • Compliance with statutory requirements (e.g. occupational health and safety, data protection). • Confirmation that contractual issues are resolved and recorded. 2.3 Have all the stakeholder issues been addressed? • Progress reports completed detailing resolution of issues, and circulated as part of the communication plan for stakeholder information. 2.4 Are all testing and commissioning/ acceptance (or transition) procedures complete? • Commissioning/testing team with relevant skills and experience. • Commissioning/testing plans, results and analyses of products and/or services against acceptance criteria. • Ratified test reports and logs. • Confirmed ‘end-to-end’ testing, including changed or new business processes • Testing documentation exists, taking into account future modules or deliveries. •Where there are missing or incomplete items; agreed corrective action is documented. • For IT-enabled projects, information assurance tests exist. 2.5 Have all parties accepted the commissioning/test results and any required action plans? • Documented acceptance of procedures and results by supplier and entity.
2.6 Are there workable and tested contingency and back-out plans for roll-out, implementation and operation? • A fully documented approach with timetables, for key aspects and events, for example, IT components and decisions about roll-out. • Decision-makers to be be informed and clearly identified in the documentation. • and responsibilities listed; resources allocated and staff trained. • Commissioning/testing documented and showing they represented the expected scenario(s). • Plans for the transition to new ways of working, where applicable. • Plans for handover to facilities management, where applicable. • Training plans and relevant supporting material exist, if required. 2.7 Have the supplier and all internal and external parties agreed on the implementation plans? These could include: • management of change • migration and data transfer • client and supplier implementation • roll-out • post-implementation review. • All required plans in the contract have been agreed. • All parties, or their representatives, are aware of their responsibilities and have agreed to them 2.8 Have any changes to the contract been previously forecast, accurately recorded and approved? • The contract documentation shows appropriate authority for all changes since the awarding of the contract, including rationale for the change. 2.9 Is a training plan and curriculum? • Training and relevant supporting material exist. 3. Risk Management Areas to probe Evidence expected 3.1 Have the and issues that arose in the awarding of the contract award and implementation phase been properly managed? • Confirmation that are resolved—no outstanding issues. • Any remaining risks are associated only with commissioning and service delivery - these risks are to be fully quantified, and dealt with by applying suitable risk management plans. 3.2 If are unresolved issues, what are the risks of implementing rather than delaying? • An assessment of all remaining issues and risks, with responsibility for management of residual risks clearly defined. • An evaluation report on the risk and effect of cancelling, delaying or proceeding with implementation that considers: • the project outcome and wider programme of change; • benefits realisation; • the consequences for supplier, client, business, stakeholders, etc;.
users 1.2 Have the business benefits been realised as set out in the business case? Did the entity achieve benefits? • Findings from the post-implementation review, or the post-project review or equivalent major review, including: • the project’s success criteria was met; • project performance criteria and key performance indicators met or exceeded; • total project value targets achieved; • contribution to programme/project benefits (as appropriate) and strategic outcomes tracked; • updated business and benefits realisation plans are compared to the Gate 3— Investment Decision Review and the Gate 4—Readiness for Service Review; • assessment of benefits in current operating regime using the benefits measurement basis defined in the Gate 4 Review; and • anticipated future benefits identified. 1.3 Have the needs of the business and/ or changed? • A comparison of current business and end-user needs with those identified in the Gate 3 and Gate 4 Reviews. • Periodic reviews of business and end-user needs and a projection of future changes. 1.4 Have all the governance and stakeholder issues been addressed? These include: • the statutory process • communications • external relations • environmental issues • personnel. • Updated operational communications strategy, communications plan and issues log. • Governance structure reciprocated in both client and provider organisation. • Issues addressed at the appropriate level in client and provider organisations. and • empowerment to make decisions and stakeholder involvement. 1.5 Are the satisfied with the operational service? • Details of user groups, outputs and the feedback process. • Indication of advance preparation for changes in way services are delivered. • User-friendly guide to the services provided. 2. Review of Operating Phase to probe Evidence expected 2.1 Is the service/facility operating to defined parameters? • Documented operating parameters, updated as needs change. • Updated service agreements, where applicable. • Service delivery is measured against defined parameters. • Confirmation that the measures used to address poor or non-performance are effective • The facility is safe to operate and maintain. • Sustainability targets are met or exceeded. • Client/stakeholder satisfaction and experiences are assessed.
4.2 Is the programme on track in relation to planning and/or delivery? • The programme report and plan are updated. • Milestones are achieved as planned. • The plan for benefits measurement and achievement is on track. • The risk register is current. • There are highlight reports for constituent work • The resources and funding used to date. • Issues being resolved. • Documented confidence from delivery partners that future milestones and plans are realistic. • Confirmation that interdependencies with programmes are being managed satisfactorily. 4.3 Have problems occurred and if so how have they been resolved? • Issues and details of action taken are documented. • Governance framework with escalation routes to senior management, ministers and responsible interdepartmental committees and central entities. • The programme plan is updated to reflect changing issues and risks. • Recommendations from previous Gateway reviews are addressed. Key focus areas to probe Evidence expected 4.4 Have options for potential ways forward been identified? • Documentation of various solutions including policy, asset and non-asset options. • A comparison of retention maintenance and replacement indicative costs. • Options analysis or feasibility studies. 4.5 Have lessons learned been shared? • Confirmation of lessons learned and shared across the entity and across programmes. 5. Assessment of intended outcomes and benefits Review the management of intended outcomes and benefits by analysing governance arrangements for leading, managing and monitoring the programme, including and responsibilities for managing risk, interdependencies between other programmes/projects, including those of other agencies. How to use this section for: First Stage Programme Review If the first review is very early, the key aspects to investigate thoroughly are: • the main outcomes and benefits identified, and • the relationships between the outcomes. Plans for achieving the outcomes are likely to be unclear at an early stage. There should be evidence of high-level plans for the way forward or a set of options for consideration, with a preferred option identified. There should also be a reasonably clear indication of how success will be measured, e.g. a trajectory for take-up of a service. At programme initiation, all areas must be investigated thoroughly to confirm expectations for delivery are realistic and performance can be measured with reasonable accuracy.