[Insert Security Classification once completed]
OGC Gateway™ Review 2: Strategic assessment
Project Title:[Insert project name]
Version 5.0 (High Risk Delivery Confidence) 2016
© Crown Copyright 2016
This is a Value Added product, which is outside the scope of the HMSO core Licence
OGC Gateway™ Review 2: Delivery strategy
Version number: / [Insert Draft 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 or Final 1.0]Senior Responsible Owner (SRO): / [Insert name]
Date of issue to SRO: / [Insert date]
Project Title: / [Insert programme name]
Department/Organisation of the Programme / [Insert name]
Agency or NDPB (if applicable): / [Insert name]
Review dates: / [Insert dates dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy]
Review Team Leader: / [Insert name of team leader]
Review Team Members: / [Insert name of team member]
[Insert name of team member]
[Insert name of team member]
Previous Review: / [Insert review type]
[Insert dates]
[Insert Delivery Confidence Assessment -DCA]
IPA ID number: / [Insert number]
GMPP ID number (For IPA use only): / [Insert number]
Delivery Confidence Assessment
The Review Team finds that[Insert a statement outlining the Review Team’s view of the likelihood of the project delivering successfully.]
[Please refer to the “Delivery Confidence - Guide for Review Teams”.The statement should be an overview of the key issues that the Review Team consider have the greatest impact on Delivery Confidence. Additional evidence based views and recommendations should be included in the body of the report.]
The Delivery Confidence assessment RAG status should use the definitions below:
RAG / Criteria DescriptionGreen / Successful delivery of the project to time, cost and quality appears highly likely and there are no major outstanding issues that at this stage appear to threaten delivery.
Amber/Green / Successful delivery appears probable. However, constant attention will be needed to ensure risks do not materialise into major issues threatening delivery.
Amber / Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and, if addressed promptly, should not present a cost/schedule overrun.
Amber/Red / Successful delivery of the project is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and establish whether resolution is feasible.
Red / Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues which, at this stage, do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-baselining and/or overall viability re-assessed.
Summary of Report Recommendations
The Review Team makes the following recommendations which are prioritised using the definitions below:
[N.B. When assigning a classification to a recommendation, reviewers will need to consult the “Guide to the Classification of Recommendations” where they will find a list of the classifications and their meanings.]
Ref. No. / Recommendation / Critical/Essential/
Recommended / Target date for completion / Classification
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Choose an item. /
Critical (Do Now) – To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome it is of the greatest importance that the project should take action immediately
Essential (Do By) – To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome the project should take action in the near future.
[Note to review teams – whenever possible Essential recommendations should be linked to project milestones e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe e.g. within the next three months.]
Recommended – The programme/project should benefit from the uptake of this recommendation.
[Note to review teams – if possible Recommended recommendations should be linked to project milestones e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe e.g. within the next three months.]
Comments from the SRO
[Insert comments here]Background
The aims of the project:
[Insert two or three short paragraphs on the key aims of the project]
The driving force for the project:
[Insert a statement that describes why the project came into existence and/or is necessary. Consider, for example; the deficiency, need, issue, political imperative or opportunity that instigated the project. Also state the programme to which the project contributes, if applicable]
The procurement/delivery status:
[Insert a statement that describes how far the procurement process has progressed within the project]
Current position regarding previous assurance reviews:
[Insert a statement that describes which assurance reviews have already taken place on the project]
[Note whether the recommendations of any earlier assurancereviews of the project have been implemented and, if not, comment on the justification for any alternative course of action.]
The SRO’s Osmotherley letter (letter of appointment) has been approved/not approved* at the appropriate levels.
*delete as appropriate
[If not in place, please indicate the reason and expected date of approval.]
A summary of recommendations, progress and status from the previous assurancereview can be found in Annex C.
Purposes and conduct of the OGC GatewayReview
The primary purpose of a Gateway Review 2: Delivery strategy, is to confirm the Outline Business Case now that the project is fully defined and ensure that the procurement and delivery strategy is robust and appropriate.
Annex A gives the full purposes statement for a Gateway Review 2.
Annex B lists the people who were interviewed during the review.
Acknowledgement
[Insert a note of thanks to the SRO and the client team. e.g. “The Review Team would like to thank the Client X Project Team for their support and openness, which contributed to the Review Team’s understanding of the Project and the outcome of this Review.”]
Scope of the Review
[The scope of the review is determined by the stage the programme is at in its lifecycle e.g. early, mid, final. The relevant OGC Gateway workbook refers you to the scope for the review.]
Review Team findings and recommendations
1: Assessment of the delivery approach
[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]
2: Business Case and stakeholders
[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]
3: Risk management
[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]
4: Review of current phase
[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]
5: Readiness for next phase – Investment decision
[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]
Next Assurance Review
[Insert suggested next review type, timing, areas to be covered and/or milestone/s to be achieved]
ANNEX A
Purposes of the OGC GatewayReview 2: Delivery strategy:
- Confirm the Outline Business Case now the project is fully defined.
- Confirm, that the objectives and desired outputs of the project are still aligned with the programme to which it contributes.
- Ensure that the delivery strategy is robust and appropriate.
- Ensure that the project’s plan through to completion is appropriately detailed and realistic, including anycontract management strategy.
- Ensure that the project controls and organisation are defined, financial controls are in place and the resources are available.
- Confirm funding availability for the whole project.
- Confirm that the development and delivery approach and mechanisms are still appropriate and manageable.
- If appropriate, check that the supplier market capability and track record are fully understood (or existing supplier’s capability and performance), and that there will be an adequate competitive response from the market to the requirement.
- Confirm that the project will facilitate good client/supplier relationships in accordance with government initiatives such as Achieving Excellence in Construction.
- For a procurement project, confirm that there is an appropriate procurement plan in place that will ensure compliance with legal requirements an d all apllicable EU rules, while meeting the project’s objectives and keeping procurement timescales to a minimum.
- Confirm that appropriate project performance measures and tools are being used.
- Confirm that there are plans for risk management, issue management (business and technical) and that these plans will be shared with suppliers and/or delivery partners.
- Confirm that quality procedures have been applied consistently since the previous Review.
- For IT-enabled projects, confirm compliance with IT and information security requirements, and IT standards.
- For construction projects, confirm compliance with health and safety and sustainability requirements.
- Confirm that internal organisational resources and capabilities will be available as required for future phases of the project.
- Confirm that the stakeholders support the project and are committed to its success.
ANNEX B
List of Interviewees
The following stakeholders were interviewed during the review:
Name / Organisation and role[Add or delete rows as required]
ANNEX C
Progress against previous assurance review (insert review dates) recommendations:
Recommendation / Progress/Status[Add or delete rows as required]
[Insert Security Classification once completed]
Page 1 of 12
This report is an evidence-based snapshot of the project's status at the time of the review. It reflects the views of the independent review team, based on information evaluated over the review period, and is delivered to the SRO immediately at the conclusion of the review.