• Cart
Log in

Log in

home page banner blank


Focus On Series


The Administration of the Gateway Review Process

ANAO The Administration of the Gateway Review ProcessAudit Summary

Publication Date:
February 2012

Audit Office:
Australian National Audit Office

Link to full report:
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3721/f/201112 Audit Report No 22.pdf

Audited Entities

  • Department of Finance and Deregulation
  • Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act agencies

Audit Scope and Objectives

  • The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the administration of the Gateway review process by Finance and FMA Act agencies.
  • The audit also examined the extent to which those Gateway reviews that have been conducted have contributed to improvements in the delivery of major projects undertaken by FMA Act agencies.

Audit Criteria

  • The Gateway Unit has appropriate procedures and guidance in place to effectively manage the administration of Gateway across the Australian Government.
  • The application of the thresholds for inclusion in Gateway is sufficient to ensure that all major projects are subject to review as intended.
  • Gateway review teams are adequately skilled and reviews are carried out in accordance with relevant guidance.
  • Agencies have procedures in place to ensure project team compliance with Gateway requirements.
  • Agencies respond in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations of Gateway reviews.

Main Audit Findings

  • Overall, the Gateway review process has been effectively implemented within the Australian Government. There has been a focus on high risk, high value projects with 46 projects valued at more than $17 billion across 23 agencies examined in the first five years of Gateway’s application. In the first three years, about one in every five reviews identified that there were significant issues that needed to be addressed before the project proceeded further. In the last two years, there have been no reviews that have identified major issues requiring urgent action.
  • However, participation in the Gateway review process does not guarantee success in meeting specified project objectives. At least three of the nine projects that have completed the full suite of Gateway reviews up to 30 June 2011 were not completed on‐time and on-budget and/or did not deliver the outcomes expected when funding was approved.
  • While the processes used to determine which projects are to be subject to Gateway reviews were generally effective, several projects that met the criteria were not subject to Gateway reviews due to the timing of their risk assessments.
  • There are often significant delays between Gate reviews, including as a result of reviews being rescheduled by the sponsoring agency.
  • The contribution that Gateway makes to improved project delivery depends, to a significant extent, on agencies promptly progressing the issues raised in reviews. However, it is common for agencies to not fully implement review recommendations in a timely manner.
  • To date, there has been significant reliance on private sector reviewers, with targets for participation by Australian Public Service (APS) staff not being met. In addition, to date, only one review has been led by a member of the APS, and there has been a high degree of reliance on a small number of private sector participants to lead individual reviews.

Audit Recommendations

  • To improve the Gateway risk assessment process used to determine which projects are to be subject to these reviews, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation examine options and pursue an approach that provides relevant Ministers with visibility over any projects proposed to be excluded from Gateway because of delays with the sponsoring agency completing a Gateway risk assessment.
  • To provide assurance that the Gateway review process is being applied to all relevant projects, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation periodically examine the outcomes of those projects excluded from Gateway on the basis of their assessed level of inherent risk.
  • To provide assurance that the high risk projects subject to Gateway are being progressed in accordance with the stated objectives and time, cost and quality parameters expected at the time funding was originally approved by government, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation examine the merits of conducting annual Gateway reviews for projects where there would otherwise be an extended delay between reviews.
  • To assess the contribution that the Gateway review process is making to improving project delivery performance by agencies and identify any opportunities to improve the Australian Government’s application of Gateway, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation periodically analyse the time, cost and scope outcomes achieved by completed projects against the parameters expected at the time funding was originally approved by government, and compare this with the findings and ratings of the Gateway review report for each project.
  • The ANAO recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation implement appropriate measures to promote a greater focus by agencies on the timely and effective implementation of Gateway review report recommendations.