Annex 2—National Project Management System conformance review regional/sector report template (update 4)
Date: (insert date on which the report is sent to Head Quarter)
National Project Management System conformance review report
For: (name of region / sector / organization)
This report represents the results of all the National Project Management System (NPMS) comprehensive conformance reviews performed in accordance with the National Project Management System Directive on the Monitoring of Real Property Projects' Conformance to the National Project Management System for FY (indicate current fiscal year).
One report per region/sector is to be provided (regions/sectors are to coordinate between their areas as/if necessary).
By project category, the Results table below contains the total number of real property projects over $250K of any type undertaken by the region/sector (column A) and the number of projects reviewed (column B). It also contains, for the projects reviewed, the number of projects that had no major issues (column C) and the percentage that number represents amongst the projects reviewed (column C divided by column B). The major issues encountered must be described after the Results table.
To qualify as a project with no major issues, the reviewed project must:
- Not be missing any major documents. If required by the NPMS stream to be followed, the major documents are the Statement of Requirement (SoR), the project charter, the investment analysis report (IAR), the project management plan (PMP) and the Project Review Advisory Committee (PRAC) report. All of these must be on file, approved with signatures (or a proof of approval such as an email from the approval authority). Paper files are acceptable if properly stored in a regional central facility
- Not have more than one NPMS deliverable missing. If required by the NPMS process to be followed, the deliverables are: preliminary project plan (PPP), feasibility report (FR), project complexity and risk assessment (PCRA), Identification close out document (ICOD), product turn-over (PTO), close out document (COD) and Lessons learned (LL). They must be on file, approved with signatures (or a proof of approval such as an email from the approval authority). Paper files are acceptable if properly stored in a regional central facility
- Have all project documentation easily retrievable in a collaborative tool (in GCdocs as of January 2018). Having project information on a precarious or isolated medium is a major issue (such as a personal network drive, USB or C drive). Not following the electronic project filing structure (EPFS) for projects started since September 2013 is also a major issue
- Have documentation of appropriate quality according to the nature and complexity of the project. For example, barely-completed templates are a major issue. Following NPMS Lite when the project calls for NPMS Full is a major issue, as projects that go over an NPMS threshold are to meet the new threshold requirements as soon as the change is known
This table is a template and contains no data.
This table specifies, for each project category, the total number, the number of project reviewed, the percentage reviewed, the number of projects with no major issues and associated percentage, and comments.
|Project category||Threshold ($)||Total number (A)||Number reviewed (B)||% (B/A)||No major issues for||Issues|
|Number (C)||% (C/B)|
|250K to <100M|
|250K to <100M|| See Table 1
(bridges, dams, etc.)
|250K to <100M|
|Environmental Footnote *||250K to <100M|
|Other government department||250K to <100M|
|Tenant Service||250K to <100M|
|Total for the organization||250K to <100M|
|100M and up|
Table(s) to be provided: Under the Issues column in the Results table, reference numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) are used and, below the Results table, additional tables are added which correspond to these reference numbers. These additional tables provide details about each non-conformance (see document glossary below). After each table, any other relevant information is added, as appropriate.
This table indicate, for each space project reviewed that is over $250k and below $100M, whether the required NPMS deliverables and elements of review are provided or not. A dot means the document is provided, a X means it's missing. Relevant information added as necessary to explain issues in table below.
|Element of review|
The 10% sampling for the comprehensive reviews must be calculated from all projects between $250K and $100M that have reached, as a minimum, the substantively-completed IAR status. It is understood that projects at that stage will have fewer completed documents and deliverables, but it is important to start reviewing them at that point. All (100% of) projects over $100M have to be reviewed every year.
Sampling should always be done proportionally to the project types handled in any given region/sector. For example, it would not be appropriate to review mostly identification stage projects when they represent a small number of the total, nor would it be appropriate to mostly review PSPC-funded projects if most of the regional work is Other Government Department (OGD). An identification-stage project is a project that has only reached the substantive IAR phase.
Additional information to be reported on
- Observations on the source or causes of the conformance issues encountered during the reviews, and actions already taken to prevent them in the future (can be n/a if there were no issues)
- Innovative or integration solutions used to facilitate the conformance review process or integrate the review process into existing regional processes that other regions could benefit from
- Regional action plan for actions to be taken to address the conformance issues (what is being planned to address the issues encountered that can be reviewed in the next review cycle - can be n/a if there are no actions to be taken or if they were already taken) and a report on the implementation of the previous year's recommendations
- Were PRACs conducted in accordance with NPMS? What were the main issues found in the PRACs that were conducted? Were PRACs done for all projects as per the National Project Management System Real Property Procedure on Project Reviews? If not 100%, what was the percentage of projects that had their PRACs done, and what were the reasons for not doing all projects?
- Were lessons learned produced in accordance with NPMS? Were lessons learned done for all projects as per the National Project Management System Directive on Lessons Learned for Real Property Projects? If lessons learned were not done for 100% of projects, what was the percentage of projects that had lessons learned produced, and what were the reasons for not doing all projects?
- Close out document
- Feasibility report
- Investment analysis report
- Identification Close-Out Document
- Lessons learned documentation
- Project charter
- Project complexity and risk assessment
- Project management plan
- Preliminary project plan
- Project Review Advisory Committee (report)
- Product turn-over
- Statement of requirements
- Easily retrievable and reliable document storage
- Date modified: