Seven standard review types, each designed for a specific phase of the project lifecycle and a specific client concern, with custom reviews available on request. Risk management is assessed within all seven.
Each review is led by a senior Lead Reviewer, overseen by a founding principal, with teams of two to six reviewers. The findings go directly to the Board or Sponsor — not filtered through the project team.
Before a project moves from one development phase to the next, it should be genuinely ready — not administratively ready. A PSR review tests whether the foundations for the next phase are in place: scope definition, resourcing, risk understanding, and the commercial and technical basis for the work ahead.
A schedule that looks complete is not the same as a schedule that is credible. SA-X examines critical path logic, long-lead items, permit and approvals risk, resource assumptions, and the gap between what the schedule says and what the project can realistically deliver.
PPGR provides an independent assessment of whether a project is genuinely ready to pass its gate, testing the definitions, estimates and plans underlying the submission.
FEL assessment provides an independent score of project definition completeness, combined with qualitative practitioner assessment. The output identifies specific gaps carrying cost and schedule risk.
A health check can identify concerns across engineering, procurement and construction before they compound into programme-level problems, giving sponsors an independent picture of where the project stands.
A cold-eyes review provides an independent perspective on whether the asset, team and systems are genuinely prepared for start-up, including handover, spares, training, commissioning and operational readiness.
When a project has deviated materially from plan, an independent diagnosis of root causes and recoverability provides the basis for a structured recovery roadmap and the difficult decisions that follow.
A facilitated, independent risk assessment that builds or challenges the project’s risk position, including Monte Carlo cost and schedule analysis to support contingency setting and gate decisions.
How well risk is managed across a portfolio or programme of capital projects, benchmarked against good practice, with a prioritised roadmap to lift capability before the next major investment decisions.
An independent assessment of a project’s risk framework and how it is used in practice: governance, register quality, scoring and calibration, treatment and controls, risk retirement and contingency.
Where commissioned, P50/P90 cost and schedule outcomes and a contingency view to support gate decisions.
Scope, reporting line and independence agreed with the sponsor.
Independent review; questions built from the gaps found.
Structured interviews with leadership and key disciplines.
Findings tested with the team for factual accuracy.
Board-ready report and briefing to the decision-maker.
Reviews are led by a senior Lead Reviewer and overseen by a founding principal, with teams of two to six reviewers drawn from a vetted panel. Disciplines covered include delivery and controls, engineering, commercial, operations, risk and governance, and recovery and disputes.
Independent support with subject matter experts, contractor claims, arbitration and disputes. The founding principals bring commercial and contractual experience across major project disputes; this capability is available selectively.
Discuss an engagement