Services

Assurance and analytics across the whole project.

Built for the project managers who deliver the work, the sponsors and steering teams who answer for it, and the site and reliability leaders who own the portfolio it sits in, everyone who needs a straight answer on where the project really stands before the money commits.

The Foundation

The system everything else measures against, and the software that runs it.

Two parts, one foundation: the documented standard (CAP·CORE) and the platform that deploys and runs it on real projects (CAP·PATH). Adopt the standard, run it in the software, or both.

CAP·CORE

Capital Project Management System

Own the standard, not a black box.

The documented best-practice owner's system a complete capital program runs on: governance and portfolio, front-end definition, planning and readiness, execution and construction, commissioning and startup, and closeout, across forty-seven standards. Built on public-framework rigor (AACE, CII front-end planning practice, PMI, DCMA, GAO) and tiered so a major project and a replacement-in-kind run the same process at the depth each deserves. It is the standard every CAP Intelligence review measures against, and a system you can adopt as your own.

CAP·CORE Standard

License the management system and its tiered work process, tailored to your sites, your nomenclature, your funding sources, and your approval ladder. A documented program your team can run, with every requirement classed as an interlock, a core practice, or a stretch, so tailoring is honest rather than silent.

CAP·CORE Adoption

A hands-on engagement to stand the system up and make it stick: load the portfolio, deploy the work process on the live projects, set the gate calendar and the accountability, seed the portfolio governance forum, and coach your people to run it without us.

The forty-seven standards, listed→

CAP·PATHAvailable now

The Capital Project Management Platform

The standard, made live.

The software your capital program runs on. It deploys the work process, whether that is the CAP·CORE standard, your own existing gate process, or a custom one, to every project at its tier, then carries the whole program around it: the capital portfolio and its cash by year, the scoping requests that bring projects in the front door, the governance forums and their gate decisions, the risk register, actions, and lessons, all on one project record and one standard you own and edit.

Deploy any gated work process: ours, yours, or custom, at four tiers

A capital portfolio with cost by year, funding split, and the turnaround windows projects ride

Gate decisions recorded as the record, with four outcomes and a re-review date

Governance forums, decisions, risks, actions, and lessons in one spine

Explore the platform→The capital portfolio→Read the platform sheet→

Tier 1

Assurance Reviews

Point-in-time diagnostic reviews. An independent read at the gates that matter, and an input to the gate, never the decision.

01Flagship

CAP·AR

Capital Project Assurance Review

The full assurance arc on one project: a feasibility review ahead of the first gate, a definition review ahead of the second, a sanction readiness review ahead of the final investment decision, and a closeout review that files the benchmark record. Every CAP·AR runs AI-led one-on-one interviews as standard. Each person on the roster is interviewed individually, on their own schedule, along a question line built for their discipline and the gate in front of them, so coverage is complete and consistent instead of limited to whoever could make the site visit.

CAP·AR1 feasibility, CAP·AR2 definition, CAP·AR3 sanction readiness, CAP·AR4 closeout: scoped to the tier, so a small project gets a desk review and a major one gets the full arc
Scope definition completeness scored against a public-framework element set, gate by gate
Estimate class, basis of estimate, and contingency method tested against what the gate requires
AI-led one-on-one interviews across every discipline seat, from sponsor to commissioning lead
Cross-checked findings: what one interview raises is tested in the next
An independent input to the gate, never the decision: the gatekeeper still decides

Read the service sheet→

02Tier 1

CAP·SAR

Schedule Assurance Review

A rigorous read on the integrated schedule's structural integrity before the baseline locks at sanction, while there is still time to fix the logic. Engineering and procurement sequence, gate milestones as anchors, resource and cost loading, float, and critical-path resilience, exhaustively analyzed and handed back as a prioritized correction plan a scheduler and a sponsor can both act on.

Structured schedule-quality scoring against a published standard, with project-specific thresholds
Engineering, procurement, and construction logic: issued-for-construction before fabrication, order before delivery, delivery before install
Critical-path and float resilience under change, including the tie-in window when the project rides one
Prioritized correction plan, plain-language executive read with scheduler-level depth underneath

Read the service sheet→

03Tier 1

CAP·SPR

Schedule Performance Review

The honest account of what actually happened, reconstructed after startup from the records themselves. We rebuild the as-built against the sanction baseline and bring in the change log, the progress reports, and the mechanical completion and turnover records, so the read on execution rests on ground truth rather than recollection. It shows where time was made and lost, activity by activity, and why. CAP·SPR runs inside the CAP·AR4 closeout review when a project needs it, or standalone when an owner wants the why before closeout: CAP·AR4 is the look-back over the whole project at G6, CAP·SPR is the schedule forensics underneath it.

Baseline vs. as-built reconstruction, activity by activity, from sanction to handover
Field changes and trend log joined in as the cost and scope ground truth
Slip attributed to its causes, additively, to an exact residual
Execution effectiveness scored against best practice and against the estimate class the project was sanctioned at
Metrics that file straight into the closeout report and the benchmark record

Read the service sheet→

Where the reviews land

Six gates, four reviews, one arc.

The work process runs seven phases from initiation to closeout. G1, G2 and G3 are the funding gates, and the project sponsor decides them. G4, G5 and G6 are the delivery gates, construction readiness, startup readiness and closeout, and the steering chair decides those; the execution phases beneath them overlap by design, so a gate after sanction confirms readiness rather than releasing the next tranche of money. Every gate is a decision with four outcomes: proceed, recycle, hold, or cancel, and cancel stays on the table after sanction, because conditions change. Each assurance review lands on one of them.

CAP·AR1

Ahead of G1 · Feasibility gate

Is the premise sound and owned?

Business case, alternatives honestly killed, portfolio fit, a Class 5 estimate and a milestone schedule that hang together.

CAP·AR2

Ahead of G2 · Definition gate

Is the scope defined enough to fund the detailed definition?

Basis of design, scored scope package, estimate class against the gate, execution strategy and contracting plan.

CAP·AR3

Ahead of G3 · Sanction gate

Is the project ready to sanction and execute?

Definition completeness, the control estimate and its contingency basis, a resource-loaded baseline stress-tested by CAP·SAR, and the team aligned.

CAP·AR4

At G6 · Closeout gate

What happened, and what carries forward?

Cost and schedule outcome against sanction, CAP·SPR on the as-built, lessons converted to owned actions, the benchmark record filed.

Tiers scale the arc: Major and Standard projects carry all four reviews. A Small project carries a desk review ahead of sanction. A replacement-in-kind runs a single combined definition-and-funding gate and no independent review at all, because the point of the light track is that it stays light.

How the review runs

Standard on every CAP·AR

The interviews got better when we stopped scheduling them.

A gate review has always lived or died on the interviews. The problem was never the method, it was the logistics: a week on site, a room of people who could make it, and a consultant who is sharper on Tuesday morning than Thursday afternoon. Group sessions save time and bury disagreement, and on a capital project the disagreement between the sponsor and the construction manager is usually the finding. Every CAP·AR now runs AI-led one-on-one interviews as standard, so the method survives contact with the calendar.

Nothing to coordinate

You give us the roster once. Each person gets their own link and takes it when it suits them, in voice or text. No review week to build a site visit around.

Every seat, every time

Sponsor, project manager, controls, project and process engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, the operations owner, HSE, finance, and the turnaround manager when the project rides a window. Coverage stops depending on who was free.

It pulls the thread

Each interview keeps probing where an answer is vague or a real risk appears, instead of moving on to keep a room on schedule.

It cross-checks

What one discipline raises is put, anonymously, to the disciplines not yet interviewed. Quiet disagreements surface instead of being buried.

Findings still reach the report only when the consultant accepts them. The interviews gather and cross-examine; the judgment on what matters stays with us, and the gate decision stays with your gatekeeper.

Tier 2

Capability

Forward-looking, recurring work that shapes the portfolio and builds the capability to run it.

04Tier 2

Capital Portfolio Development & Challenge

The right projects, tiered and phased, before budget lock

The highest-altitude conversation in the capital cycle, and the one that front-runs every gate. We stand the portfolio up in the tool, tier every project with the calculator, and challenge the list before the budget locks: projects that do not clear the plan-entry test are killed or deferred, replacement-in-kind candidates are moved onto the light track, work that belongs in a turnaround window is bundled onto one, and the survivors are phased against the cash the year can carry. A natural annual engagement synchronized to budget season.

Every item held to the plan-entry test: a Terms of Reference, a risk-register entry, a rough-order cost, a front-end plan, and cash phasing before it enters the plan
Tier assigned by a scored seven-factor calculator, so two people sizing the same project land in the same place
The three-level challenge ladder from ten months before the budget year to one
A rolling five-year plan with a firm twenty-four-month window your team refreshes monthly

How a portfolio challenge runs→

Where this is going

The build

The forward-looking layer is being built on a growing foundation of real project data: predictive forecasting of cost and schedule exposure by tier and estimate class, an independent benchmark, and assurance you can call on between the gates rather than only at one.

CAP·FORECAP·INDEX

See the vision and how it gets built→

Not sure which one you need?

Tell us about the project, or the portfolio, and where it is in its gates. We’ll tell you where the leverage is.

Start a conversation