Does SOMA understand the Ofwat regulatory framework and AMP delivery requirements?

Yes. Our practitioners have worked on AMP7 capital programmes and understand the regulatory context — how Ofwat assesses efficient delivery, what the price review commitments mean for cost and schedule management, and how controls reporting needs to be structured to support both internal governance and regulatory accountability.

Can SOMA support a water company's integrated PMO across a large capital portfolio?

Yes. Portfolio-level project controls — consolidated schedule and cost reporting, consistent risk management and supply chain controls assurance across a large number of simultaneous projects — is one of our core capabilities. We design integrated PMO functions that give the portfolio director a reliable picture without requiring each project team to produce bespoke reports.

How does SOMA approach QRA on water programmes where scope uncertainty is high?

We model scope uncertainty explicitly — the probability that excavation will reveal conditions requiring additional scope, the cost range of that additional work, and the schedule consequence for dependent activities. This is more honest than treating buried asset condition as a known quantity and more useful than simply widening all the distributions.

Can SOMA help design project controls standards for a water company's supply chain?

Yes. We have designed controls standards — schedule quality requirements, WBS conventions, progress reporting templates, risk register formats — for deployment across supply chain frameworks. Getting supply chain controls right at the start of an AMP period is significantly more efficient than attempting to impose standards on a programme that is already in delivery.

Sector

Project controls for UK water and utilities programmes.

Schedule, cost and risk management for water company capital programmes — built around AMP delivery, Ofwat regulatory reporting and the specific cost and schedule drivers of water infrastructure.

Talk to us All sectors

Water and utilities capital programmes in the UK operate within a regulatory framework that is unlike any other infrastructure sector. Ofwat's Asset Management Period (AMP) structure, the price review process and the requirement to demonstrate efficient capital delivery to the regulator create a controls environment where cost and schedule confidence are directly tied to regulatory exposure.

SOMA delivers project controls into water company capital programmes and their supply chains, where the AMP delivery cadence, multi-project portfolio management and Ofwat cost reporting requirements shape everything from how the WBS is structured to how QRA results are presented to the board.

Delivery challenges in this sector

AMP delivery cadence and portfolio management

Water company capital programmes are delivered within five-year AMP cycles, with commitments made to Ofwat at the price review. Delivering the committed programme within the AMP envelope — managing scope changes, cost variances and schedule slippage without breaching regulatory commitments — requires integrated portfolio controls across hundreds of projects.

Ofwat totex and cost reporting

Ofwat's totex regulatory framework — combining capital and operational expenditure — creates specific cost reporting requirements that project controls systems must accommodate. Cost data must be structured to support both internal delivery management and the regulatory reporting format that Ofwat uses to assess efficient delivery.

Asset condition uncertainty and scope volatility

Water infrastructure programmes often begin with uncertain scope — the condition of buried assets is not fully known until excavation begins. This creates cost and schedule volatility that must be managed through active risk management, contingency governance and QRA models that represent scope uncertainty honestly.

Supply chain controls consistency across a large portfolio

Major water companies manage capital programmes through framework contractors with widely varying controls maturity. Consistent schedule quality, cost reporting and risk management across a portfolio of fifty or a hundred simultaneous projects requires deliberate standards design and active supply chain assurance.

How SOMA approaches Water programmes

We bring AMP programme experience to water sector controls — understanding the regulatory context, the portfolio management requirements and the specific cost structure of water infrastructure work. Our QRA work is structured to give water company investment committees the confidence levels they need for AMP commitments, not just comfortable numbers for internal reporting.

Standards and frameworks

Ofwat price review framework (PR24 / AMP8)
Water Industry Act regulatory requirements
AACE International — Total Cost Management Framework
NEC4 (Engineering and Construction Contract)
IPA (Infrastructure and Projects Authority)
ISO 55000 — Asset Management

Water & Utilities project controls — questions we get asked

Does SOMA understand the Ofwat regulatory framework and AMP delivery requirements?: Yes. Our practitioners have worked on AMP7 capital programmes and understand the regulatory context — how Ofwat assesses efficient delivery, what the price review commitments mean for cost and schedule management, and how controls reporting needs to be structured to support both internal governance and regulatory accountability.
Can SOMA support a water company's integrated PMO across a large capital portfolio?: Yes. Portfolio-level project controls — consolidated schedule and cost reporting, consistent risk management and supply chain controls assurance across a large number of simultaneous projects — is one of our core capabilities. We design integrated PMO functions that give the portfolio director a reliable picture without requiring each project team to produce bespoke reports.
How does SOMA approach QRA on water programmes where scope uncertainty is high?: We model scope uncertainty explicitly — the probability that excavation will reveal conditions requiring additional scope, the cost range of that additional work, and the schedule consequence for dependent activities. This is more honest than treating buried asset condition as a known quantity and more useful than simply widening all the distributions.
Can SOMA help design project controls standards for a water company's supply chain?: Yes. We have designed controls standards — schedule quality requirements, WBS conventions, progress reporting templates, risk register formats — for deployment across supply chain frameworks. Getting supply chain controls right at the start of an AMP period is significantly more efficient than attempting to impose standards on a programme that is already in delivery.

Working on a Water programme?

Most engagements start with a short call. We work out whether we're the right fit, then come back with a short scoping note — scope, duration, team, indicative cost.

Start a conversation