LAND INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, TARGET ACQUISITION AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISTAR)

Rating: Compared to financial year 24/25 Q4, the NISTA/SRO Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at 25/26 Q4 increased to Amber. This is primarily due to the following factors. 1. Delivery of the SRO’s Get Well Plan, including work done by the Programme Design and Integration Office on a digital ecosystem within Defence. This progress was achieved despite challenges with workforce capacity in the delivery teams and the wider complexities within Defence. 2. The improvement on the previous year’s assessment and confirmed by the Dec 2025 NISTA Assurance Review.

Schedule: Compared to financial year 24/25-Q4, the programme's end-date at 25/26-Q4 remained the same at 31/12/2027.

Cost: Compared to financial year 24/25-Q4, the project's departmentally agreed Whole Life Cost at 25/26-Q4 (measured in £m) decreased from £1878.28M to £1622.50M This is primarily due to the following factors. 1. The Programme’s Whole Life Cost has reduced overall compared to 12 months ago. The reduction is driven primarily by Defence Board-approved requirement and scope changes, with costings removed in line with updated commissioning instructions. 2. Further decreases arise from reprofiling of assessment and delivery activity into later years due to approval and negotiation delays, incomplete achievement of system requirements, and delayed receipt of subcontractor software, resulting in Annual Budgeting Cycle impacts largely into Financial Year 26/27. 3. These reductions are partially offset by increases associated with updated Full Business Case 3 cost models using preferred bidder pricing, which has driven higher upfront support costs to enable accelerated Minimum Deployable Capability delivery, alongside minor revised estimates of cost for additional training requirements. 4. In addition, an underspend against forecast has been realised due to workforce control measures, particularly within ZODIAC RDEL, contributing to the overall reduction in Whole Life Cost. 5. Overall, movements reflect disciplined cost control, alignment to approved scope, and realistic reprofiling in line with delivery maturity.

Source: NISTA Major Projects Annual Report 2025-26 (data)

Rating: The Infrastructure Project Authority's Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 24/25-Q4 is RED, compared with the project's assessment last year of AMBER. This is due to the following factors. The lack of sufficient workforce is the single largest factor affecting delivery confidence, and the outlook is for a improving position over the next year if anticipated workforce increase comes to fruition. A period of adaptation will be required when new resource arrives which may keep Confidence rating low as workforce augmentation. Delays have impacted across the sub-programmes due to awaiting approvals, industrial capacity and dependencies which have added time and cost. The delays have also affected the ability to synchronise outcomes across the programme. In the short-term the workforce churn and relative inexperience of new team members is likely to further increase risk.

Schedule: Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the project's end-date at 24/25-Q4 remained at 31/12/2027.

Cost: Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the project's departmentally agreed Whole Life Cost at 24/25-Q4 (measured in £m) increased from 1800 to 1878. This is primarily due to the following factors. In year spending measures have led to reprofiling of funds, as well as underspend due to workforce measures - in particular ZODIAC Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits (RDEL). Furthermore, schedule slips have increased costs due to inflation and an increase in the duration of standing programme delivery costs.

Source: NISTA Annual Report 2024-25 (data)

Rating: Compared to financial year 22/23-Q4, the Senior Responsible Owner's Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 23/24-Q4 remained at Amber. This is primarily due to the following factors. The lack of sufficient workforce is the single largest factor affecting delivery confidence. Additionally, industrial capacity and complex dependencies have added time and cost, affecting the ability to synchronise outcomes across the programme.

Schedule: Compared to financial year 22/23-Q4, the project's end-date at 23/24-Q4 remained scheduled to finish on 2027-12-31. This is primarily due to the following factors. Though other sub-programme schedules within the overall programme have been delayed, ZODIAC, the core element, remains on track for delivery. The factors behind delays for other sub-programmes include delay to approvals and subsequent re-planning activities, complexity and sequencing of dependencies with other programmes, and the wider resource capacity issues in Army, delivery agents and the MOD.

Cost: Compared to financial year 22/23-Q4, the project's departmental-agree Whole Life Cost at 23/24-Q4 increased from 1598m to 1800m. This is primarily due to the following factors. Schedule slips have increased costs due to inflation and longer duration of standing programme delivery costs. Further cost growth is a result of additional clarity on costs as sub-programmes have matured.

Source: IPA Annual Report 2023-24 (data)