Home : Department of Defence, Australian Government, Jobs ...



|[pic] |

| |

|Gate 1 - Initial Business Case (IBC) |

| |

| |

|ESTATE PROJECT NUMBER: [INSERT i.e. EST1234] |

|PROJECT NAME: FACILITIES TO SUPPORT PROJECT [CAPABILITY PROJECT NUMBER & TITLE] |

|PROJECT LOCATION/S: [INSERT] |

|SPONSOR ENDORSEMENT: |

|This IBC presents viable facilities and infrastructure options to meet the requirements of Project [Capability Project Number] at |

|the above location/s. |

| |

|Name: |

|Position: |

|Date: Sign:……………………………… |

|CAPABILITY MANAGER ENDORSEMENT: |

|This IBC meets [Service/Group] capability requirements to support the life-of-type (LOT) needs of Project [Capability Project |

|Number]. |

| |

|Name: |

|Position: |

|Date: Sign:……………………………… |

|CAPABILITY MANAGER FINANCIAL ENDORSEMENT: |

|Subject to [delegate] First Pass approval, development funds of $X.XXm (across FYXX-XX to FYXX-XX) are available for E&IG to |

|progress Project [Estate Project Number], prior to Gate 2. |

| |

|Name: |

|Position: |

|Date: Sign:……………………………… |

|APPROVING DELEGATE: |

|I approve this IBC, at P50 cost confidence, as the basis for Gate 1 Government Approval for Project [Capability Project Number]. |

| |

|Name: |

|Position: Assistant Secretary Estate Planning |

|Date: Sign:……………………………… |

Executive Summary

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Initial Business Case (IBC) is to provide costed options at P50 confidence to support a Gate 1 and Government First Pass approval milestone for [insert Estate Project Name]. [Estate Project Name] is a sub-project that supports [insert Capability Project Name] that aims to [include statement]. Subject to Gate 1 delegate approval, the Capability Manager funded option(s) will be progressed as the basis for further development in a Preliminary Detailed Business Case (PDBC) or Detailed Business Case (DBC) [as appropriate] prior to Gate 2.

2. Paragraphs as appropriate

a. [include sub-paragraphs as required]

Note: include high level Options Analysis table and high level cost table from IBC document

3. Recommendations.

4. [insert text]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose 1

Scope 1

Approach 2

BACKGROUND 3

Strategic Context and Key Drivers 3

Business Need 3

Related Projects 3

FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 4

Overview 4

Statement of Requirements 4

Deviations from EIR 5

[Site / Project element name] Requirements 5

Current State 5

FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS 7

Overview 8

Options Considered 8

Detailed Option Assessment 8

Viability of Options [Analysis Table and Summary] 9

PROJECT RISK PROFILE 4

Overview 4

Project Acquisition Risks 4

Project Development and Approval Risks 4

Project Delivery Risks 4

Project Sustainment Risks 4

COSTS AND BENEFITS 10

Overview 10

Capital Costs (P50) 11

Project Risks, Constraints and Opportunities 13

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Analysis 13

Future Sustainment Costs (FPOC) 13

Project Development Costs 14

Indicative Cash Flow 15

Economic Impact 17

Industry Capacity 17

National and [State/Territory] Impacts 17

Employment Impacts 17

ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS 18

Approach 18

Key Environmental Findings 18

Locality and Property Description 18

EPBC Act Findings 18

Contamination Findings 24

Environmental Sustainability Impacts 24

Key Risks and Further Assessment Required 24

PROJECT EXECUTION STRATEGY 26

Acquisition Strategy 25

Traditional Delivery Options 25

Public Private Partnership 26

Sustainment Strategy 26

Project Management Approach 27

Approval Strategy 27

Indicative Implementation Schedule 27

RECOMMENDATIONS 29

ANNEXURES 30

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this Initial Business Case (IBC) is to provide costed options at P50 confidence to support a Gate 1 and Government First Pass approval milestone for [insert Estate Project Name]. [Estate Project Name] is a sub-project that supports [insert Capability Project Name] that aims to [include statement]. Subject to Gate 1 delegate approval, the Capability Manager funded option(s) will be progressed as the basis for further development in a Preliminary Detailed Business Case (PDBC) or Detailed Business Case (DBC) [as appropriate] prior to Gate 2.

Scope

The scope of this IBC is to set out the:

a. background to the Project providing the strategic context;

b. business need arising from the Project;

c. facilities and other infrastructure requirements necessary to address the business need, independent of any facility option or solution;

d. options identified to meet the facilities and infrastructure requirements, and analysis of those options including capability impacts, benefits and associated risk profile;

e. analysis of the P50 costs associated with the proposed investment, including whole of life costs, cash flow requirements and an initial assessment of economic impact on the [State/Territory] and the wider national economy;

f. initial identification of environmental and heritage risks and proposed future risk-reduction studies/activities; and

g. proposed project execution strategy including the recommended development and delivery procurement strategy and implementation schedule.

Approach

[insert text]

BACKGROUND

Strategic Context and Key Drivers

[insert text]

Business Need

[insert text]

Related Projects

[insert text]

FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

Overview

Outline the approach to the requirements definition stage – i.e. whether an initial URB was developed/approved by key stakeholders – and the level it was informed by the capability project Joint Capability Needs Statement (JCNS), Workforce Plans, Operational Concept Document(s), Basis of Provisioning etc. Indicate the level of confidence, including associated assumptions and risks.

Statement of Requirements OR User Requirements

In Summary, the high level facilities and infrastructure requirements for [project] include [insert requirements summary - include a representation of priorities i.e. critical, important, desirable and key assumptions and associated risks. Insert text/sub-paragraphs and/or supporting table].

Deviations from EIR

The following table summarises the Project requirements, with particular reference to the changes to the Estate Investment Requirement (EIR). Reasons for deletions and additions to the scope originally identified in the EIR are provided in subsequent paragraphs.

|Project Requirements |Estate Investment |Initial Business |KPI for Viability |

| |Requirement |Case |Assessment |

|[Requirement 1 Description] |[Included / Not |[Retained / |[insert text] |

| |identified] |Included / | |

| | |Deleted] | |

|[Requirement 2 Description] |[Included / Not |[Retained / |[insert text] |

| |identified] |Included / | |

| | |Deleted] | |

|[Requirement 2 (a) Description] |[Included / Not |[Retained / |[insert text] |

| |identified] |Included / | |

| | |Deleted] | |

|[Requirement 3 Description etc.] |[Included / Not |[Retained / |[insert text] |

| |identified] |Included / | |

| | |Deleted] | |

Additional Requirements. The table below outlines new requirements that have been identified during the IBC development stage to support the new capability of its life-of-type (LOT).

|Requirement Addition |Identified need |

|[Requirement Description] |[Describe when the additional requirement was identified, by who, reasons for including it now] |

|[Requirement Description] |[Describe when the additional requirement was identified, by who, reasons for including it now] |

|[Requirement Description] |[Describe when the additional requirement was identified, by who, reasons for including it now] |

Deleted Requirements. The table below outlines project requirements that have been removed from the project scope.

|Requirement Deletion |Reason for deletion |

|[Requirement Description] |[Describe when the scope was identified for deletion, by who, reasons for deletion – such as |

| |already completed by another project, change of requirements so no longer required, |

| |eliminated through refinement etc.] |

[Site / Project element name] Requirements

[insert text, supported by sub-paragraphs/table, as required].

Current State.

[insert text, supported by sub-paragraphs/table as required – this section should outline the extent of existing facilities available for adaptive re-use, supported by condition, capacity and compliance data, including the remaining useful life of any existing Defence facilities or infrastructure.]

FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

Overview

This section provides an overview of the facility options considered, including:

a. An appropriate breakdown and description of the options,

b. a comparison of the relative advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (constraints, issues),

c. a summary of the risk and opportunities for options considered;

d. an assessment of proposed risk strategies for each option considered;

e. a comparison of costs (capital, TCO, FPOC);

f. a comparison of delivery dates, against capability materiel release or initial operating dates;

g. the viability of option / options; and

h. an affordability assessment by the Sponsor and/or Capability Manager.

Options Considered

Summary of high level options considered

a. Do nothing.

b. Build option(s).

c. Acquisition/Lease option(s)

d. Commercial option(s).

e. Combination of above.

Detailed Options Assessment

[insert text and supporting table of assessment]

Viability of Options

Summary of option viability [insert text, sub-paragraphs etc. and complete the following table to support viability assessment – A4/A3 Landscape format as appropriate].

|Assessment Criteria |Option 1 |Option 2 |Option 3 |Option 4 |Option 5 |

| |Do Nothing |[Title] |[Title] |[Title] |[Title] |

|Level of requirements being met | | | | | |

|Risk Profile – including impacts to| | | | | |

|capability | | | | | |

|Risk Mitigation Strategy | | | | | |

|Benefits and Opportunities | | | | | |

|Capital Cost | | | | | |

|Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) | | | | | |

|Future Sustainment Costs (FPOC) | | | | | |

|Affordability and Value for Money | | | | | |

|Viability |Viable/Not Viable |Viable/Not Viable |Viable/Not Viable |Viable/Not Viable |Viable/Not Viable |

Table X: Options Viability Assessment

PROJECT RISK PROFILE

Overview

[insert text] – state a reference to the Annex risk registers

Project Acquisition Risks

Development and Approval Risks. [insert text]

Project Delivery Risks. [insert text]

Project Sustainment Risks

[insert text]

COSTS AND BENEFITS

Overview

A summary of the total construction cost, future operating costs (FPOC) and TCO for each project element is summarised below based upon the preferred options identified in the earlier section.

|Project Element |Preferred Option |Capital/Lease Cost[1] |Future Sustainment |Total Cost of |

| | | |Costs (FPOC) [2] |Ownership[3] |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[site / project element description] |Option #X |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|TOTAL | |###.### |###.### |###.### |

Table #: Summary Costs ($m)

A more detailed breakdown of estimated project development costs, capital construction costs, building operating costs and cash-flow follows.

Capital Costs (P50)

A summary of the estimated capital costs, by project element, is set out in the table below. This summary is based upon the recommended options in the previous section and includes:

a. Construction costs, based on estimated trade costs in [location/year] and excluding GST [(with the exception of the living-in accommodation to which GST is included)];

b. Locality allowance (from the [location] base costs) for [insert base for remote or regional areas] of [##]%;

c. Trade preliminaries of [#]% to cover such costs as trade cleaning, rubbish removal, site accommodation etc., based on historical data;

d. Consultant Fees of [#%] for design services during the Delivery Phase;

e. Head Contractor / Managing Contractor Fees of [#]%, covering the contractor’s labour costs, other preliminaries such as site accommodation, vehicles, insurances, securities, consumables and a profit component;

f. Project Management Fees of [#%], covering Project Management / Contract Administration services;

g. Escalation, calculated from [Month Year] to the mid-point of construction. [insert text to describe results of research into expected escalation of the life of the project]. The risk assessment which informed the design and construction contingency calculation includes a provision for an increase in these escalation rates;

h. Design and Construction contingency. The contingency has been calculated so as to achieve a total cost estimate at a P50 level, which is an estimate that the cost will not be exceeded 50% of the time. The quantitative risk assessment and risk simulation returns design and construction contingency as a percentage of the total construction costs of [##] %. Refer to [relevant Annex/es] for additional details;

i. Any other minor allowances, such as state/territory based long service leave levy; and

j. A separate Defence contingency of 5% identified as per Defence policy.

A summary of the higher level options comparison is provided in the table below. More detailed breakdowns of the estimated capital cost are available in [insert reference to relevant Annexes].

| |Option # |Option # |Option # |Option # |Option # |Option # |

| |$m |$m |$m |$m |$m |$m |

|Project Element |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Project Element |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Project Element |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Project Element |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|SUBTOTAL |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Design Fees |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[HC Preliminaries and |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Profit / MC Management | | | | | | |

|and Work Fees] | | | | | | |

|PM/CA Fees |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Allowance for Cost |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Escalation | | | | | | |

|Design and Construction|###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Contingency | | | | | | |

|SUBTOTAL |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|[any other costs] |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|TOTAL – excl Defence |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

|Contingency | | | | | | |

|TOTAL |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |###.### |

| | | | |Option # |Option # |Option # |Option # | |

| | | | |$m |$m |$m |$m | |

|EMOS |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |

|Other Base Services|#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |

|Utilities |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |

|Assets Purchased |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |

|(not capitalised) | | | | | | | | |

|TOTAL[4] |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |#.### |

Table #: Future Sustainment Costs (FPOC) ($m, 20##/##)

Project Development Costs

The estimated budget to progress the works through 2nd Pass Government Approval and Parliamentary Approval is $###.###m as set out in the table below.

The estimate is based upon:

a. the assumed contracting model(s) (discussed in more detail in the following section);

b. percentage allocations for each service (except for probity), based upon other major Defence infrastructure projects, applied against the capital cost estimate for the preferred option at each site;

c. $10,000 per procurement activity for probity services (i.e. $20,000 for a two stage or ITR/RFT procurement of a Managing Contractor);

d. travel amounts required during post Gate 1 development and delivery stages; and

e. the indicative implementation schedule.

|Professional Services |Site (Option #) |Site (Option #) |Site (Option #) |Site (Option #) |SUBTOTAL |

|Project Management / Contract Administration |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|[Design Services Consultant or |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|Managing Contractor] |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|Probity Services |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|ICT Planning Costs |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|Development/Delivery Travel |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|Environmental Services |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|[any other Fees/costs] |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|SUBTOTAL |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|Contingency (10%) |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

|TOTAL |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |#.## |

Table #: Estimated Project Development Costs ($m, out turned)

Indicative Cash Flow

An early estimate of the indicative cash flow requirements for the project is set out below. This estimate is based upon:

a. the capital cost estimate, including the recommended options for each site;

b. the assumed contracting models and associated indicative implementation schedule; and

c. industry-standard construction S-curve(s).

At this early stage of the project, the projected cash-flow also includes the Defence Contingency. The Defence Contingency is effectively a management reserve, and including the Defence Contingency likely results in the cash flow requirements being slightly (up to 5%) overstated in each year.

This is an early estimate only and is dependent on a range of variables. This estimate is likely to change as the PDBC/DBC is developed and costs and schedules are refined.

|$m |

|DIIP provision | | |

|Matters of National Environmental Significance |

|World Heritage properties |[Brief description] |Likely |

|National Heritage places |[Brief description] |May |

|Wetlands of international importance|[Brief description] |Unlikely |

|Listed threatened species |[Brief description] |No |

|Listed threatened ecological |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|communities | | |

|Listed migratory species |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Nuclear action |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Commonwealth marine areas |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|A water resource, in relation to |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|coal seam gas development and large | | |

|coal mining development | | |

|Other Protected Matters |

|The environment of Commonwealth land|[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Commonwealth action |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Commonwealth Heritage places |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Listed marine species |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Whales and other cetaceans |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Critical habitats |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|Commonwealth reserves |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

|- terrestrial | | |

|Commonwealth reserves - marine |[Brief description] |[Likely/May/Unlikely/No] |

Table #: Summary of Potential Significant Impacts

|EPBC Act Controlling Provision |Description |Permit Required? |

|Listed threatened species |[Brief description] |Likely |

|Listed ecological community |[Brief description] |May |

|Listed migratory species |[Brief description] |Unlikely |

|Listed marine species |[Brief description] |No |

Table #: Summary of Permits Required

|EPBC Act controlling provision |Potentially Significant Impact? |

| |

|World Heritage properties |No |

| |

|The environment of Commonwealth land |Likely |

| |

|Listed |Unlikely |May |Unlikely |

|threatened | | | |

|species | | | |

|[ID####] |[Low / Medium / High] |[Site Name] |[Low / Medium / High] |

| |[Brief Description] | | |

|[ID####] |[Low / Medium / High] |[Site Name] |[Low / Medium / High] |

| |[Brief Description] | | |

|[ID####] |[Low / Medium / High] |[Site Name] |[Low / Medium / High] |

| |[Brief Description] | | |

Table #: Potential Contamination Risks during Construction

Environmental Sustainability Impacts

[insert text]

Key Risks and Further Assessment Required

The key areas of potential environmental impact of this project identified in the [Environmental Report] are as per the table below. Where risks require further mitigation or assessment, the required assessments are outlined to be undertaken prior to the submission of the PDBC/DBC:

|Aspect |Description |Further assessment required? |

|Ecology |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

|Hazardous materials |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

|Contamination |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

|[Indigenous / |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

|Non-indigenous] | |assessments] |

|Heritage | | |

|[Water Quality / |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

|Hydrology] | |assessments] |

|[Aircraft Noise] |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

|[Emissions] |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

|[other] |[Note as Nil or provide a summary description] |[No / Yes – with summary of recommended further |

| | |assessments] |

Table #: Key Risks and Further Assessment Required during PDBC/DBC Development

PROJECT EXECUTION STRATEGY

Acquisition Strategy

[insert text]

a. [insert text]

Traditional Delivery Options

[insert text]

Public Private Partnership

Refer to Annex ## for the Defence’s PPP Suitability Checklist.

[insert text]

Sustainment Strategy

[insert text]

Project Management Approach

[insert text]

Approval Strategy

38. [insert text]

Indicative Implementation Schedule

The indicative implementation schedule is illustrated below.

Figure #: Indicative Implementation Schedule

The indicative implementation schedule is based upon:

a. Gate 1 Government Approval of the [capability project] being achieved by [early/mid/late-20##];

b. Development of a [capability project] Gate 2 Government Approval submission by [early/mid/late-20##] to support Capability Manager Gate Review consideration in [Date][5];

c. Fund of $X.Xm being available from [Capability Project] to undertake pre-Gate 2 risk reduction activities, which involves developing [level%] design for a single option; and

d. The assumed [DSC&HC / HC D&C / MC / PPP or Property related] delivery methodology.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEXURES

ANNEX A

TO [IBC NAME]

DATED [MMM YY]

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

ANNEX [D]

TO [IBC NAME]

DATED [MMM YY]

[TITLE OF PROJECT ELEMENT / SITE]

[SECTION HEADING]

1. [insert text].

[SECTION HEADING]

2. [Sub-Heading. [insert text].

ATTACHMENTS

ANNEX [G]

TO [IBC NAME]

DATED [MMM YY]

PROJECT RISK REGISTER

|An example Risk Register template and extracts of the E&IG Risk Management Framework policy guidance is provided below. The IBC consultant should ensure that the up to date policy is used. |

|Note: Alignment with Defence Smart Buyer categories is required. The consultant should seek a copy of the Defence Smart Buyer policy guidance for this activity. |

|This annex captures the results from the risk workshop with stakeholders. |

ACQUISITION RISK REGISTER

| (Project Number and title) Acquisition Risk Register & Management Plan |

| |

|Risk # |

| |

|Risk # |

|Capability |• Ability for mission essential tasks to be completed in accordance with CDF |

| |Preparedness Directive (CPD). Mission essential tasks are tasks that need to be |

| |completed by E&IG as 'Specified Tasks' to maintain levels of readiness required by |

| |the CPD. |

| |• Capacity of the facility to support the user unit/s in the delivery of its primary |

| |outputs. |

| |• Impact on the ability of the ADF to protect Australia and to fulfil its national |

| |security obligations. |

| |• Impact on the ADF's ability to train and equip for war and for the conduct of |

| |peacetime operations. |

| |• Impact on the ability of Defence to develop its capability as detailed in the |

| |Defence White Paper. |

| |• Impact on civil (non-Defence) capability as a consideration for shared facilities. |

|Delivery of |• Impact on the delivery of services provided to customer units/facilities/training |

|Services |areas. |

| |• Impact on Defence’s ability to deliver an affordable and sustainable estate and |

| |reducing the overall estate liability in the long-term. |

| |• Impact on achieving reductions in capability support costs. |

|Environment |• Inability of E&IG to deliver agreed products and services in accordance with |

| |environmental compliance requirements, that impacts on the following areas: |

| |o the environment, including contamination, damage to flora and fauna, fire, noise, |

| |soil damage and erosion, greenhouse gas emission, bio-diversity, feral animals and |

| |water quality, environmental management in the strategic context of Defence |

| |business; or |

| |o heritage includes impacts on sites listed on the National Heritage List, |

| |Commonwealth Heritage List, Register of the National Estate and sites that are thought|

| |to have heritage significance but have not been formally assessed. Sites |

| |can have historic, indigenous and natural heritage values. |

|Financial/Fraud |An assessment of the potential for increased costs that would be incurred if the works|

| |or services were not performed during the specified period. This includes costs |

| |effectively directly related to the works itself and any flow that may result if the |

| |works are not performed. |

| |• Short-term cost of prevention vs. long-term cost of recovery. This would also cover |

| |reductions in costs and return on investment i.e. shorter payback period if work |

| |performed now, costs now for long term savings. |

|Legislative |• Compliance with regulatory requirements and the impact of failing to comply |

|Compliance |(including but not limited to federal, state, territory, local, foreign treaty, |

| |indigenous land use agreements, Defence instructions or contracts). Matters for |

| |consideration |

| |include whether or not the site: |

| |o is currently breaching one or more laws, agreements etc; |

| |o in the absence of some remedial work will shortly be contravening a legislative |

| |or other obligation; or |

| |o Needs work to be completed within or by some specified time to ensure that it |

| |remains compliant with all obligations. |

|Reputation |• Impact on Defence's reputation in provision of E&IG services, political and media |

| |attention to E&IG service delivery matters, community concerns or actions over |

| |activities. |

| |• Impact on compliance with government commitments as opposed to specific government |

| |policy / legislation. |

|Safety |Impact on the physical and psychological well being of ADF and APS employees, |

| |contractors, visitors, communities in Defence regions and the public in general, that |

| |results from the inability of E&IG to deliver agreed products and services and meet |

| |its obligations under the WHS Act 2011. |

|Security |Impact on the physical security of Defence facilities and bases that results from the |

| |inability of E&IG to effectively maintain or implement the mandated security controls |

| |articulated in the Defence Security Manual. |

[pic]

[pic]

ANNEX [I]

TO [IBC NAME]

DATED [MMM YY]

P50 Cost Estimate Risk Register

Example @Risk Output:

[pic]

Risk Template:

Item Type |Location |Sub-Location or Sub Item |Issue No. or Risk ID |Item |Base Cost |Scope Accuracy |Price Accuracy | | | | | | | |Lowest Likely |Highest Likely |Justification |Simulated |Lowest Likely |Highest Likely |Justification |Simulated | |Scope |[Base Name] |[Scope element 1. Insert new lines for each individual scope element and break down by sub-element. For major projects this could include more than 100 individual line items] |1.01 |Scope sub-element, eg: Headquarters] | [insert trade cost from QS, excluding fees, allowances and contingency] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |[Scope element 2. Insert new lines for each individual scope element and break down by sub-element. For major projects this could include more than 100 individual line items] |1.02 |Scope sub-element, eg: Maintenance Hangar] | [insert trade cost from QS, excluding fees, allowances and contingency] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |[Scope element 3. Insert new lines for each individual scope element and break down by sub-element. For major projects this could include more than 100 individual line items] |2.01 |Scope sub-element, eg: Simulator] | [insert trade cost from QS, excluding fees, allowances and contingency] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |[insert text] |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Trade Preliminaries |TP1 |Trade Preliminaries |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Costs have ranged between 4% and 10% for similar type projects, 6% used in this instance |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Locality Allowance |LA1 |Locality Allowance |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Example: The cost estimate has been based at Sydney prices and includes a locality allowance to reflect price differences between Sydney and RAAF Base Tindal (36% included). This allowance has been based on historical cost data. Dependant upon when the works are undertaken and how the works are constructed costs could potentially range between 30% and 38%. |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Active ICT |AI1 |Active ICT |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Example: Cost allowance included based upon costs for similar works at other Defence Sites. Cost accuracy assessed as between -10% and 20% |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Consultant Fees |F1 |Consultant Fees |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Example: Costs have ranged between 2.5% and 3.2%, 3.0% used in this instance |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Managing Contractor Fees |F2 |MC contractors work fee and management fees |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Example: Costs have ranged between 10% and 17%, 14% used in this instance |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Project Management Fees |F3 |Project Management Fees |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Example: Costs have ranged between 0.7% and 1.3%, 1.0% used in this instance |  | |Scope |[Base Name] |Cost Escalation |CE1 |Allowance for Cost Escalation |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |N/A |  |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |[insert -##% based on risk assessment] |Whilst the 5 year average indicates a 3% annual increase the 10 year average is somewhat higher at 6% per annum (with some years such as 2008 having escalation at 9% per annum). Apart from the next two years (where there is forecast to be little growth) escalation rates for all other years have been included at the 5 year average (i.e 3%). Potentially 100% increase (i.e in line with the 10 year average). |  | | | | | | | $ - | | | | $ - | | |Known Scope Total |  | |

Item Type |Location |Sub-Location or Sub Item |Issue No. or Risk ID |Item |Likelihood |Simulated Occurrence |Notes on Likelihood |Lowest Likely |Most Likely |Highest Likely |Notes on Impact |Simulated Outcome | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Risk |[Base Name] |[insert text only if required, as generally these are project level risks] |R001 |[insert text to describe the particular risk, eg: Scope risk - change in project elements over delivery timeframe. Scope risks in this section should be based upon inclusion or exclusion of additional scope elements, as the scope accuracy and cost accuracy assessment has already been completed. |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |  |[insert text, eg: There are numerous work elements that may be included or removed from the redevelopment scope] | [insert $#####, noting that this may be a negative number to indicate a possible cost saving] | [insert $#####, noting that this may be a negative number to indicate a possible cost saving] | [insert $#####, noting that this may be a negative number to indicate a possible cost saving] |[insert text, eg: The agreed scope elements to be included in the redevelopment package are undefined. Packages may be removed or added to the scope. Allow for -10% lowest likely and +10% highest likely] |  | |Risk |[Base Name] |  |R002 |[insert text, including a separate line item for all risks identified during the risk review or risk workshop. A number of examples are provided below] |[insert +##% based on risk assessment] |  |[insert text] | [insert $#####] | [insert $#####] | [insert $#####] |[insert text] |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Prediced Out turn Cost |  | |

-----------------------

[1] Out-turned including all fees, escalation and contingency.

[2] Average annual operating cost, [20##/##] dollars, excluding depreciation.

[3] Net Present Value over [##-years, based on #%] discount rate.

[4] Totals may not sum at three decimal places due to rounding in the individual operating cost elements.

[5] CMGR Gate 2 ‘doc drop’ requires the PDBC/DBC to be developed by [date]

-----------------------

Drafting Note:

This template is to be read in conjunction with:

• Department of Finance Resource Management Guide No. 502 “ Guidance for the Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process for Australian Government Construction Projects” (RMG502)

• Department of Finance Resource Management Guide No. 503 “Whole-of-life Costing for Australian Government Property Management” (RMG503)

• Other related strategies, policies processes as set out on the Defence Estate Quality Management System (DEQMS).

• Other applicable Department of Finance policies, Memorandums or Defence Chief Finance Officer (CFO) and Capability Acquisition Sustainment Group (CASG) specific policies and guidance for Defence projects, including, but not limited to:

• Defence Total Cost of Ownership Model and Future Sustainment Cost (FPOC) policy

• Department of Finance Estimates Memorandum 2015-51, ‘Defence Specific Costing Requirements in IIP’

• CASG Policy - Defence Smart Buyer Detailed Design:

This template is intended to provide a general guide for drafters in terms of overall structure and content for an Initial Business Case (IBC) for a new capability related facilities project. While not designed to specify a particular methodology or approach, this template provides an outline of approach to development of an IBC, being:

• articulation of the underlying business need;

• definition of the function or performance requirements associated with the need i.e. development of a robust Statement of Requirement (SoR) and/or Initial User Requirements Brief (URB) supported by underlying assumptions and risks;

• development, assessment and comparison of various options, including option viability;

• quantification of the feasible options in terms of their P50 confidence costs and benefits (including associated project specific risks) to confirm viability;

• initial assessment of the potential environmental constraints, risks and opportunities; and

• development of a strategy to take the project forward to Gate 2, including assessment of potential procurement models and development of an agreed implementation schedule and supporting cash-flow.

Each project will vary in terms of scale, scope, risk and complexity and it is expected that this template will be adapted as required to meet the specific requirements of your project. Careful consideration of the structure of the supporting annexes will be required for projects with many scope elements, or multiple sites.

Instructions to assist with completion of an IBC are highlighted in grey text boxes. Please delete grey text boxes and other drafting notes as you complete each section.

The executive summary is intended to provide a clear and succinct synopsis of the IBC.

The structure of the executive summary should be tailored to the specific requirements of the project, reflective of the complexity and associated risk profile. The target audience is senior Defence decision makers and high level stakeholders, including the 1 Star / SES Band 1 level Project Sponsor and Capability Manager.

Content should contain the appropriate content to form a decision, including high level project background, high level requirements, options and related options analysis including the associated risk profile, capability impacts, costs, benefits and the proposed project execution strategy/implementation schedule – ensuring it matches up to date capability project guidance (budget, schedule, approvals approach etc.) aligned to the wider Defence Integrated Investment Program (IIP).

Once the recommendations are finalised in the main body of the IBC, cut and paste the exact wording of those recommendations here

Refer RMG502 paragraph 8.

The purpose of the Initial Business Case (IBC) is to facilitate the in-principle agreement to a project. The IBC articulates the business need, outlines an initial view of the options available to meet this need and the associated broad order of costs. The IBC provides a vehicle for agreement to the option or options to be further developed and authorisation of the funds necessary to undertake these project development activities leading up to Gate 2 (and where applicable Parliamentary Approval) of the project .

Tailor the description of the scope to align with the overall structure of your IBC.

Refer to RMG502 paragraphs 22-30

Describe the approach taken to develop this particular IBC. Each project will differ in terms of complexity, capital value, number of project elements or Bases that it covers, may include capital works, lease proposals or property disposals. Include sub-headings and a summary of activities undertaken.

Refer to RMG502 paragraph 16.

Outline the key relevant legislation or government policy decision that relates to this particular project, within a Defence and Commonwealth perspective.

Refer to RMG502 paragraphs 11-15 & 31-33.

Summarise the business need for the project. The business need is a clear statement as to the specific Defence capability or output to which this project contributes. As an example, this business need could link to:

• achievement of a new capability (i.e. as a fundamental input to a major equipment acquisition project) that supports the 2016 Defence White Paper and Integrated Investment Plan (IIP) i.e. strengthening Australia's defence capabilities and critical enabling infrastructure to better support and maximise the effectiveness of the joint force. Under the Defence Capability Life Cycle (CLC) model new capability projects will fully fund introduction of capability, including Fundamental Inputs to Capability such as facilities and ranges.

• implementation of a treaty (as was the case for the United States Force Posture Agreement),

•

Outline other current and planned Defence projects in the Defence White paper and sub-programs in the Defence Integrated Investment Program (IIP) which have a dependency or other relationship with this project. This section should include both a description of the related program/project, an explanation as to why it is related; including, dependencies, alignment opportunities/risks etc.

Refer to RMG502 paragraphs 43-46.

This section intends to describe “what” needs to be achieved, not “how”.

The statement of requirements should be based purely on performance, including a proposed “threshold” of performance, rather than prescription of a solution to meet the required performance level.

For example, a requirement may be: To be able to perform a certain level of operational and deeper level maintenance on a particular aircraft platform, with some level of stated concurrency – the facilities requirement at this stage of the IBC development is not “construct four aircraft maintenance bays”. In this example, the number of aircraft maintenance bays required, and how these bays could be provided, are options to be investigated in subsequent sections of the IBC.

As another example, the performance of electrical infrastructure is essential for sustaining capability and general base operations. The electrical supply and distribution infrastructure needs to provide reliability, redundancy, sufficient capacity, compliance, safety and ease of maintenance.

Note: Omissions or errors in this section of the IBC can have significant consequences for the overall business case.

In the early stages of a project it is likely that a number of assumptions will be required to fill gaps in the performance requirements. As such, it is important that these assumptions are clearly identified and articulated in this section of the business case to provide a basis for tracking future changes as the project progresses.

The structure of the following section will vary depending on the nature of the project. Extremely complex projects will require a supporting Annex. For large projects across multiple sites, options may be grouped by site to provide a logical structure. Alternatively, where the project is on a single site but includes a number of discrete elements, this section may instead be structured by requirement elements.

The structure established in this section will flow through the rest of the IBC.

Describe the current state using facts and figures such as capacity for engineering services, m2 for areas currently utilised, numbers of workstations available in administration buildings, etc. Also describe any existing deficiencies by reference to facts and figures, reference to non-compliances with specific Australian Standards, National Construction Code, or Defence Requirements such as the MIEE, MFPE, eDSM, etc

Refer to RMG502 paragraphs 34-46

Following articulation of the agreed business need and definition of the associated requirements, the purpose of this section of the IBC is to set out the options available to address the requirements.

For a project, or element of a major project, three options must be developed being:

1. Do nothing. This is not intended to be a no cost option and should describe the impacts of continuing the status-quo. Do-nothing options should outline work-arounds required by the Capability Manager, operational impacts and their associated costs, as well as the impact to the Defence estate (i.e. increased maintenance, high operating costs etc.).

2. Adaptive Re-Use / Build option(s). There are likely to be a number of sub-options here, including options to adaptively re-use existing infrastructure, and build new infrastructure.

3. Commercial options. The nature of any potential commercial options will depend heavily on the requirements of the specific projects. Examples of a commercial option may include:

a. the lease of an existing commercial property, and/or

b. the acquisition of land and associated buildings.

The approach to developing the options to address the requirements will vary significantly from project to project depending on the specific requirements of a project. The principle is that each option should be developed to a point where the cost of that option can be quantified to a ‘P50’ level. Where available, the intention is to utilise existing data and design documentation from projects already completed (‘precedent design’) to inform the options in the IBC. The use of precedent design documentation in the build options intends to reduce design costs and improve scope certainty. As one example, where a project includes a number of new living-in accommodation (LIA) rooms – there a number of existing, tested layouts for living-in accommodation of each standard. Adoption of an existing, tested, footprint reduces the risk that the scale of the build required is too low or too high (affecting cost certainty). It also provides the option to benchmark IBC estimated costs against a like, completed project.

For most projects, the development of these options will require the involvement of technical engineering and architectural personnel to articulate the consequences of the ‘do nothing’ option(s), and to document the potential build options. Projects which are likely to have feasible acquisition, leasing or commercial options will require engagement with Property Management Branch and may also require engagement with the CASG commercial Centre of Excellence to help articulate the nature, cost and associated risks of the commercial arrangement, including the feasibility of PPP.

The structure of this section should be supported by a summary table format (using project specific criteria developed in consultation with key stakeholders).

If Annexes are used for additional supporting detail, reference in the summary paragraph so that the reader knows where to look for additional information.

The information included in the main body or Annexes should be tailored to suit the particular needs of each IBC.

To support explaining the options, consider including a drawing, sketch or photograph. Do not provide details for options that have been ruled out during the initial options screening process above.

Use Defence Smart Buyer terminology, which should shape the project execution strategy being recommended.

Refer to RMG502 paragraphs 59-61

This section summarises costs and benefits at a whole of project level, drawing on the project element details provided in the previous section (or referenced in relevant annexes).

The cost data in this section of the IBC would generally represent a summary of a more complete capital cost estimate and estimate of whole-of-life costs. For most major projects, this more detailed cost data would be:

• developed by an accredited quantity surveyor; and

• attached as an annex to the IBC.

Refer to RMG502 Appendix A and paragraph 60

This section summarises costs and benefits at a whole of project level, drawing on the project element details provided in the previous section (or referenced in relevant annexes). Supporting documentation from a professional Quantity Surveyor / Cost Planner may also be included in separate annexes, with those details summarised in the tables below.

For large or complex projects, especially if multiple sites are covered, a separate contingency % should be calculated for the scope at each site to demonstrate that site specific risks have been considered

Refer RMG502 paragraph 60.

The estimated cost must include an allowance for risk based on a probabilistic cost of all identified risks. The project team must run a Monte Carlo simulation to derive the ‘P50’ simulated cost outcome required in the Initial Business Case. Annex F to this template includes a example output from this simulation activity, along with an example structure for the supporting risk assessment.

Refer to Dept of Finance RMG503 for guidance around estimating whole-of-life costs. The Defence Total Cost of Ownership model is the same as the Whole of Life costing - refer to Defence CFO Group ‘Total Cost of Ownership Model’ policy guidance on DEQMS.

Future sustainment costs are the calculated costs of operating and sustaining the asset over its life and includes both:

• Operating costs – the estimated costs (excluding maintenance) of operating or leasing the capital asset. These costs may include electricity, fuel, consumables, utilities and waste, building administration, lease and contract costs, levies, labour (including staff costs to manage the asset operations), rental costs, interest paid, taxes, contract costs and other overhead costs ( including operating and owner cost risk). When considering rental payments, it is important to include assumptions for rent reviews and escalation, including costs associated with lease options and incentives; and

• Maintenance costs – the estimated costs incurred in maintaining the capital asset over its useful life. These costs are to include any performance management, consumables, repairs, overhauls and associated labour costs.

.

CFI/PM Branch must be consulted, and agree with the estimate of Project Development Costs and planned development, approvals and delivery schedule.

Project Development Costs must be modelled in a manipulable Excel-based spreadsheet, drawing on data from the estimated capital costs to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Finance at Gate 1.

The indicative cash-flow should be determined by the project team so as to support the most optimal construction schedule.

The IBC project team should consult with the Project Sponsor regarding the current cash-flow in the Integrated Investment Plan (IIP), and show the variance between the proposed cash-flow and the provision in the IIP.

NOTE: The IBC should always include an option in the IBC that aligns with IIP budget and phasings

Undertaking an economic impact assessment can assist to describe benefits to the broader non-Defence community, including the local construction industry where the works are proposed. For relatively low cost projects this assessment may not be necessary.

Details to complete this section would be provided by a specialist consultant from the DIP Socio-Economics subpanel once agreement is reached between EP and the Sponsor on the recommended project scope, options and the associated capital cost estimate.

Describe the capacity of the local construction market for each project site, including if any industry bodies have conducted any analysis of Defence project expenditure forecasts that have been made available to the public. Comment on whether there is sufficient capacity to support not only this project, but also other planned Defence capital expenditure if applicable. For very large projects, or those in regional or remote areas, comment if capacity constraints in the local markets are a risk, and if so, what mitigations are proposed

Describe the impacts of the planned investment under this IBC on the local market(s) as well as at the national level. Impact estimates are to be presented as deviations from the baseline scenario in which no investment occurs.

The approach to environmental and heritage reviews to be undertaken to support the IBC must be confirmed with the Directorate of Environment Protection & Assessments within Environment & Engineering Branch. The project team is encouraged to meet with DEPA as early as possible to agree the form and content of the environmental review required to support the IBC, having regard to the specific risks of the project.

Describe details relevant to the environment, including distances to major towns/cities, area of the base, description of the local on base environment, eg: The majority of the Base is covered by mixed Eucalypt bushland, open woodland or open forest. Describe neighbouring land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Base, in particular any sensitive receptors.

The following table is recommended for single site projects, where description of the potential impacts can be included succinctly in the table

Alternatively, if there are multiple sites, include the following table in landscape format. Details in the above example “Description” column can then be discussed in narrative below the table, or if significant narrative is required, could be relocated to an Annex to improve readability of the main body of the IBC

Provide narrative to expand upon the above table for multiple site projects.

Provide narrative to expand upon key environmental or heritage subject areas as required, such as flora & fauna, contamination, indigenous heritage, non-indigenous heritage, aircraft noise, etc

Refer to RMG502 paragraph 38

Provide narrative of additional due diligence activities undertaken in relation to site contamination

Indicate opportunities, risks and/or investigations relating to the alignment with Defence policy and programs focussed on energy, water, climate change and waste management.Outline the risk profile, considered scope and mitigations where risks are identified.

Provide narrative on key risks and further assessments to be undertaken during development of the project. Where there are multiple sites, this information could be included in site specific Annexes, with a whole of project summary included in this main body

Conduct an analysis of available development and delivery methods and make an assumption as to which will apply. This is necessary to inform the indicative schedule for development and delivery, as well as factor in relevant fees and costs.

There are useful resources available on:

• DEQMS; and

• to inform the assessment of procurement option.

Note: CFI Branch must be consulted, and agree with the delivery strategy recommended for capital facilities and infrastructure (build/upgrade/refurbishment) related options.

Note: PM Branch must be consulted, and agree the delivery strategy recommended for Defence property (property lease/licences, acquisition, disposal) related options.

Note: EE Branch must be consulted to specifically agree the approach for environmental impacts impacting the project schedule..

Particularly discuss the suitability of traditional delivery methods, including Managing Contractor Contract, Head Contractor (Design and Construct) or (Construct Only)

If required, also engage with PM Branch to develop property delivery options and schedules for related or standalone leases, acquisitions, disposal activities etc.

Refer to the National Public Private Partnership Policy Frameworks, October 2015 (available at ). The Policy Framework states that “Projects likely to have potential to provide value for money using a PPP delivery method are those with a total capital value exceeding $50 million. Such capital expenditure should therefore trigger evaluation of a PPP as a potential procurement method for the relevant project” (see section 3.1.3).

Refer to RMG502 paragraph 63. RMG502 requires that the IBC discuss the suitability or otherwise of the PPP methodology to either all or part of the project, and whether it is likely to result in a value for money outcome compared to other procurement models.

Refer to DEQMS for the Defence process for assessing PPP viability, including the Defence PPP Suitability Checklist.

Refer to Smart Buyer – Initial Design: Executive Summary page 4.

The sustainment strategy element of the execution strategy will outline how the delivered facilities and infrastructure will be managed during the in-service and disposal phase of the life cycle.

For Defence facilities and infrastructure projects, this will generally be via base support contracts at the relevant base(s) and/or site(s). Funding allocation for building mid-life upgrades should be considered.

Refer to Smart Buyer – Initial Design: Executive Summary page 4.

The project management element of the execution strategy will identify the in-house resources that are required to execute the project at each phase of its life. This will enable senior leadership to make an informed decision on whether sufficient in-house resources can be made available to support the development and delivery of the investment proposal.

Refer to Smart Buyer – Initial Design: Executive Summary page 5.

Insert a proposed tailored approval pathway that identifies the fastest and simplest approval process that a project’s risk profile allows. This section should set out clearly what approvals are required, at what level, throughout the Capability Lifecycle, including any additional approval points during the sustainment phase, and detail the activities and resources required to reach the next approval point.

Insert a summary diagram or Gantt chart to illustrate the implementation schedule.

CFI and/or PM Branch must be consulted, as appropriate, and agree to the proposed IBC implementation schedule.

Insert project-specific recommendations.

At a minimum, it is suggested that these recommendations include:

• the viable option(s) in the IBC, addressing the risk profile and associated operational impacts to the Capability Manager;

• the recommended pre Gate 2 project execution strategy for the supporting facilities project, including the risk reduction activities to be conducted (i.e. development of P70 confidence costs to a level of 5% design in a Preliminary Detailed Business Case (PDBC));

• the timing of key activities and dependencies associated with the development of the options;

• the project development budget required, post Gate 1 approval, to support the capability project to a Gate 2 milestone;

• the Project Sponsor or Capability Manager’s ability to fund the related development, design, delivery and ongoing operating costs associated with the Project;

• the level of engagement with Contestability Division and Force Design during development of the IBC;

• Action: Subject to Gate 1 delegate approval, the Project Sponsor and Capability Manager is to formally advise E&IG which option/s are to be progressed for further development, including the approved budget, funding source, schedule and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) information.

Annexes need to be tailored to suit the particular project and should generally be ordered the same as they are initially discussed in the main body. The main purpose of using annexes is to improve the readability of the main body of the IBC, so that it presents a clear argument for the recommendations made without being too cluttered by detail.

For relatively low complexity, lower capital value or single project element projects, all relevant information to the business case argument may be able to be presented in the main body.

For relatively high complexity, high capital value, or multiple Site / multiple element projects, the main body should summarise discussion and outcomes with additional supporting detail provided in the annexes so that it can be referenced if required.

Options to achieve this include:

• Provide stand-alone Base or Site specific annexes. This is particularly useful for national projects where annexes can be prepared in parallel by different drafters and also sent to separate regional stakeholders for review

• This approach could also be used for a major redevelopment project at a single Site, where each Annex could cover a single unit or organisation, or project element such as site-wide infrastructure

Specific annexes could also be provided for topic areas to provide detailed reports, such as the cost estimation details, risk registers, economic analysis details, or environmental report details.

Annexes may include:

A. Glossary and Acronyms

B. Stakeholder /Consultation Register

C. Statement of Requirement (SoR) Report or Initial User Requirements Brief

D. Site/Project element-specific Annex(es)

E. Extracts of relevant data

F. Preliminary Site Feasibility Assessments

G. Project Risk Register

H. Capital Cost Estimate Report, Cost Plans,

I. P50 Cost Estimate Risk Register

J. TCO Analysis Report

K. Environmental Review Report/s

L. Indicative Implementation Schedule / Program for Options

M. Public Private Partnership (PPP) Suitability Checklist and/or Procurement Options Assessment

Insert as many of separate site/project specific annexures as may be required (if required) for the project

Insert as many attachments as may be required to support understanding of the project element, such as:

• Preliminary Area Schedules

• Preliminary Functional Relationship Diagrams

• Preliminary Design Drawings

• Cost Estimate/FPOC/TCO Summary

• Summary of Environmental Review

• Indicative Implementation Schedule

• P50 Cost Estimate Risk Register

This annex captures the results from the quantitative risk assessment.

The tables provided below are an example of how a risk assessment might be structured, capturing:

• Risks applicable to each project element in terms of scope accuracy and price accuracy

• Risks applicable to the various fees and allowances in the cost plan

• Risks applicable to the project, but not attributed to any specific project element (for example delays to achieving critical path approvals, changes to statutory requirements, contractor or subcontractor insolvency)

When populated, this annex should include:

• a completed risk assessment

• output summary from the software tool used to run the Monte Carlo simulation. @Risk (a Microsoft Excel based plug-in) is the most commonly used tool for Defence projects, but there is no specific requirement to use this tool – the project team may choose any available software package to run the simulation.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download