Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 20september 2008

Queensland Health
Gold Coast University Hospital

Business Case
September 2008
Queensland Health
September 2008
Contents
1
Executive summary
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Preamble
Project Background and key elements of the Health Service Plan
Project site, design and facilities
Proposed procurement method
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7.1
1.8
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8.4
1.8.5
1.8.6
1.8.7
Description of the proposed procurement process

Indicative Project Resources
Risk adjusted nominal project costs

Affordability analysis
Capital cost comparison with a reference case
Qualitative assessment of the Proposed Delivery Model
Public interest
Planning issues
Environmental issues
Cultural Heritage and Native Title Issues
Key workforce and employment issues
Employment issues associated with construction of the facility
Stakeholder issue management
Communication strategy
1
1
3
8
17
18
18
19
22
24
26
27
27
28
28
29
30
30
30
Background
31
2.1
Project background
31
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.4
2.4.1
Project decisions
Health Service Plan
Precinct site
Proposed hospital site
Project objectives
Purpose of the Business Case
Refinement of the Business Case
Scope of the Business Case

Interrelated Projects
31
32
34
35
36
38
38
39
39
Service needs definition
42
3.1
3.2
Introduction
Existing health services
42
42
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
Public hospital facilities

Community health services
Other health related services
Demand for health services

Demographic profile
Other demand factors
Health service needs
Health services plan

Proposed role of Gold Coast University Hospital
Proposed Delivery Model
Clinical service requirements
Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008
42
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
49
Queensland Health
September 2008
3.4.4
3.5
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
3.7.5
Clinical support services
Planned GCUH utilisation rates

Interim demand management strategy
Proposed strategies
Cost implications
Future use of existing health services

Southport campus
Robina Hospital
Other community /care centres
Integration with State wide health service planning
Integration with northern NSW health service planning
52
53
54
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
58
Project description
60
4.1
4.2
Introduction
Site description
60
60
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
4.7.5
4.7.6
4.7.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.14.1
4.14.2
4.14.3
Precinct site
Hospital site
Site features
Site acquisition
Proposed Delivery Model and PDP preferred option

Design process
Design principles
Design features
Interior design
Facilities description
Facility layout
Building layout
Future proofing
Future Private Hospital facility
Private sector involvement
Accommodation
Development of accommodation schedules
Schedule of accommodation
Clinical services
Division of Family, Women and Children
Division of Mental Health
Division of Medicine
Division of Surgery and Critical Care
Division of Community, Allied, Rehabilitation and Aged Services
Division of Medical Services
Division of Pathology
Non-Clinical service divisions

Operational and support services
FF&E requirements
Information technology
Education
Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD)
Transport and roads infrastructure
External Road access
Internal Road access
Other transport modes
60
61
62
62
64
72
73
73
73
75
76
76
78
81
81
81
81
82
83
83
85
85
86
87
88
88
89
89
90
90
91
92
93
93
94
94
ii
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.15
4.15.1
4.15.2
4.16
4.16.1
4.16.2
4.16.3
4.16.4
4.16.5
4.17
4.17.1
4.17.2
4.17.3
4.17.4
Car park facilities
95
Procurement approach
Car parking tariff
95
96
Facilities management services
96
Building maintenance
External cleaning
Grounds maintenance
Utilities management service
Helpdesk and associated management services
Single bed allowances

Studies supporting single beds
Benefits of increased single-bed
Cost impacts
Decision to increase the proportion of Single Beds
96
98
98
98
99
99
100
100
102
103
104
5.1
5.2
5.3

Commercial principles
104
105
109
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.3.9
5.4
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
General risk allocation

Performance bonding (security)
Liquidated damages
Defects liability period
Foreign Currency Exchange Risks
Insurance
Price
Termination provisions
Maintenance and facility management
Advantages and disadvantages (Managing Contractor Guaranteed

Construction Sum)
Proposed Project Plan
Indicative Procurement Timetable
109
110
110
110
110
111
111
111
112
112
114
114
114
Project cost estimates
116
6.1
6.2
Key infrastructure components

Gold Coast University Hospital contractor capital costs
116
116
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.4
6.5
6.5.1
Contractor raw capital costs

Escalation adjustment
Risk adjustment
Transferred risk adjustment
Retained risk adjustment
Total contractor capital costs
Project development costs

Project development raw costs
Project development capital costs risk adjustment
Total project development costs
Total project capital costs

Facility maintenance and management costs
Facility maintenance and management raw cost
117
117
119
119
120
121
122
122
123
124
125
125
126
126
iii
Queensland Health
September 2008
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2
6.6.3
6.6.4
6.6.5
Facility maintenance and management costs transferred risk
adjustment
Facility maintenance and management costs retained risk adjustment
Average annual facility maintenance and management costs
Total facility maintenance and management costs over 20 years
Clinical and support service costs

Clinical and support services casemix costing methodology
Clinical and support services labour analysis methodology
Clinical and support services raw costs from 2012/13 to 2016/17
Escalated costs
Depreciation expense
126
127
127
127
128
128
131
131
132
133
134
Affordability
135
7.1
7.2
Introduction
Capital budget
135
135
7.2.1
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6.1
Methodology
Estimated capital expenditure

Committed capital funding
Affordability analysis of capital expenditure
Recurrent budget
Methodology
135
136
137
137
138
138
7.7
7.8
7.9
Estimated recurrent expenditure

Committed recurrent funding
Affordability analysis of recurrent expenditure
139
140
141
Capital cost comparison with government budget and reference

case budget
143
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Announced Capital Cost budget (August 2006)

Updated Announced Capital Cost budget (July 2008)
Government approved capital cost budget - escalation calculations
Need for a Reference Case
Proposed Reference Case
Comparative analysis of the Reference Case with the Proposed Delivery
Model
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.6
Increased risk adjustment

Increased ratio of single beds
Statutory Requirements
Environmentally Sustainable Design Initiatives
Furniture Fixtures & Equipment
High level variations table
143
144
144
145
146
148
149
149
150
150
150
153
8.7
Potential capital cost offsets to fund the affordability gap
153
Evaluation of the Proposed Delivery Model
158
9.1
Possible evaluation approaches
158
9.1.1
9.1.2
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
Cost benefit analysis

Cost effectiveness analysis
158
158
Qualitative assessment of Proposed Delivery Model
159
Project objective: Service delivery and care

Project objective: People
159
160
iv
Queensland Health
September 2008
9.2.3
9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6
9.2.7
9.2.8
Project objective: Site access and egress

Project objective: Future proof and flexible
Project objective: Teaching and research
Project objective: Business continuity
Government commitment, policy and objectives
Project objective: Stakeholder relationships
161
161
162
163
163
164
10
Public interest
166
10.1
Planning, environment, cultural heritage and native title
166
10.1.1
10.1.2
10.1.3
10.2
10.2.1
10.2.2
10.2.3
10.3
10.3.1
10.3.2
10.4
10.4.1
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.5
10.5.1
10.5.2
Planning Issues
Environmental Issues
Employee, employment and skills issues

Workforce profile
Key Workforce and Employment Issues
Employment Issues Associated With Construction of the Facility
Stakeholder Issue Management

Health related stakeholder consideration
Broader Community Stakeholders
Communication Strategy
Purpose of the Communication Strategy
Communication objectives
Community Strategy Action Plan
Accountability and transparency

Communication principles
Public access and equity
166
169
170
171
171
174
175
177
177
181
186
187
187
188
188
190
190
Glossary
192
Raw costs inputs
194
Risk analysis methodology
201
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
Introduction
Objectives
Risk valuation methodology
Monte Carlo analysis
Risk matrix
Risk quantification reconciliation with previous Business Case
201
201
201
203
204
211
Gold Coast Hospital Car Park Report
213
Space allocation benchmarking
275
Financial model inputs and results
281
Space area reconciliation
303
Updated beds and treatment places schedule
305
Queensland Health
September 2008
Definition of Key Procurement Stages
312
Managing Contractor procurement paper
317
ESD initiatives summary
335
Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008/09 proposals
337
vi
Queensland Health
September 2008
Executive summary
1.1
Preamble
On 18 August 2006, the Queensland Government announced an election commitment to the
development of a new tertiary hospital. The announcement stated that a 750 bed Gold Coast
University Hospital will be built adjacent to Griffith University by the end of 2012 two years
ahead of time. The brief explained that a smaller (500 bed) hospital was originally planned for
2014 however growing pressure on existing staff and resources coupled with rapid growth had
fast-tracked the project.
A number of other key decisions have already been made regarding the proposed Hospital
facility:
The procurement model - The Cabinet Budget Review Committee in April 2007
determined that the current Business Case for the GCUH would not consider an option for
delivery of the hospital as a Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership.
Queensland Health and the Department of Public Works endorsed the selection of the
Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum as the proposed procurement method
for the Gold Coast University Hospital in April 2007. This decision was made after extensive
consultation with Tier 1 (major) contractors given the current unprecedented level of
construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas. The decision to procure
based on a Managing Contractor methodology was primarily driven by the need to gain
certainty of access to satisfactory construction resources (further advantages and
disadvantages of this model is described in Section 5). This method has been the primary
method of procurement by Queensland Health over the past decade.
Project site In relation to identification of the preferred site of the Hospital, press articles
quoted former Premier Peter Beattie as saying As is the normal process, detailed studies
by the Office of Urban Management have found that while the original site [off Smith Street]
was more than adequate for the project, there is the potential to avoid spending more than
an additional quarter of a billion dollars with this alternative site [Parklands Drive]". Mr
Beattie was also reported as saying the new location would allow for more flexibility in how
the Hospital campus grew, and deliver an improved flight path for emergency helicopters
away from local residents1.

This Business Case is to be submitted to CBRC at the end of the Schematic Design phase for
endorsement. It has been written to assist the decision making process by providing further
information in relation to key aspects of the proposed Gold Coast University Hospital (GCUH)
project. The aim of this Business Case is to provide an understanding of the reasonability of the
option chosen to deliver the GCUH and the cost of the project compared with budgeted funding.
To meet this aim this Business Case:
summarises the Proposed Delivery Model for the GCUH Project as defined in the Project
Definition Plan (PDP). The Proposed Delivery Model has been developed to achieve the
clinical and support service requirements identified in the GCUH Health Service Plan
summarises the procurement method and procurement process going forward
Source: Australian Associated Press, 22 August 2007
Queensland Health
September 2008
describes the project site and outlines the site issues that still need to be resolved
describes the key elements of the Health Service Plan prepared for the GCUH and the
interface between GCUH and provision of regional health services
calculates the risk-adjusted capital and operating cost estimates for the Proposed Delivery
Model
reconciles the capital cost estimate for the Proposed Delivery Model with the announced
capital budget for the project, and
highlights the public interest assessment that has been completed for the project including
stakeholder analysis, employment issues and environmental and cultural heritage issues.
There are also a number of health service plans that impact the Business Case, such as the
Gold Coast Health Service District Health Service Plan, inter-state Joint Planning, and various
specific service plans.
Project Objectives
The Project objectives were developed at a Value Management Workshop conduct in January
2007. The Project objectives include:
Service delivery and care
Create a patient-focussed health system that encourages innovative models of care

delivered in a major teaching hospital.
Deliver operational efficiency, optimising the use of people and resources, capable of
achieving health service planning targets and sustaining service levels into the future.
Promote evidence-based design to create an environment that enhances patient safety,

patient outcomes and clinical excellence.
Ensure ability to function in a post-disaster environment.
Enhance amenity for users of the site including consideration of carparking, retail, colocated private hospital.
People
Support attraction and retention of well-trained, committed and motivated staff.
Site access and egress
Provide clear points of site access and egress ensuring the efficient movement of
public/staff, emergency and service vehicles in and around the site.
Maximise integration of developing public transport infrastructure to the new Hospital.
Future proof and flexible
Encourage flexible design and infrastructure capable of adapting to new technologies

(clinical, information and operational) and emerging trends in clinical practice, models of
care and changes in government policy, legislation and standards.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Teaching and research
Promote an active learning environment, providing appropriate facilities for teaching and
research within clinical areas, and between the GCUH and its key education and research
partners.
Stakeholder relationships
Encourage a collaborative constructive relationship between the new Hospital and

stakeholders including education and research partners, local community, and
communities of interest.
Minimise impact and disruption to the surrounding community during construction.
The new Hospital is part of a network of services including district-wide service.
Business continuity
Achieve a successful relocation to the new Hospital with no interruption to the ongoing
delivery of services.
Procure a new major teaching hospital which delivers value for money to the State, within
budget and other parameters as agreed by the State.
Achieve State sustainability policies/objectives, including greenhouse gas and peak energy
reduction, water conservation and waste minimisation.
Maximise benefits of collocation opportunities with university, private hospital and other
services.
Project Budget
The proposed budget for the GCUH of $1.23 billion was subsequently announced in a number
of press releases and was also included in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and
Program (SEQIPP) 2007-2026 at $1.23 billion. Then in July 2008, the Government revised the
Gold Coast University Hospital Project capital cost budget to $1,549 million (July 2008 dollars).
This Updated Announced Capital Cost budget contained a number of additional scope items
including site acquisition, Medical and Dental School and additional surrounding infrastructure.
1.2
Project Background and key elements of the Health Service Plan

Background
The population of the Gold Coast makes it the sixth largest city in Australia and is currently
experiencing rapid growth. Over the next two decades to 2026 the Gold Coast region is
projected to experience population growth at an average annual rate of 2.4%2 one of the
fastest growing population areas in Queensland.
The Gold Coast Health Service District (GCHSD) currently provides public hospital services
from two sites:
Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus (Southport) a major regional referral hospital
which provides a range of specialist and sub-specialist services
Source: Planning Information and Forecasting Unit, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation,
August 2007.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Gold Coast Hospital Robina Hospital (Robina) which provides general medical and
surgical, rehabilitation, sub-acute and mental health services for the local area.
However, many of their clinical and clinical support services have now reached capacity, and
significant accommodation shortages are impacting their ability to meet current and growing
service demands. Between the period 2004/05 and 2016, day only activity is expected to
increase by 135%, and overnight activity is expected to increase by 74% over the same period3.
In addition to a rapidly growing population, the age profile of the GCHSD places a high demand
on health services. In 2006, the Districts proportion of people aged 65 and over was 13.7%,
compared to 12% for the State, and is projected to increase to 19.6% over the next two
decades. This will place further stress on the existing facilities.
As part of a detailed planning exercise by the Queensland Government to address the future
health needs of the Gold Coast, it was determined that a new tertiary hospital be developed to
complement other health services on the Gold Coast.
Role of the GCUH
The GCUH will replace the existing Gold Coast Hospital at Southport and is intended to take on
the role of major tertiary referral hospital for the GCHSD and Northern New South Wales. The
key tertiary services include cancer, cardiac, neurosciences, and neonatal services; and key
clinical support services include medical imaging, pharmacy, pathology, emergency, and
general amenity services.
This Business Case has been developed on the assumption that the new GCUH will fully
absorb the current operations of the Gold Coast Hospital Southport campus and that the
Southport site will not operate as a major hospital post commissioning of the GCUH. The future
of the Southport site will be subject to an economic and functionality assessment.
The inpatient role of Robina is to complement and extend the specialist acute and tertiary role of
the GCUH. Following planned upgrades for an additional 180 beds by 2009, Robina will function
as a 364 bed major hospital.
Key services
The future model of service developed by the GCHSD addresses the growth predicted for the
Gold Coast and surrounding areas. The model proposes:
the strengthening of community based health services through the development of a range
of health precincts and community centres across the Gold Coast
a growth in general hospital based services via expanding the number of available public
hospital beds
establishing a range of super speciality services at the GCUH to provide improved access to
these types of services to the GCHSD residents.
Broadly, the GCUH will provide a range of acute inpatient services and related super-speciality
services required for such a population. There would be a phased introduction of services with
service demands and workforce availability dictating the timing of the introduction of services.
Source: GCHSD Health Service Plan February 2007
Queensland Health
September 2008
Integration with health service planning

Current planning for the GCUH takes place within a hierarchy of planning instruments that are
designed to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach is undertaken in planning the
delivery of health services. Queensland Health has developed the State-wide Health Services
Plan 2007 2012 to provide an overarching vision with key objectives of improving access to
safe and sustainable health services and better meeting peoples needs across the health
continuum. The Southern Area Health Service4 (SAHS) Plan 2007-12 provides direction for
reform and development of health services in the Southern Area, in line with the broader
objectives. Associated with this plan are a series of cluster and Health Service District plans
that project health service utilisation and which articulate strategies for responses by specific
service networks, including delineation of roles of facilities, identification of cross-district issues
and opportunities for improved integration of services.
Consistent with this approach, the GCHSD developed the Gold Coast Health Service District
Master Plan in 2005 following a consultation process. This plan has subsequently been
reviewed to provide specific plans for the GCUH, Robina Hospital and the Robina Health
Precinct. The GCUH Health Services Plan has been based upon a close cooperation between
the GCHSD and the teams currently developing specific State-wide plans. As far as
practicable, the GCUH plan directly reflects the concepts under development in the following
planning processes:
Cancer Services State-wide Plan
Community Health Review
Cross Border Planning Study
Hardes Projection Data (based on the latest population census)
Mental Health State-wide Plan
NICU State-wide Plan
Oral Health State-wide Plan
Rehabilitation Services State-wide Plan
Renal services State-wide Plan
Southern Corridor Plan
Intensive Care Services State-wide Plan, and
Medical Imaging Services State-wide Plan due 2009.
The GCUH will act as a tertiary referral facility with limited super-specialist services with the
District still required to refer a limited number of patients to Brisbane for very low volume / high
cost / highly specialised interventions or interstate for an even more limited subset of patients at
On 1 September 2008, the Area/District structure within Queensland Health was significantly reformed. A
fundamental element of the reform process was the redistribution of Area Health Service functions to Districts and
Queensland Health Corporate Office. Areas including the Southern Area Health Service have been replaced by a flatter
District structure. The numbers of Districts have been reduced from 20 to 15. The new structure will allow District
CEOs to report directly to the Director-General, improving communication channels and responsiveness and allowing
greater District autonomy in boosting performance standards and accountability.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Nationally Funded Centres. Over time, the GCUH may develop a limited number of services
which have a State-wide referral role, receiving referrals from all other Queensland Districts and
Northern NSW. The GCUH will also provide a supportive hub role for selected services from
the Logan Health service District. Currently this role will be limited to renal services.
Within the GCHSD, the GCUH will form part of an integrated network of health facilities
encompassing Robina Hospital; Robina Health Precinct and a variety of Community Based
Services primarily at Palm Beach, Bundall and Helensvale, as well as a number of outreach
clinics; and Carrara Health Service, providing subacute care. Within this network, the GCUH
will provide higher-level support services such as intensive care, trauma management and
neonatal care. For these services the role of the facility will be to support the State-wide
availability of capacity and act as an integrated part of a network in peak periods of stress.
In relation to services provided by the private sector, planning for the GCUH and Robina
Hospital expansion are based on the assumption of private sector growth in bed capacity is
similar to that of the public sector services. Accordingly, the incorporation of the strategy for the
collocation of a private hospital on the GCUH site is designed to facilitate that growth. The
collocation of the private hospital will also provide opportunity for the development of synergistic
relationships between the public and private sector for shared services. A land area of
40,000m2 has been provided for a future Private Hospital facility, preliminary discussions are
already underway with private operators, and a detailed market sounding process will
commence in early 2008.
A Joint Planning Study has been established by the NSW and Queensland governments to
ensure an integrated approach to service planning and delivery for the residents of the north
coast of NSW and the southern region of the Gold Coast. Some of the key assumptions that
have been identified by this joint study process to guide service planning include:
public sector expansion and changes will predominantly be in response to demand

associated with projected population growth and ageing
Lismore Base and The Tweed Hospitals will remain rural referral hospitals providing a range
of Level 4 and 5 services (NSW Role Delineation). Therefore, services such as specialty
paediatrics, neurosurgery, organ transplantation, and cardiothoracic surgery will continue to
be provided by hospitals located in Queensland (Gold Coast or Brisbane), the Hunter region
or metropolitan Sydney. Given the travel distances to the Hunter and Sydney, it is expected
that the majority of NSW residents in the far north coast will be referred to Queensland
in Queensland, the private sector will increasingly focus on developing day-only services.
With the exception of John Flynn and Pindara Private Hospitals, private sector providers
have indicated that they are not planning to significantly increase capacity generally to meet
population growth and ageing
over the next five years, both John Flynn and Pindara Private Hospitals have indicated
major planned expansion: John Flynn anticipates bed increases of 48, while Pindara Private
has advised of bed increases of 209
no change to the private supply pattern or capacity on the NSW far north coast is expected
during the planning horizon
no planned reversal of private inpatients is expected from NSW private hospitals to public
hospitals.
Queensland Health
September 2008
These assumptions have been further developed to forecast patient flows by specific clinical
type and have been incorporated in the GCUH Health Service Plan.
Project completion and transition planning
The GCUH is expected to be completed by December 2012, but only 83% operational within the
first year of operation. During the first year of operation of GCUH, staff and resources from
Southport Hospital will be transferred to GCUH, and the Southport Hospital will correspondingly
be closed.
GCUH will not be fully operational until 2015. This is due to a range of resource constraints such
as the availability of appropriately skilled and experienced clinical and support staff, as well as
the time that is needed to develop super speciality services not previously provided by the
GCHSD.
To address the resourcing and timing issues, a transition strategy is to be implemented whereby
a phased or ramp up process will be applied to gradually bring the facility up to 100%
operational capability. Queensland Health is currently in the process of developing these
detailed transition plans.
The Gold Coast Health Service District Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008-2012
(IDMS), submitted in November 2007, proposes a range of integrated strategies to partially
meet the growing local demand prior to the opening of the GCUH. A separate Business Case
seeking funding approval for the IDMS will be considered as part of the upcoming budgetary
process. The IDMS strategy and funding requirements is discussed further in Section 3.6.
However, the IDMS is not considered as part of the project capital or recurrent budget analysis
or affordability analysis in this Business Case.
An overview of the interrelated projects that will impact either the development of the GCUH
and/or efficient operation of the facility is provided in the following table.
Table 1.1 Interrelated Projects
Project
High level description
Responsibility
Interim
Demand
Management
Strategy
(IDMS)
The IDMS proposes a range of

integrated strategies that maximises
capacity within the GCHSD in order to
partially meet the growing local
demand prior to the opening of the
GCUH.
Queensland
Health
Capital costs of $66.6m

over the 4 year period
2007/08 2010/11 was
considered as part of the
2008/09 budget process,
with $8.2m allocated in
2007/08 for Coomera
land purchase and $1.4m
in 2008/09 for expansion
of the Emergency
Department at Southport.
Surrounding
road network
upgrades
Smith Street and Olsen Avenue are

the two major thoroughfares linking to
the GCUH. Upgrades to these roads
and to other roads that surround the
GCUH site are proposed.
Department of
Main Roads
The estimated cost of the

Surrounding Road
Network Upgrades is in
the range of $215 million
to $360 million (based on
advice from Department
of Main Roads).
Cost Estimate
Queensland Health
September 2008
Project
Responsibility
Cost Estimate
Rapid
Transit
Project
It proposed that the Gold Cost Rapid

Transit (GCRT) system will provide a
station servicing Griffith University
and the GCUH. Construction of this
station is included in the first stage of
the GCRT project which is scheduled
to be completed by 2012, however
the system will not become
operational immediately. Queensland
Transport will provide bus
arrangement to service the hospital
until the GCRT is operational.
Queensland
Transport
The estimated capital

cost of the Gold Coast
Rapid Transit system is
$1.67 billion (as per
SEQIPP 2008-2026).
This estimate relates to
the development of a
rapid transit system
extending from
Helensvale to
Coolangatta. However,
the project is likely to be
delivered in several
stages.
Car Parking
facilities
It is proposed that a total of 3,000 car

parking bays be constructed to cater
for the needs of staff and visitors to
the new Hospital. It is proposed that
the 3,000 spaces will be provided in
two separate car parks facilities.
Queensland
Health
Private sector
procurement. EOI phase
completed. RFP phase to
commence soon.
Provision of
Utilities to
the site
Negotiations are currently underway

with Energex for provision of a new
zone substation, and with Gold Coast
City Council (and Gold Coast Water)
for water and waste services. These
will be provided to the district and will
not be costed to the GCUH project.
Queensland
Health, Energex,
Gold Coast Water
/ Gold Coast City
Council
To be determined
Source: Queensland Treasury, Department of Infrastructure and Planning and Queensland Health
1.3
Project site, design and facilities

Project Site
The Hospital development is part of a 130 hectare site referred to as the Gold Coast Hospital
and Knowledge Precinct. The Precinct is located on the western edge of Southport on the Gold
Coast, approximately 4km west of the Southport CBD and 36km north of Tweed Heads. The
proposed site for the Hospital will occupy approximately 18.1 hectares of the Precinct land,
directly opposite the Griffith University site. The site is boarded by Parklands Drive and Olsen
Avenue and is currently being acquired by Queensland Health with assistance from the
Department of Infrastructure. An aerial photo of the site is shown below.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 1.1 GCUH proposed site
Source: Project Definition Plan

The recommendation to locate GCUH on the northern site was based on the following key
features:
health service delivery will be enhanced through improved access and egress to the site, as
indicated by Department of Main Roads (DMR), through better accommodation from all
directions with the Northern site providing better reliability
better potential for expansion of GCUH over time
more timely integration of road works with the opening of GCUH in 2012 and significant cost
savings in excess of $260m in the supporting road infrastructure whilst providing improved
access and better operability.
Site acquisitions
Within the proposed GCUH footprint there are existing organisations currently operating that will
be affected by the Hospital development. Key acquisitions and funding of relocation costs
(where appropriate) will include land occupied by Griffith Universitys Medical and Dental
School, the Church of Christ, Salvation Army, Greyhound Racing Authority, and Southport Lawn
Cemetery.
As part of the development of the Project Definition Plan, five technical delivery models were
developed for consideration (which are described in greater detail in Section 4). The five
technical delivery models were then assessed against the Project objectives to select the
preferred technical delivery model which is referred to as the Proposed Delivery Model. The
Queensland Health
September 2008
evaluation process, scoring against the Project objectives and the selection of the preferred
delivery model is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.
Project design features
To meet the requirements of the GCUH Health Service Plan, the Hospital will feature the
following key attributes:
A compact solution, which is designed over nine levels and located in a parkland setting.
A compact footprint which allows for future expansion.
The potential for clear way-finding with the principle of having short travel distances to lift
cores. The distance between the front entrance and the central lift core is less than 60
metres.
Use of site topography to separate by level the key entrances points for visitors, patients
and services (i.e. main entrance, Emergency Department entrance and the loading docks).
A dedicated car park to be accessed by the Caner Centre via the South block basement
level.
Direct and discrete connections between the Emergency Department and the Mental Health
Unit, which also has a dedicated entrance.
Designed with departmental stacking, which responds to its Model of Care.
The philosophy for the interior design is to create a comfortable and healing environment for
patients, their families and carers, and incorporates the qualities of friendliness, safety, privacy
and fun where appropriate.
Furthermore the overall design has incorporated future proofing principles including an
expansion allowance for 90,000m2 of gross floor area (total potential area in excess of
250,000m2), which could increase the beds from 750 to approximately 1,000. The potential
future expansion can occur without impeding access to the facility by the public, patient, visitors,
staff or those supplying the facility with the goods and services during the operation of the
facility.
As part of the expansion allowance, a land area of 14,000m2 has been provided for a future
Private Hospital facility. A tender process to select a private operator for the site is currently
underway with six organisations registering Expressions of Interest.
The layout of the facilities is shown in the figures below.
10
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 1.2 Perspective showing view from South West
Source: GCUH Architecture

Figure 1.3 Perspective showing view from North East
11
Queensland Health
September 2008
Accommodation design and benchmarking

Accommodation design was developed with reference to Australasian Health Facility Guidelines
(AHFG) and through a benchmarking exercise. A series of user group meetings and discussions
were also conducted to inform the development process.
Reference was made to several documents and guidelines including the following:
GCUH Health Service Plan
Queensland Healths Queensland Health Capital Works Guidelines
Queensland Healths Queensland Health Clinical Services Capability Framework for Public
and Licensed Private Health Facilities, version 2 July 2005.
Australasian Health Facility Guidelines, November 2006.
Department of Human Services, Victoria Hospital Project Planning Benchmark 2003, as

detailed for Level 6 hospitals
Queensland Health recommendations for single rooms
Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives.
Furthermore the following factors and statutory requirements were also incorporated:
Additional floor space area associated with new Statutory Requirements (including Disability
Discrimination Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, and Building Code of Australia)
Queensland Health policy to move from average provision of 25% single bed rooms to 75%
single bed rooms
Introduction of Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives (plant and equipment)
Increased provision of high-cost medical equipment.
The accommodation design was benchmarked against comparative Australian hospitals:
Queensland: Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital, The
Prince Charles Hospital and the Townville Hospital
Victoria: Royal Melbourne Hospital, the Alfred Hospital, the new Royal Childrens Hospital
(based on the PDP), Monash Medical Centre and Austin Hospital
New South Wales: the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the proposed Redevelopment of the
Royal North Shore Hospital (based on PDP)
South Australia: Royal Adelaide Hospital and the proposed Marjorie Jackson Hospital
(based on PDP)
Western Australia: Fiona Stanley Hospital (based on PDP).
The resulting bed and floor space profile is detailed in the table below.
Table 1.2 GCUH Floor Space Requirements and Benchmarking
12
Queensland Health
September 2008
Division
Generic
inpatient unit
Division of
Medicine
Division of
Surgery and
Critical Care
Services
Division of
Family,
Women &
Children
Division of
Medical
Services
Division of
Mental
Health &
ATODS
Division of
Community,
Allied,
Rehabilitatio
n and Aged
Services
Day
beds
Bed
Alternatives
Over
night
beds
Treatment
places
Consulting
rooms
Gross
2
Area m
Benchmark
2
Area m
400
13
19,057
18,648
14
97
76
115
115
24,473
22,887
40
50
39
11
16,032
14,376
20
124
26
39
14,018
11,499
28
5,923
5,143
72
5,817
5,895
28
99
10
7,359
6,502
Comments
The increase in area (2%)

compared to the
benchmark can be
explained by a greater
allowance for single bed
rooms, shared eduction
and training areas, and a
decentralised model of
care for allied health
areas.
The increase in area (7%)
compared to the
benchmark reflects a
higher proportional of
single rooms and the
inclusion of shared service
areas.
The increase in area
(11%) compared to the
benchmark can be
attributed to the increased
size of interventional
rooms in line with current
international standards,
and the collocation of the
Anaesthetics department
within this cluster.
benchmark can be
allowance for single bed
rooms, and inclusion of
ambulatory care as part of
this cluster.
benchmark can be
explained by inclusion of
satellite imaging services
with emergency and
ambulatory care areas,
and equipment such as
PET.
The decrease in area (1%)
compared to the
benchmark is immaterial.
benchmark can be
explained by additional
services not included in
benchmark hospitals, such
as the Rehabilitation Unit
and Therapy Area.
13
Queensland Health
September 2008
Day
beds
Bed
Alternatives
Over
night
beds
Treatment
places
Consulting
rooms
Gross
2
Area m
Benchmark
2
Area m
5,039
6,360
Division
Division of
Pathology
Education &
Research
3,871
4,125
16,556
16,318
74
97
750
316
188
118,109
111,753
Corporate
Services,
amenities
and retail
Total
Travel space
Plant space
Main atrium
Total Gross
Area
Comments
The decrease in area

benchmark can be
explained by the
centralised provision of
specialised pathology
services for the region by
the Royal Brisbane and
Women's Hospital.
The decrease in area (6%)
can be explained through
the ability to integrate and
utilise education, library,
and research facilities at
Griffith university.
The difference to the
benchmark is immaterial.
17,380
27,673
1,200
164,362
Source: GCUH Technical Advisor, DLA, GCUH Architecture

Notes: See Appendix H for updated beds / treatment places schedule, and Appendices E and G for benchmarking and
area schedule.
Education and Research Facilities

The future teaching facilities will be developed in collaboration with the university sector. A
spatial allowance has been made for hospital-based research, where all such dry research
undertaken by the various Clinical Departments is to be conducted.
The project team is endeavouring to provide a sustainable hospital capable of accreditation as a
four star Greenstar facility, within the original Project Definition Plan ESD budget allocation of
$82 million (nominal)5. A detailed description of the ESD initiatives is provided in Appendix K.
Transport infrastructure
General vehicle access to the Hospital site is to be provided from the Smith Street end of
Parklands Drive and from Olsen Avenue. Upgrades to Smith Street and Olsen Avenue, and
other roads that surround the GCUH site, are proposed. These upgrades will be managed by
the Department of Main Roads.
$47 million (July 2008 dollars excluding managing contractor fee, professional fees and risk adjustments)
14
Queensland Health
September 2008
Bicycles and motorcycle facilities will also be provided. Bicycle parking for visitors and couriers
designed to meet the Queensland Cycle Strategy, will be located in convenient and safe
locations and protected from adverse weather conditions.
The Queensland Government has identified the proposed Gold Coast Rapid Transit (GCRT)
System as a priority project in SEQIPP with a cost estimate of $1.67 billion. The GCRT system
will be of significant benefit to the Hospital, providing an alternate mode of transport for bringing
patients, staff, visitors and students to the Precinct and the Hospital. Queensland Transport is
planning the development of the GCRT project and has indicated a station servicing Griffith
University and the GCUH is a priority for the project. Construction of this station is included in
the first stage of the project. Queensland Transport advise that the rapid transit construction
works adjoining the new hospital can be completed by December 2012, however the GCRT will
not be operational by this time. Queensland Transport will provide bus arrangements to service
the hospital until the GCRT is operational.
Car park facilities
It is proposed that the car parking facilities required for the GCUH will be separately procured
through a Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) process (i.e. where a private sector
consortium will build, own, finance and operate the facility for an agreed concession term, at the
end of the concession term ownership will be transferred back to Queensland Health), and
Queensland Health is currently running a competitive tender process to select the BOOT
partner.
The car parking facilities will provide a minimum of 3,000 spaces in two separate vertical
structures, with the East Car Park to be completed by August 2010 to ensure sufficient parking
for construction workers and commissioning of the hospital. More information on the car
parking facilities is provided in Section 4.15 and Appendix D.
Facility management services
Queensland Health is considering the possibility of entering into a Facilities Management
contract with a Managing Contractor and/or a nominated third party provider. The specialist
provider would provide certain facilities management services over a 20 year operational phase,
commencing upon completion of construction of the GCUH. Collecting like elements into the
overall ambit of responsibility of a facilities manager should result in better initial installation or
choice of plant and or equipment. Alternatively, these services could be managed by a facilities
manager within Queensland Health, with some outsourcing to third parties through supply
agreements.
The profile of the GCUH, being a major tertiary / super-speciality hospital for South East
Queensland, together with other planned tertiary hospitals for the region, prompted an
investigation by Queensland Healths Capital Works & Asset Management Branch (CW&AMB)
into the optimal proportion of single beds to multiple beds.
In November 2007, the Capital Works & Asset Management Committee (EMT inc Strategic
Reference Committee Qld Health Major Hospital Projects) endorsed that the planning for the
three major hospital projects (including the GCUH Project) were to proceed on the basis of the
following proportion of single bed rooms:
15
Queensland Health
September 2008
100% single rooms for critical care areas, mental health, immuno-compromised and
infectious patients.
80% single rooms for high acute ward environments.
60% single rooms for variable acuity medical wards.
30% single rooms for Rehabilitation wards.
Noting that the room sizes will vary from 24m2 (critical care), to 15-18m2 (high/variable acuity) to
12m2 (mental health). Queensland Health is also undertaking some further analysis of the
recurrent costing associated with the increased amount of the single bed rooms. Applying these
principles has increased the single bed ratio from current Queensland allowances of 25% to
75%. The increase in proportion of single rooms together with the increase in room sizes
results in a requirement for an additional space of 5,123 m2.
The proposed single bed allocation for the GCUH is consistent with worldwide trends. In
Australia, the Royal Childrens Hospital in Melbourne is planning for 80-90% single bed rooms,
while the Fiona Stanley Hospital in WA has recommended 83% inpatient single bed rooms plus
100% single-bed rooms in ICU, short stay and mental health units.
Benefits of increased single bed rooms include:
Improved infection control with annual savings through effective isolation estimated between
$0.25 to $1 million per 100,000 population.
Reduction in clinical errors.
Reduction in patient falls and injuries.
Evidence it results in a shorter length of stay. International studies such as a study

undertaken in the UK6 estimated that the average length of stay of non-hospital acquired
infection patients was 7.6 days compared to hospital acquired infection patients of 21.7
days.
Increased patient privacy and overall satisfaction.
The capital cost of this increase required $35.6m in nominal terms, and less than 2% of the
Proposed Delivery Model Capital Cost Estimate. Additional recurrent operating costs (for
lifecycle capex, utilities and internal cleaning costs) have been estimated by the technical
advisers to be an additional $1.7m per annum (in 2007 dollars) which is less than 2.5% of the
annual average Facilities Maintenance and Management estimate. An impact analysis of
recurrent cost is currently being developed by Queensland Health.
Queensland Health believes when considering the marginal relative cost of this decision to the
overall budget, that the qualitative (and quantitative) evidence presented in this Business Case
together with the results of the recurrent cost study is sufficient to validate the policy position.
Further information on the proportion of single beds in the proposed facility is discussed further
in Section 4.17.
6
R.Plowman, N Graves, M.A.S. Griffin, J.A. Roberts, A.V. Swan, B Cookson and L. Taylor: The rate and cost of
hospital acquired infections in patients admitted to selected specialties of a district general hospital is England and the
national burden imposed. Journal of Hospital Infection 2001 47:198-209.
16
Queensland Health
September 2008
1.4

The decision making process in relation to the selection of the proposed procurement approach
for the GCUH has been completed separately to this Business Case process. The Cabinet
Budget Review Committee in April 2007 determined that the current Business Case for the
GCUH would not consider an option for delivery of the hospital as a Private Finance
Initiative/Public Private Partnership.
In determining the preferred procurement method, the Department of Public Works (DPW)
undertook extensive consultation with Tier 1 (major) contractors given the current
unprecedented level of construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas. There
are currently nine Tier 1 Building Contractors servicing the Queensland market. Consultation in
early 2007 included formal meetings between DPWs Deputy Director General (Works) and
Director Contracts and the CEO level of each of the major contractors.
This consultation resulted in the decision to tailor procurement strategies to attract an
appropriate tender market for the major projects. These strategies have included key factors
that contractors noted as important to be attracted to the State Government building works,
including:
A general registration of interest in early 2007 to encourage forward planning of projects to

enable contractors to better plan for undertaking government work.
A more specific Expression of Interest in April 2007 based on the 14 Government building
contracts known to be going to tender within the next 18 months to 2 years. The
Expressions of Interest were scored by an evaluation team and contractors ranked by score
for each project. The interest in the project, the ranking order, an acceptable level of score,
projects won at tender and eligibility under the DPW PQC system were factors in
determining the final select tender list.
Agreement with industry to a Managing Contractor form of contract well known to industry
but including provision for early contractor involvement to enable contractors to not only
provide value adding services to the project, but also to enable the contractors to secure the
required supply-chain resources early (e.g. trade subcontractors).
Queensland Health and the Department of Public Works endorsed the selection of the
Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum as the proposed procurement method for
the GCUH in April 2007. The proposed advantages given for the selection of the procurement
method included:
The appointment of the Managing Contractor at an early stage ensures that, in a period of
unprecedented construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas, the project
has certainty of construction resources.
Provides a greater degree of price certainty once the Guaranteed Construction Sum is
agreed between parties.
Allows Queensland Health to commence work on the project quickly and easily as not all
issues need to be resolved prior to the appointment of the Managing Contractor.
Reduces Queensland Healths exposure to design and construction risks as the risks are
transferred to the Managing Contractor.
A more detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed procurement
method are provided in Section 5.4 and Appendix J.
17
Queensland Health
September 2008
The Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum is also the procurement method that
has predominantly been used by Queensland Health to undertake major capital works over the
past decade.
1.4.1

In delivering the project with the Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum
procurement method there are three further distinct phases to be completed following the
completion of the Master Plan and the Project Definition Plan, including:
development of the Schematic Design Process completed by the Project Team including a
Building Consultant and the appointment of a Managing Contractor to proceed to the next
stage of the procurement process
the Managing Contractor undertaking the Design Development process and producing a
Guaranteed Construction Sum (GCS) Offer. The GCS Offer is assessed and upon
agreement of acceptable terms is submitted to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee for
consideration and approval. This phase may include early works packages
the Managing Contractor undertaking construction work, commissioning work and all other
design work and documentation work not completed in the previous phase.
The three phases and the key tasks to be completed in each phase are outlined in the following
table.
Table 1.3 Procurement phases
1. Schematic Design and MC
appointed
2. Agree GCS and obtain

approval
3. Construction process
The Project Team & Building

Consultant (BC):
The Project Team and MC:
The MC and the Project Team:
Complete the Developed Design

for the facility.
The MC:
Complete the Construction

Documentation (Project Team
reviews).
Submits proposal including GCS

to Project Team
The Project Team:
Completes construction of the

facility (Project Team reviews
and makes progress payments
to MC).
Complete decanting into the

new facility.
Reviews the MCs proposal and

if required further negotiates
price and terms.
Complete the defects liability

period for the facility (Project
Team reviews).
Seeks approval from

Queensland Health to accept the
offer.
Complete the Schematic Design.

Finalise the draft Contractual
Terms for Managing Contractor
(MC) Contract.
Prepare revised Project Capital

Budget.
The Project Team:
Prepares the Request for Tender

Documentation for the MC and
conducts the process.
Provides updated Business Case

(e.g. revised Capital Budget) to
CBRC for endorsement.
Appoints the MC to complete

Developed Design and submit
proposal including GCS.
Source: Project Services
Engages consultants.
Prepares GCS.
A more detailed description of the three phases is provided at Section 5.2. Section 5.3 also
provides a summary of the key commercial principles of the draft Managing Contractor Contract.
1.4.2

The following table provides a preliminary indication of the project resources (i.e. Queensland
Health employees and external consultants) required through to completion of the project. The
18
Queensland Health
September 2008
table provides a breakdown of the resources into the key procurement stages going forward and
also by resource classification.
Table 1.4 Indicative Project Resources for the GCUH Project
Resource Type
Queensland Health (Major
Projects & Gold Coast
Team)
Project Managers
Architects
Engineering
Quantity Surveyors
Programming
Procurement and
Principal Representative
Commercial & Financial
Building Consultant
Total (People)
Managing Contractor
Schematic
Design
Detailed
Design
Construction
Documentation
Construction
Defects
Period
19.5
19.5
19.5
24.5
14.0
9.0
46.0
42.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
9.0
52.0
51.5
4.0
4.0
5.0
8.0
75.0
63.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
7.8
57.0
18.0
4.0
4.0
6.2
6.5
9.0
4.0
145.0
37.0
178.7
94.0
121.5
184.0
36.5
4.0
1.0
11.0
140.0
3.0
Source: Queensland Health, Project Services, Building Consultant
An indicative timetable for the GCUH Project is also provided at Section 5.5.
1.5
Risk adjusted nominal project costs

In order to derive the total project costs, the raw construction, project development, facility
maintenance and management costs have been estimated by the technical advisers and have
been adjusted to include allowances for escalation and risk. In addition, Queensland Health
has estimated clinical and support services costs using its casemix and labour analysis costing
methodologies.
Escalation
The raw construction costs, managing contractor fees, professional fees, statutory fees and
project development costs have been escalated from the cost base date of 1 July 2008 in
accordance with the rates in the following table.
Table 1.5 Capital cost escalation rates
Items
2008/09
Construction costs, MC fees, novated
professional fees and statutory fees
Source: DLA
8.0%
Escalation rate
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
7.0%
6.0%
6.0%
2012/13
5.0%
Queensland Health costs and FF&E costs have been escalated from the cost base date of 1
July 2008 at 4.0% p.a. and other project development costs at the rates in the following table.
19
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 1.6 Project development costs escalation rates

Items
Commissioning / decanting / QH Costs
Professional Fees
Public art allowance
Site acquisition
Additional infrastructure
Medical and dental school
Project Development Cost Escalation Rates

2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.0%
Source: Queensland Health and DLA
Escalation rates have been applied to the capital costs in accordance with a capital cost profile
(S-curve) provided by the technical advisers.
Facility maintenance and management costs (recurrent costs) all of which have a cost base
date of 1 July 2007 have been escalated at 4.0% with respect to labour components and 3.2%
for other components.
Further details on the escalation rates used are contained in Appendix B.
Risk adjustment
The purpose of the risk adjustment is to provide a more accurate estimate of the projects outturn costs by quantifying the potential cost impact of individual project risks on a probabilityweighted basis. The methodology used to quantify the risks was to workshop high, medium and
low risk impacts and associated probabilities and then determine the weighted average value of
the risks. In addition, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to assess the probability
distribution of the aggregate risk outcomes. Further details on the risk adjustment methodology
and the risk curves are detailed in Appendix C.
Quantified risk values have been indicatively allocated into transferred and retained risk
components based on the Managing Contractor procurement method chosen by Queensland
Health.
Project capital costs
The following table summarises the projects total nominal risk-adjusted capital costs for the
entire project (i.e. the Contractor Capital Costs and Project Development Capital Costs). These
costs have been calculated by adjusting the raw capital costs provided by the technical advisers
for escalation and risk adjustments.
Table 1.7 Capital Cost Estimate Proposed Delivery Model
Generic Inpatient Unit
Education & Research

Nominal $M
178.41
28.27
242.46
Division of Surgery & Critical Care
169.06
Division of Family, Women & Children
114.79
Division of Mental Health & ATODS
40.30
20
Queensland Health
September 2008

Nominal $M
Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & Rehabilitation Services
50.92
106.78
55.23
Corporate Services, Amenities and Retail
134.79
Engineering and Travel
249.75
Central Plant Etc
244.01
ESD Initiatives
90.26
External Works
84.41
Total Contractor capital cost
1,789.43
Project development capital costs
318.86
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS

Included escalation
Included transferred risk
Included retained risk
Note: Total capital costs include adjustments for escalation, transferred and retained risk.
Source: Queensland Health, DLA cost assumptions and KPMG Financial Model
2,108.30
341.45
42.27
106.64
Project recurrent costs

The following table shows the estimated clinical and support services costs (other than facilities
management costs estimated below) from commissioning of the new GCUH until full operations
in 2015-16. The estimates are based on the casemix costing methodology and assume
expansion from 624 overnight beds in 2012-13 to 750 overnight beds by 2015-16 in accordance
with the draft Queensland Health Bed Transition Strategy. The recurrent costs have also been
estimated for 2015-16 using Queensland Healths labour analysis methodology and were
equivalent to the costs estimated on a casemix basis.
Table 1.8 Clinical & Support Services Recurrent Costs, excluding facilities management costs
Forecast Costs
Clinical and Support Services
Source: Queensland Health
Note: All costs are in nominal dollars.
2012-13
$M
2013-14
$M
2014-15
$M
2015-16
$M
442.1
483.5
525.5
581.7
Further information on the Clinical and Support Services Recurrent Cost is provided in Section
6.6.
The average annual escalated and risk-adjusted Facilities Management costs are shown in the
table below. The risk adjustment based on a Managing Contractor delivery model resulted in
and average 10.3% transferred risk adjustment.
Table 1.9 Facility Management and Maintenance Recurrent Cost Estimate (Average Annual)
Cost Category operating at full capacity
Routine Building and Plant maintenance
Grounds maintenance costs

Nominal $M
25.82
0.70
21
Queensland Health
September 2008

Nominal $M
0.67
0.71
26.57
54.47
25.29
79.76

Cleaning
Helpdesk
Utilities
Subtotal
Lifecycle Building Maintenance
Total facility maintenance and management costs
Note: The above costs include adjustments for escalation, transferred and retained risk
Theses costs are average annual cost over 20 years
Further information on the Clinical and Support Services Recurrent Cost is provided in Section
6.5.
1.6
Affordability analysis
The affordability analysis determined the gap between proposed expenditure and committed
funding by comparing:
the annual cost and estimated total cost of capital expenditure on the GCUH with the
Governments announced funding commitment (July 2008), and
the annual recurrent expenditure on the GCUH with existing funding based on 2006-07
activity levels at the Gold Coast Hospital.
Capital cost affordability

The capital expenditure is calculated on a risk adjusted and escalated basis. The announced
capital budget of $1.549 billion (July 2008 dollars) has been escalated based on the escalation
rates in Table 6.3 and an S-curve for total project capital costs. The resulting gap is shown in
the tables below. The gap is explained in the section 1.7.
Table 1.10 Affordability of Proposed Delivery Model

Capital Expenditure
Committed Capital
Funding
Capital affordability
surplus / (deficit)
Est.
Total
Cost $m
2,108.30
2007-08
$m
31.14
2008-09
$m
148.05
2009-10
$m
347.83
2010-11
$m
546.10
2011-12
$m
707.20
2012-13
$m
327.98
1,868.54
29.57
121.71
306.58
485.82
637.06
287.80
(239.76)
(1.57)
(26.34)
(41.25)
(60.28)
(70.13)
(40.18)
Source: Queensland Health, KPMG Financial Model

Note: Costs are in nominal dollars
A number of potential capital cost offsets initiatives which may reduce the affordability gap are
listed in Section 8.7.
Recurrent cost affordability
The estimated recurrent expenditure prior to commissioning of the GCUH is based on budgeted
Gold Coast Hospital expenditure of $249.8 million for 2007-08 plus supplementation under the
22
Queensland Health
September 2008
More Beds for Hospitals program amounting to $7.3 million in 2007-08 and $14.5 million in
subsequent years. No allowance has been made for potential funding under the Interim
Demand Management Strategy or other possible growth funding in the future that is not
currently approved.
The following table shows the affordability comparison in real and escalated terms between the
existing recurrent funding level and recurrent expenditure under the Proposed Delivery Model.
200708
2007-08 dollars
Projected overnight
bed numbers
480
Expenditure on
Preferred Delivery
Model ($m real)
257.0
Committed Funding
($m real)
257.0
Real Expenditure
Surplus / (Deficit)
0.0
Nominal dollars
Escalated value of
Proposed Delivery
Model ($m nominal)
257.0
Escalated value of
Committed Funding
($m nominal)
257.0
Total nominal
recurrent surplus /
(deficit) ($m )
0.0
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
201314
201415
201516
480
480
480
480
624
683
716
750
264.3
264.3
264.3
264.3
393.1
431.7
450.1
477.5
264.3
264.3
264.3
264.3
458.2
459.1
459.9
461.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.1
27.4
9.8
(16.4)
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
464.8
529.7
572.8
630.2
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
506.3
522.8
543.5
565.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.4
(6.9)
(29.3)
(64.7)
In 2007-08 dollars, the table shows a funding surplus of $65.1 million in 2012/13 which reduces
to a small deficit of $16.4 million by 2015/16. These results reflect the following key factors:
In forecasting recurrent expenditure, Queensland Health has assumed continuation of Gold

Coast Hospital acuity levels and reduced occupancy levels for the additional beds at GCUH
in order to ensure that recurrent expenditure is affordable within available funding under the
More Beds for Hospitals program by 2015/16. For the GCUH to function at the higher acuity
level identified in the Health Service Plan or to have higher activity levels and occupancy
rates, the recurrent funding would need to be reassessed and increased.
Additional funding in 2012-13 under the More Beds for Hospitals program is provided in
nominal dollars (hence the total funding is partly in 2007-08 dollars and partly in 2012-13
dollars).
Additional funding under the More Beds for Hospitals program assumes 750 beds will be
available in 2012-13 compared to the 624 beds assumed by Queensland Health under the
Bed Transition Strategy in that year (rising in subsequent years to 750 beds by 2015-16).
In nominal dollars, the table shows a funding surplus of $41.4 million in 2012/13 which reduces
to a deficit of $64.7 million by 2015/16. This affordability gap is greater than the deficit in real
23
Queensland Health
September 2008
terms (2007-08 dollars) primarily because, as noted above, the latter deficit includes a
component of nominal funding under the More Beds for Hospitals program.
1.7
Capital cost comparison with a reference case

It is understood that the Announced Capital Budget in August 2006 of $1.23 billion was
developed based on the following assumptions:
that the Gold Coast University Hospital is a 750 bed tertiary referral hospital with the costs
broadly based on the Townsville Hospital which is also a tertiary referral hospital
a total gross floor area of 144,000 m2
a Managing Contractor procurement model with broadly similar risk allocation was used for
the procurement of the Townsville Hospital, and
the announced budget is as at August 2006 (i.e. real August 2006 dollars). It is assumed
that the escalation included in the table in section 8.1 relates to the escalation from the date
of completion of the Townsville hospital to the date of the Announced Capital Budget in
August 2006.
These broad assumptions, combined with the absence of a detailed schedule of areas, mean
that it is difficult to determine the mix and level of services that the Announced Capital Budget
would provide. Consequently, the Announced Capital Budget is an insufficient basis for
meaningful comparisons with the Proposed Delivery Model. In order to address this problem, it
has been necessary to develop a suitable Reference Case and estimate that:
Provides clarity about the underlying assumptions through development of a detailed

schedule of areas and associated cost plan; and
Is based on similar assumptions to the Announced Capital Budget concerning facility

standards and consequently reconciles to the Announced Capital Budget in terms of its
aggregate cost.
Accordingly, a Reference Case has been developed to reflect facility standards that may have
been assumed in, or can reasonably be associated with, the Announced Capital Budget to
permit analysis of the main factors that account for the difference in cost associated with the
Proposed Delivery Model. The Reference Case is based on a schedule of areas that is
consistent with delivering the level and mix of services required by the Health Service Plan.
Consequently, the Reference Case will deliver essentially the same service outputs in terms of
activity levels as the Proposed Delivery Model.
Nevertheless, there are some significant differences between the Reference Case and the
Proposed Delivery Model in terms of service outcomes as a result of differences in facility
standards and equipment levels, as detailed below. In addition, the cases differ in terms of their
reliability of delivery because of differential provision for project risks.
It is emphasised that the Reference Case has not been developed as a viable delivery solution
and it would not be able to be delivered because it fails to achieve certain statutory standards
and does not reflect essential requirements for the GCUH, such as FF&E levels appropriate for
the super-specialty services at the hospital.
24
Queensland Health
September 2008
Reference Case
While the Announced Capital Cost Budget is not explicit as to the facility standards that have
been assumed, the stated gross floor area of 144,000 m2 provides a reasonable guide. A
Reference Case has been established involving a schedule of areas which assumes application
of the revised Health Facility Guidelines and with reference to Townsville. The Reference Case
would require a gross floor area of 148,476 m2 which is comparable to, but slightly higher than,
the gross floor area assumed in the Announced Capital Cost Budget.
Comparison of the Reference Case to the Proposed Delivery Model capital cost estimate
The following table provides a comparison between the Reference Case and the Proposed
Delivery Model capital cost estimate. It clearly identifies the items that have increased the
Proposed Delivery Model capital cost above the escalated announced budget.
Table 1.12 Reconciliation of the Announced Capital Cost, Reference Case and Proposed
Delivery Model
Items
Announced Capital Budget (August
2006)
Escalation from August 2006 to
December 2007
Amount
$M
Adjustments
$M
1,230.4
84.0
Additional scope (December 2007)
170.0
Escalation from December 2007 to 1

July 2008
Updated Announced Capital Budget
64.6
1,549.0
Escalation to commissioning (nominal)
Total Escalated Announced Capital

Budget (nominal)
319.54
1,868.5
Comments
Capital budget announced in August
2006
Escalation adjustment to bring the
Announced capital budget to the
base date dollars (i.e. 10 months at
5.4%p.a. escalation rate)
Site acquisition, medical and dental
school, additional infrastructure were
added to the project scope
Escalation adjustment to bring
Announced Capital Budget and
additional scope items to base date
dollars (1 July 2008)
In July 2008, the Government revised
the capital cost budget to $1,549m in
July 2008 dollars.
Escalation of the updated announced
budget with the same escalation
rates and construction curve as the
Proposed Delivery Model.
The escalated announced budget is
comparable with the Proposed
delivery model
Reference Case
Reference Case (nominal)
1,868.54
The Reference Case is based on a

2
floor space of approx. 148,000m .
The Reference Case includes the
current AHFG and VHFG and a risk
contingency
25
Queensland Health
September 2008
Items
Amount
$M
Adjustments
$M
Risk adjustment (nominal)
10.0
Single rooms (nominal)
38.4
Statutory requirements - additional

space (nominal)
76.2
ESD - plant and equipment (nominal)
82.0
FF&E (nominal)
42.1
Adjusted Reference Case (nominal)
2,117.2
Comments
This is the difference between the
reference case risk contingency and
the Proposed Delivery Model risk
adjustment. The risk adjustment in
the Proposed Delivery Model has
been based on a detailed risk
assessment and is considered
appropriate for this project taking into
account the stage in the procurement
process
and
the
relative
certainty/uncertainty about significant
cost items.
This is the additional cost to
reference case budget in relation to
the proportion of single beds at
approximately
25%
and
the
Proposed Delivery Model which has
approximately 75%
reference case floor space for
statutory requirements and the
reference case budget with respect
to ESD plant & equipment and the
Proposed Delivery Model estimate
which is targeting a 5 star rating
reference case budget for FF&E and
the Proposed Delivery Model which
assumes a high level of speciality
care
This is the Reference Case with the
additional costs for the items that
differ between the Reference Case
and the Proposed Delivery Model

Proposed Delivery Model (nominal)
2,108.3
Source: Queensland Health, GCUH Architecture, DLA and KPMG Financial Model
Further information on the comparative analysis of the Reference Case and the Proposed
Delivery Model and the reasons for the variation in costs are detailed in Section 8.
1.7.1
Qualitative assessment of the Proposed Delivery Model

The Queensland Governments Project Assurance Framework requires that, in preparing a
Business Case for Government consideration, agencies should use Cost Benefit Analysis
(CBA), or Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) if appropriate, to demonstrate that the project
option recommended in the Business Case will optimise value for money in its use of resources.
CBA is used to assess the impact of a project on the economic welfare of the community. It
involves the comprehensive identification and estimation of project costs and benefits, including
external social and environmental impacts, to rank project options according to their net
economic benefit. However, CBA is not generally used in the evaluation of hospital projects
because of the difficulty of reliably valuing significant benefits of reduced morbidity and mortality
in the community.
26
Queensland Health
September 2008
CEA is used for projects where benefits can be identified but it is not possible to value them in
monetary terms. Instead, benefits are expressed in terms of outcome statistics such as number
of hospital beds. CEA is an appropriate methodology in principle for evaluation of the GCUH
project and could be applied in assessing options for delivering 750 beds which, while an input
measure, represent a convenient proxy for the predominant outcomes of the project. However,
CEA has not been applied for the following reasons:
In the development of the Project Definition Plan and related user consultation processes,
Queensland Health has developed a single option, described in this Business Case as the
Proposed Delivery Model, for progressing the project.
As noted in Section 1.7, this business case has developed a Reference Case to reflect
facility standards that may have been assumed in, or can reasonably be associated with,
the Announced Capital Cost budget to permit analysis of the main factors that account for
the difference in cost associated with the Proposed Delivery Model. The Reference Case
was not developed as a viable delivery solution and it would not be able to be delivered
because it fails to achieve certain statutory standards and does not reflect essential
requirements for the GCUH.
The factors that account for the differences between the Reference Case and the Proposed
Delivery Model have been separately costed and evaluated in Chapter 8; evaluation of the
Reference Case and Proposed Delivery Model in a CEA framework would not add any
further information or analysis.
Based on the factors discussed above, the proposed approach for evaluating the Proposed
Delivery Model is a qualitative assessment against the project objectives. This approach is
undertaken in Section 9 of this report.
1.8
Public interest
The Business Case presents the public interest assessments for the project in Section 10. It
addresses the following topics:
environmental, planning, cultural heritage and native title
employee, employment and skills issues
stakeholder considerations
communication strategy
accountability and transparency.
The following section provides a high level summary of the findings contained in Section 10.
1.8.1
Planning issues
In accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), a Ministerial
designation of land at Southport to facilitate the construction and operation of the proposed
GCUH has been implemented (approved by the Health Minister on 1 August 2008). The
proposed Ministerial Designation will facilitate the future development and growth of the site as
the Gold Coasts regional health precinct, primarily through the delivery of the GCUH. The effect
of the designation is that the development of the site for the designated community
infrastructure and service will be exempt from the local governments planning scheme.
However, the requirements of all State and Federal legislation must be met and consideration
should be given to the provisions of the local planning scheme.
27
Queensland Health
September 2008
1.8.2
Environmental issues
Existing site hydrology and flooding: Gold Coast City Councils flood mapping indicates that
the site is not vulnerable to flooding, however the site is listed as being susceptible to
stormwater issues. It is recommended that a stormwater management plan is prepared for the
development. Due care will be required during design of any new buildings to ensure the
development area has adequate freeboard from the flow path and surface flows are adequately
drained away from the building platform. Standard best practice controls are to be implemented
during construction to minimise potential impacts on stormwater quality.
Topography and geotechnical characteristics: The sites topography is not expected to
cause any significant issues with the proposed hospital design and ultimate construction.
However, it is recommended that consideration of dispersivity of site soils is established during
site geotechnical investigations to ensure appropriate erosion and sediment control measures
are implemented during construction and operation of the facility to protect nearby sensitive
stormwater receptors.
Existing vegetation and habitats: Gold Coast City Councils on-line mapping shows that no
specific vegetation protection orders exist for the site. However, Council does provide protected
vegetation status to all vegetation on freehold land with a girth of 40 centimetres or more at a
height of 1.3 metres. On-line mapping also indicates that the western side of Lot 188 is affected
by significant remnants within the Conservation Strategy overlay and the eastern side of Lot
458 appears to be affected by the bushland mosaics designation within Councils Conservation
Strategy. Both allotments are mapped as containing existing 1994 remnant vegetation (and
other natural systems).
After reviewing all options, including legislative and planning options, it was proposed that a
regulation or series of regulations under s.109 of the State Development and Public Works
Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act) be made, directing the Coordinator-General to undertake
works to facilitate the project (Works Regulation). Legal advice has been obtained which
concluded that the Integrated Planning Act does not apply to exercise of the CoordinatorGenerals powers under the SDPWO Act, therefore the use of Works Regulations will avoid
potential difficulties associated with vegetation issues.
Site contamination and waste management: The sites are not listed on the Environmental
Protection Agencys Environmental Management Register or Contaminated Land Register.
Air and acoustic quality: There are no residential properties located immediately adjacent to
the site. Some residences are located within 500 metres to the north, west and south of the
proposed site. Consideration of potential amenity impacts, including nuisance from increased
traffic, noise and lighting, on these nearby residences must be considered and managed during
the design, construction and operational phases of the facility. Additional consideration should
be given to the access and egress routes taken by emergency vehicles, including helicopter
flight paths. Potential noise and air quality impacts on the site users from road traffic and other
site activities should also be considered during design of the facility.
1.8.3

The sites are not listed on the Queensland Heritage Register or the National Heritage Register
databases, however a Memorial Tree is noted on the site survey within Lot 496.
Lot 496 on WD6012 and Lot 458 on WD6223 are held under freehold tenure and as such
Native Title is unlikely to apply, however this has not been investigated. The greater Gold Coast
28
Queensland Health
September 2008
region is subject to a claim by the Turrbal People (Federal Court file no. QUD6196/98; Tribunal
no. QC98/26) and as such Native Title may still exist on Lot 497 on WD6012 with leasehold
tenure and Lot 188 on WD6012 as a reserve.
Advice received from Queensland Health indicates that Native Title exists over Lot 188 on
WD6012 and that a Native Title assessment is to be conducted shortly. The area of land
affected by Native Title will either require an Indigenous Land Use Agreement or an Acquisition
of Native Title by the State.
1.8.4
Key workforce and employment issues

The key work force issues for the proposed GCUH Project that need to be addressed as part of
the development of the project include:
Recruitment, retention and retraining: Ability to make key future appointments to clinical
services at the GCUH facility. The proposed strategies to recruit, retrain clinicians, nurses
and support staff include:
The establishment of links with the existing and emerging university health programs
to maximise consequent recruitment.
Plan for student clinical education within overall staffing numbers so that local
recruitment is enhanced.
Establish links with local high schools and VET sector for recruitment of support
clinical staff and support non-clinical staff.
These strategies will also need to recognise and focus on the additional workforce
requirement due to the increased number of staff members entering the retirement age or
close to retirement age.
Potential inclusion of the facility management and maintenance into Managing

Contractor Contract: Queensland Health is currently investigating the potential benefits of
including the facility management and maintenance into the contract for the Managing
Contractor. The benefits may include a more whole of life design.
The affected staff under this proposal primarily include the Building, Engineering and
Maintenance (BEMS) Staff and Grounds / Gardens Staff.
Strategies for managing major organisational change and contracting out are clearly
articulated in the Qld Public Health Sector Certified Agreement [No 6] 2005 [sections 4.1
and 6.2] and the Queensland Health Building Engineering and Maintenance Services
Certified Agreement (No 3) 2006 [section 7.3]. Both agreements require early consultation
with unions and detailed discussion prior to going to tender or entering into any binding legal
agreement.
Work practice changes: The scope of services for the new hospital and the ability to
transition staff from acute to community contexts as population health initiatives and
changes in models of care take effect will necessitate significant changes to current
workforce practices. To effectively undertake the work practice changes, the Gold Coast
Workforce Planning Committee will require buy in and input from clinician and support
services planning groups. However, clinical groups have been affected by recent changes at
the systemic level in Queensland Health and may be reluctant to engage in further change.
29
Queensland Health
September 2008
Strategies to address these employment issues are being developed through a Strategic
Workforce Planning Committee including representatives of GCHSD. In addition strategies are
being developed at a corporate level to address consistent practices and processes affecting
the major Hospital developments. These strategies will include direct negotiation with Unions at
a whole of Queensland Health level to establish processes for local negotiation and
development of change management strategies.
1.8.5
Employment issues associated with construction of the facility

A project of this magnitude will offer considerable opportunities for employment, either as direct
employment during the construction phase of the project, or indirectly via the employment of
those providing goods and services as inputs to the project. It has been estimated by the
building consultant that during the construction phase of the Hospital, 2,200 to 3,000 full time
equivalents will be required over three years.
1.8.6
Stakeholder issue management

Several stakeholder groups will be impacted by the proposed GCUH project and the broader
precinct development. These groups and the respective project issues affecting them are
discussed in Section 10.3 under the following headings:
1.8.7
Health related stakeholder consideration: Consultation in relation to the health related

issues has been undertaken by a number of means including Stakeholder Advisory
Committee, Lean Thinking initiatives, Service Planning Groups and Executive Service
Planning Groups. The health related stakeholder considerations, issues and consultation is
addressed in Section 10.3.1.
Broader community stakeholder consideration: Consultation in relation to the precinct

has been facilitated through the Precinct Master Planning. The main stakeholders affected
and their issues are described in the Section 10.3.2.
Communication strategy
A Communication Strategy has been developed and was approved in October 2007 for the
GCUH Project. The strategy provides the overarching strategic direction for communication
relating to the development and construction stages of the GCUH. It will provide guidance
towards branding, public relations, community engagement, and stakeholder relations activities.
It is intended that the strategy provides communication support throughout the lifetime of the
project stages, including master planning, schematic design, design development, tender,
construction, practical completion and opening.
The Communication Strategy objectives and key messages are further detailed in Section 10.4.
30
Queensland Health
September 2008
Background
This section of the Business Case provides an overview of the proposed Project and the work
undertaken to date in planning for the Gold Coast University Hospital Project (GCUH or the
Hospital).
In particular this section provides information on the following issues:
2.1
background information on the Project including summaries of the key decisions made by
the Queensland Government in regard to the Project
project objectives
purpose and scope of the Business Case
structure of the Business Case.
Project background
The population of the Gold Coast makes it the sixth largest city in Australia and is currently
experiencing rapid growth. This population growth, together with the Gold Coasts ageing
population profile, means the future demand for quality health care services will continue to
increase.
As part of a detailed planning exercise by the Queensland Government to address the future
health needs of the Gold Coast, it was determined that a new tertiary hospital be developed to
complement other health services on the Gold Coast.
2.1.1
Project decisions
Prior to the development of this Business Case a series of decisions were made in relation to
the Project including the following:
Queensland Government announces plans to build a new tertiary hospital
On 18 August 2006 the Queensland Government announced an election commitment to the
2014 however growing pressure on existing staff and resources coupled with rapid growth had
fast-tracked the Project.
The announcement described the co-location of the university with the tertiary hospital as
creating an ideal environment for research and training of future doctors, nurses and allied
health professionals. The service priorities were identified as cancer and cardiac services,
neurosciences, trauma and neonatal intensive care.
The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (SEQIPP) 2007-2026 discloses
an investment of $1.23 billion (2006 dollars) for the GCUH.
In July 2008, the Government revised the capital cost budget for the Gold Coast University
Hospital Project to $1.549 billion (July 2008 dollars).
31
Queensland Health
September 2008
Proposed Site for the GCUH

In relation to identification of the preferred site of the Hospital, press articles quoted thenPremier Peter Beattie as saying As is the normal process, detailed studies by the Office of
Urban Management have found that while the original site [off Smith Street] was more than
adequate for the Project, there is the potential to avoid spending more than an additional
quarter of a billion dollars with this alternative site [Parklands Drive]". Mr Beattie was also
reported as saying the new location would allow for more flexibility in how the Hospital campus
grew, and deliver an improved flight path for emergency helicopters away from local residents7.
In response to whether the new preferred site would impact the 2012 delivery date, Health
Minister Stephen Robertson was reported in the press as saying "Queensland Health and the
Department of Infrastructure will begin consultation with Griffith University, Gold Coast City
Council, the Salvation Army, the Church of Christ and the Parklands Trust. The Premier and I
have assured Gold Coast MPs there will be no delay in the delivery of the Gold Coast University
Hospital. It will be delivered by late 2012 as per our 2006 election commitment8.
The Procurement Model
The Cabinet Budget Review Committee in April 2007 determined that the current Business
Case for the GCUH would not consider an option for delivery of the hospital as a Private
Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership. Queensland Health and the Department of Public
Works endorsed the selection of the Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum as
the proposed procurement method for the Gold Coast University Hospital in April 2007. This
decision was made after extensive consultation with Tier 1 (major) contractors given the current
unprecedented level of construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas. The
decision to procure based on a Managing Contractor methodology was primarily driven by the
need to gain certainty of access to satisfactory construction resources (further advantages and
disadvantages of this model is described in Section 5 and Appendix J). This method has been
the primary method of procurement by Queensland Health over the past decade.
2.1.2
Health Service Plan

The GCUH Health Service Plan (GCUH HSP) version 3.1 was finalised in January 2008 but
will continue to be updated as further information becomes available. However, the general
space and services proposed are not anticipated to change going forward.
The GCUH HSP was developed from the original Master Plan of Health Services prepared by
the Gold Coast Health Service District (GCHSD) clinicians and health services managers in
October 2005. This earlier plan critically evaluated the adequacy of the Districts services and
facilities and made recommendations regarding future facility requirements.
The GCUH will replace the existing Gold Coast Hospital at Southport and is intended to take on
the role of major tertiary referral hospital for the GCHSD and Northern New South Wales. The
GCUH HSP describes the model of service and clinical relationships for each of the Hospitals
departments, and provides a detailed description of all clinical and clinical support services
planned for the GCUH. The key tertiary and clinical support services include the following:
7
8
Source: Australian Associated Press, 22 August 2007

Source: Gold Coast Sun, 29 August 2007
32
Queensland Health
September 2008
Tertiary services
It is proposed that GCUH will adopt the role of the primary tertiary referral hospital for GCHSD
and northern New South Wales by providing a range of patient-centred acute inpatient services
(including mental health) and the associated specialist ambulatory care services for the
catchment population. This will be supported by commensurate clinical support and corporate
support services.
GCUH will offer a public health care environment that:
delivers health care services in the safest and most efficient manner by:
-
clustering services to create critical mass and foster clinical collaboration and
communication
enhancing access to services by streamlining the patient flows
optimising the available skilled workforce, and
providing opportunities for staff development through continuous access to education

and research
provides a therapeutic setting for the delivery of health services by:

-
adopting Evidence-Based Design (EBD) principles, and
utilising the crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles, and
fosters transitional research in key health areas.
The new tertiary services will include:
Cancer Services including a cancer care centre providing care for patients needing access
to haematology, oncology, radiation oncology, nuclear medicine and palliative care
Cardiac Services including pacemaker service, cardiac catheter service, ambulatory heart
failure program, cardiac rehabilitation services and cardiac surgery
Neurosciences Services including neurosurgical services and stroke unit
Neonatal services including a tertiary neonatal intensive care service and a level 3
neonatal surgery
Trauma Services including a dedicated trauma service.
To support the full implementation of the tertiary services, the facility will develop advanced
training roles in conjunction with the universities, advanced education sectors and professional
bodies. The tertiary nature of the facility will enable graduates to gain the broadest range of
skills and experience and enable them to complete the highest levels of training required in
many clinical areas.
33
Queensland Health
September 2008
The GCUH is able to maximise these training and development roles due to its physical
proximity to Griffith University and the Knowledge Precinct, and to Bond University which is
within close transit distance.
Another primary role of any tertiary medical institution is to support clinical research by virtue of
the employment of the most highly specialised staff in each clinical field. This again will be
supported by the proximity of Griffith University and Bond University.
Clinical support service
In order to provide the tertiary services a range of clinical support services are required
including:
2.1.3
medical imaging
ward based pharmacy service
pathology, including autologous bone marrow transplant service
emergency department and intensive care / high dependency unit
suitable amenities and retail space to support a 750 overnight bed teaching hospital.
Precinct site
The Hospital development is part of a 130 hectare site referred to as the Gold Coast Hospital
Coast, approximately 4km west of the Southport CBD and 36km north of Tweed Heads. Figure
1 below shows the general precinct area, which currently contains a variety of uses including
the Griffith University (Gold Coast campus), Parklands Showgrounds, community facilities, the
Church of Christ, the Salvation Army, football clubs, residential development, school, parks and
industrial uses.
34
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 2.1 Gold Coast Hospital and Knowledge Precinct

2.1.4
Proposed hospital site

The proposed site for the Hospital will occupy approximately 18.1 hectares of the Precinct land,
directly opposite the Griffith University site. The site is boarded by Parklands Drive and Olsen
Avenue and is currently being acquired by Queensland Health with assistance from the
Department of Infrastructure. An aerial photo of the site is shown below in figure 2.
35
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 2.2 GCUH proposed site

Preferred site location
In 2007, the State identified the northern site (being the northern end of the Precinct) as the
preferred site for the new hospital. The key features that support location of the GCUH on the
northern site are:
2.2
enhanced health service delivery through improved access and egress to the site, as
indicated by DMR, through better accommodation from all directions with the Northern site
providing better reliability
better potential for expansion of GCUH over time
more timely integration of road works with the opening of GCUH in 2012 and significant cost
savings in excess of $260m in the supporting road infrastructure whilst providing improved
access and better operability.
Project objectives
In February 2007 Queensland Health facilitated a Value Management Workshop for the GCUH
Project. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together the Project stakeholders, team
members and advisors to build a shared understanding about the Projects vision and to agree
a set of Project objectives. The Project objectives developed at the workshop are as follows:
36
Queensland Health
September 2008
Service delivery and care
create a patient-focussed health system that encourages innovative models of care

delivered in a major teaching hospital
deliver operational efficiency, optimising the use of people and resources, capable of
achieving health service planning targets and sustaining service levels into the future
promote evidence-based design to create an environment that enhances patient safety,

patient outcomes and clinical excellence
ensure ability to function in a post-disaster environment
enhance amenity for users of the site including consideration of car parking, retail, colocated private hospital.
People
support attraction and retention of well-trained, committed and motivated staff
Site access and egress
provide clear points of site access and egress ensuring the efficient movement of
public/staff, emergency and service vehicles in and around the site
maximise integration of developing public transport infrastructure to the new Hospital
Future proof and flexible
encourage flexible design and infrastructure capable of adapting to new technologies

(clinical, information and operational) and emerging trends in clinical practice, models of
care and changes in government policy, legislation and standards
Teaching and research
promote an active learning environment, providing appropriate facilities for teaching and
research within clinical areas, and between the GCUH and its key education and research
partners
Stakeholder relationships
encourage a collaborative constructive relationship between the new Hospital and

stakeholders including education and research partners, local community, and communities
of interest
minimise impact and disruption to the surrounding community during construction
ensure new Hospital is part of a network of services including district-wide service
Business continuity
achieve a successful relocation to the new Hospital with no interruption to the ongoing
delivery of services
procure a new major teaching hospital which delivers value for money to the State, within
budget and other parameters as agreed by the State
achieve State sustainability policies/objectives, including greenhouse gas and peak energy
reduction, water conservation and waste minimisation
37
Queensland Health
September 2008
2.3
maximise benefits of collocation opportunities with university, private hospital and other
services.

This Business Case has been developed taking into consideration Queensland Health and
Queensland Government guidelines for the preparation of Business Cases (e.g. Value for
Money Framework and the Draft Business Case Development Guidance Material Achieving
Value for Money in Public Infrastructure and Service Delivery).
This Business Case has been written to assist the decision making process by providing further
information in relation to key aspects of the proposed Gold Coast University Hospital (GCUH)
Project. The aim of this Business Case is to provide an understanding of the reasonability of the
option chosen to deliver the GCUH and the cost of the Project compared with budgeted funding.
To meet this aim this Business Case:
summarises the Proposed Delivery Model for the Gold Coast University Project as defined
in the Project Definition Plan (PDP). The Proposed Delivery Model has been developed to
achieve the clinical and support service requirements identified in the GCUH Health Service
Plan.
summarises the procurement method and procurement process going forward
describes the Project site and outline the site issues that still need to be resolved
describes the key elements of the Health Service Plan prepared for the GCUH and the
interface between GCUH and provision of regional health services
calculates the risk adjusted capital and operating costs estimates for the Proposed Delivery
Model
reconciles the capital cost estimate for the Proposed Delivery Model with the announced
capital budget for the Project and Reference Case
highlights the public interest assessment that has been completed for the Project including
stakeholder analysis, employment issues and environmental and cultural heritage issues.
As only one option is being considered by Queensland Health it has not been possible to
measure the value for money of this option using a Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), instead
the option has been assessed based on benchmarking, a qualitative assessment against
Project objectives, and a reconciliation to the announced budget for the hospital.
2.3.1
Refinement of the Business Case

This Business Case, together with the business cases for the proposed Sunshine Coast
Hospital and Queensland Childrens Hospital, will be submitted for consideration by the State in
September 2008. The intention of this joint submission approach is to ensure that the technical,
financial and commercial considerations for the Projects are considered collectively for the three
Projects. However, it is noted that the submission timeframe is in advance of detailed design
work being undertaken for the GCUH and final costing and contract award. As a result, the
definition of facilities, scope of services, Project costs and Project risks presented at this stage
of the Business Case are preliminary only.
38
Queensland Health
September 2008
2.4
Scope of the Business Case

The primary focus of the Business Case is on the Proposed Delivery Model for the Gold Coast
University Project as defined in the Project Definition Plan (PDP). In particular, the Business
Case provides the following information:
key features of the Health Service Plan for the GCUH and the Interim Demand Management
Strategy (Section 3)
proposed GCUH Project description including the site, services and facilities (Section 4)
managing Contractor procurement method including definition of the key stages, indicative
timetable and key commercial principles (Section 5)
total Project outturn cost including escalation and risk adjustments (Section 6)
affordability assessment including both capital and recurrent budget analysis (Section 7)
comparison of the capital cost estimate for the Proposed Delivery Model with the announced
capital cost for the Project (Section 8)
evaluation of the Proposed Delivery Option against the Project objectives (Section 9)
public interest assessment (Section 10).
The Business Case builds on the previous work already completed in relation to the Project.
The Business Case has been prepared in conjunction with Queensland Health, Department of
Public Works (Project Services), Treasury, Department of Infrastructure and Planning,
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Davis Langdon Australia, Capital Insight, GCUH
Architecture, Connell Wagner, SKM, S2F and KPMG.
2.4.1
Although the focus of this Business Case is predominantly on the Proposed Delivery Model,
there are a number of other interrelated Projects that will impact either the development of the
GCUH and/or efficient operation of the facility. An overview of these inter-related Projects is
provided in the following table:
Table 2.1 Overview of inter-related Projects
Project
Responsibility
Cost Estimate
39
Queensland Health
September 2008
Project
Responsibility
Cost Estimate
Interim
Demand
Management
Strategy
(IDMS)
The IDMS proposes a range of

integrated strategies that maximises
capacity within the GCHSD in order to
partially meet the growing local
demand prior to the opening of the
GCUH.
Queensland
Health
Capital costs of $66.6m

over the 4 year period
2007/08 2010/11 was
considered as part of the
2008/09 budget process,
with $8.2m allocated in
2007/08 for Coomera
land purchase and $1.4m
in 2008/09 for expansion
of the Emergency
Department at Southport.
Surrounding
road network
upgrades
Smith Street and Olsen Avenue are

the two major thoroughfares linking to
the GCUH. Upgrades to these roads
and to other roads that surround the
GCUH site are proposed.
Department of
Main Roads
The estimated cost of the

Surrounding Road
Network Upgrades is in
the range of $215 million
to $360 million (based on
advice from Department
of Main Roads).
Rapid
Transit
Project
It proposed that the Gold Cost Rapid

Transit (GCRT) system will provide a
station servicing Griffith University
and the GCUH. Construction of this
station is included in the first stage of
the GCRT Project which is scheduled
to be completed by 2012, however
the system will not become
operational immediately. Queensland
Transport will provide bus
arrangements to service the hospital
until the GCRT is operational.
Queensland
Transport
The estimated capital

cost of the Gold Coast
Rapid Transit system is
$1.67 billion (as per
SEQIPP 2008-2026).
This estimate relates to
the development of a
rapid transit system
extending from
Helensvale to
Coolangatta. However,
the project is likely to be
delivered in several
stages.
Car Parking
facilities
It is proposed that a total of 3,000 car

parking bays be constructed to cater
for the needs of staff and visitors to
the new Hospital. It is proposed that
the 3,000 spaces will be provided in
two separate car parks facilities.
Queensland
Health
Private sector
procurement. EOI phase
completed. RFP phase to
commence soon.
Provision of
Utilities to
the site
Negotiations are currently underway

with Energex for provision of a new
zone substation, and with Gold Coast
City Council (and Gold Coast Water)
for water and waste services. These
will be provided to the district and will
not be costed to the GCUH Project.
Queensland
Health, Energex,
Gold Coast Water
/ Gold Coast City
Council
To be determined
Source: Queensland Treasury, Department of Infrastructure and Planning and Queensland Health
While this Business Case does provide high-level information on each of these Projects, it does
not inform the decision making process for these Projects. However, a CEOs Committee was
established in January 2007 to coordinate the supportive infrastructure required for an
40
Queensland Health
September 2008
effectively functioning new hospital. The CEOs Committee consists of the Director-Generals of
the Departments of Health, Infrastructure & Planning, Main Roads, Public Works and Transport
as well as the Under Treasurer of the Department of Treasury to ensure that the inter-linkages
between the hospital construction, land acquisition and approvals, Precinct planning, road
upgrades and transport requirements achieve a whole-of-government solution. Through monthly
meetings of the CEOs Committee, the inter-related Projects are defined with indicative
estimates and coordination issues discussed in order for the respective agencies to develop
their proposals for submission to CBRC.
41
Queensland Health
September 2008
Service needs definition
3.1
Introduction
The GCUH Health Service Plan January 2007 (GCUH HSP) provides a detailed description of
all clinical and clinical support services planned for the GCUH. The purpose of this section is to
reference the key elements of the GCUH HSP including the demand for new and expanded
tertiary health services in the Gold Coast Health Service District (GCHSD or the District), and to
describe the services proposed for the GCUH. A brief description of the existing health services
available in the GCHSD and future uses for these facilities post commissioning of the GCUH is
also presented.
3.2
Existing health services
3.2.1
Public hospital facilities

The GCHSD currently provides public hospital services from five sites:
Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus (Southport) a major regional referral hospital
which provides a range of specialist and sub-specialist services
Robina Hospital (Robina) provides general medical, surgical, rehabilitation, sub-acute and
mental health services
Gold Coast Surgery Centre the first stand alone Elective Surgery Facility in Queensland
Health. Gold Coast Health Service District has taken over the lease of the Allamanda
Surgicentre opposite the Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus to provide day only activity
as an interim measure until 2014. After 2014, it is planned to move services to GCUH
Gold Coast Health Service Districts twenty bed palliative care unit, located on Level 2 of the
Pacific Private Building, opposite the Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus. This service
will relocate to the expanded Robina Hospital in 2010/11
new Carrara Health Centre which provides subacute care to the Gold Coast community.
When fully commissioned this 63 bed facility will provide quality patient rehabilitation and
aged services (recurrent funding is only available in 2008/09). These beds are required
beyond the opening of GCUH to meet District Projected bed demand.
Available bed numbers across these five public hospitals is presented in the following table.
There are no beds associated with the Gold Coast Surgery Centre. Bed occupancy across the
District has seasonal peaks and troughs and in the general wards ranged from 96% on average
in July to 86% on average in September 2007/08.
Table 3.1 Available overnight beds in public hospitals within GCHSD, as at June 2008
Hospital
Southport (including palliative care)
Robina
Carrara
Total
Overnight beds
Mental Health
Total beds
428
114
15
557
44
96*
0
140
472
210
15
697
Source: GCHSD Key Activity Report FY 2008

*Note: Bed alternates for same day surgery, oncology day unit, renal dialysis, cardiac catheter laboratory, transit
lounge etc have not been included.
43 non acute mental health beds have been included in the bed numbers but should be considered separately.
42
Queensland Health
September 2008
The following hospital services are currently provided at the five hospital sites.
Table 3.2 Existing services at Southport, Robina and Carrara
Hospital services
Southport
Medical and Surgical Services
(Including
Emergency Medicine
Surgicentre
and Pacific
Intensive Care
Private)
General Medicine
Carrara
Robina
Cardiology
Nephology (including renal dialysis)
Rehabilitation
Geriatrics
Oncology
Haematology
Neurology
Endocrinology
Gastroenterology
Respiratory
Infectious Diseases
General Surgery
Subacute Aged Care
Urology
ENT
Ophthalmology
Orthopaedics
Neurosurgery
Vascular Surgery
Plastics Surgery
Paediatric Surgery
Obstetrics
Gynaecology
Palliative Care
Psychiatry
Anaesthetics
Medical Education
Paediatrics
Subacute Rehabilitation
Chemotherapy/Oncology Day Unit
Intensive Care / Coronary Care
Medical/Surgical
Mental Health Services
Outpatients Department
Perioperative Services
Rehabilitation Services
Renal Dialysis
Gynaecology
Child Health
Palliative Care
Source: Queensland Health website
The Southport campus was opened in the 1960s. Since this time the site has been heavily
developed. However, many of its clinical and clinical support services have now reached
capacity, and significant accommodation shortages are impacting its ability to meet current and
growing service demands. This has necessitated the expansion of services within the Southport
Precinct to encompass leases in Private facilities and the use of Carrara for patients who
require less supportive infrastructure in provision of their care.
The Robina campus recently underwent a $40 million major refurbishment incorporating an
Emergency Department, Intensive Care Unit and a new Renal Unit. Upgrades to support
services including pharmacy, medical imaging, medical records, pathology and allied health
were also part of the Project. A further upgrade of Robina Hospital to be completed in 2010 will
see the facility expanded as a major secondary Hospital which will include a total of 364
overnight beds.
43
Queensland Health
September 2008
In 2007/08 GCHSD hospitals (Robina and Southport) provided care for 69,846 admissions. Of
all of the admissions to the Districts public hospitals, 88% of these hospital admissions were for
GCHSD residents. The remaining 12% of admissions were for other Queenslanders (7.2%) and
non Queensland residents (4.9%). From previous studies, GCHSD residents primarily access
services outside the District for tertiary level services that are currently not available in the public
sector on the Gold Coast including cardiac surgery, radiation oncology, trauma services and
neonatal intensive care.
Table 3.3 All admissions by campus from 1/7/2007 - 30/6/2008
Admissions by campus
GCH residents
Other QLD Districts - residents
Non QLD residents
Total admissions
Robina
16,032
Southport
45,422
Total
61,454
% of total
admissions
88.0%
1,217
3,786
5,003
7.2%
548
2,841
3,389
4.9%
17,797
52,049
69,846
100.0%

Data is split by the admissions residential area.
On 1 September 2008, the Area/District structure within Queensland Health was significantly
reformed. A fundamental element of the reform process was the redistribution of Area Health
Service functions to Districts and Queensland Health Corporate Office. Areas including the
Southern Area Health Service have been replaced by a flatter District structure. The numbers
of Districts have been reduced from 20 to 15. The new structure will allow District CEOs to
report directly to the Director-General, improving communication channels and responsiveness
and allowing greater District autonomy in boosting performance standards and accountability.
3.2.2
Community health services

The District is currently developing a Community Health Services Plan to determine the extent
of community services that the GCUH will require to function at the planned acuity level and the
additional capital and recurrent funding required to support such a plan. The Plan will describe
District services that are primarily provided throughout the GCHSD from three main locations at
Palm Beach, Bundall and Helensvale.
Historically there has not been significant investment in community health services. As a
consequence, these services have a relatively small critical mass and limited potential to make
a significant impact on hospital avoidance (post acute care and secondary intervention) without
a future commitment to additional services.
As part of the 2006 election commitments, capital funding has been allocated for a Health
Precinct to be located at Robina which is due for completion in late 2010 (the first phase of the
Robina Health Precinct does not fully meet the Health Service Plan for Robina Precinct
requirements. No funds have been identified for Stage 2 development). Additional Health
Precincts may be developed in other locations such as Southport and Coomera, and existing
community health centres at Palm Beach and Nerang may be expanded or refurbished. $8.2
million was allocated in the 2007/08 budget for acquisition of land at Coomera for a future
Health Precinct.
44
Queensland Health
September 2008
3.2.3
Other health related services

Other health related services available in the Gold Coast region include five private hospitals,
the Queensland Ambulance Service, non-government home and community care providers
(such as Blue Care) and residential aged care facilities.
3.3
Demand for health services
3.3.1
Demographic profile
The demand for health services is driven by broader population trends, particularly growth and
changes in age profile. The main source of population growth on the Gold Coast is attributed to
migration from other parts of Australia which in turn influences the age structure and economic
base of the GCHSD. Population growth continues to place pressure on the GCHSD to provide
quality health services to a growing demand base.
Gold Coast population and age profile
Over the next two decades to 2026 the Gold Coast region is projected to experience population
growth at an average annual rate of 2.4%9 one of the fastest growing population areas in
Queensland. Its estimated resident population as at 2006 was 507,439 and is projected to reach
634,03510 by 2016, representing an increase of 25%.
This level of population growth is estimated to significantly impact Gold Coast public hospital
admissions. Between the period 2004/05 and 2016, day only activity is expected to increase by
135%, and overnight activity is expected to increase by 74% over the same period11.
In addition to a rapidly growing population, the age profile of the GCHDS places a high demand
on health services. In 2006, the Districts proportion of people aged 65 and over was 13.7%,
compared to 12% for the State, and is projected to increase to 19.6% over the next two
decades. The median age of the Gold Coast by 2026 is projected to be 41 years, consistent
with the Queensland average12.
The correlation between social disadvantage and poorer health status requiring higher
proportions of health services is well documented. In relation to the Gold Coast, it has a level of
social disadvantage and disability relatively equal to Queensland as a whole. There are pockets
of wealth across the Gold Coast interspersed with areas of significant social disadvantage.
Compared to the rest of Queensland, there are significantly less people in the most
socioeconomic disadvantaged quintile (7.3% of GCSHD compared to 20% for Queensland) and
in the most advantaged quintile (15.3% compared to 20% of Queensland)13.
Transient population
The Gold Coast City Council advises that at any one time there are more than 50,000 people
holidaying in the Gold Coast. This number swells to over 100,000 in the Christmas period. Many
9
Source: Planning Information and Forecasting Unit, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation,
August 2007.
10
Source: Planning Information and Forecasting Unit, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and
Recreation, August 2007
11
12
Source: Planning Information and Forecasting Unit, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and
Recreation, August 2007
13
45
Queensland Health
September 2008
of these people seek emergency and other health services from the GCHSD whilst holidaying.
This transient population increase is not included in population projections.
Tertiary flows
Demand for health services at public hospitals is also likely to increase due to population growth
in areas surrounding the GCHSD. A proportion of patients from growth areas such as the
Tweed Shire and areas beyond Coomera requiring tertiary services are likely to be referred to
public hospitals in the GCHSD.
Flows from Queensland to New South Wales
The flow of residents from the GCHSD catchment area to the far north coast hospitals in NSW
for acute inpatient health services has increased from 5,167 in 2003/04 to 6,716 in 2005/06,
which represents a 30% increase in activity over the three years. Some of the key areas of
patient flows from Queensland are for non-specialty medicine and surgical treatments including
cardiology and orthopaedics. Other services provided include gynaecology, respiratory
medicine, gastroenterology, with the biggest inpatient inflow being for obstetrics.
Flows from New South Wales to Queensland
In 2004-05 there were 4,765 separations in Queensland public hospitals for residents of the
northern NSW area. Of these inflows 1,277 were to Gold Coast hospitals and most of the
remainder 3,488, were to Brisbane metropolitan hospitals (Prince Charles, Royal Brisbane and
Womens, Princess Alexandra, Royal Brisbane, Royal Childrens, Mater Health Services).
While many of the inflows to Brisbane metropolitan hospitals are for tertiary services, for
example Neurosurgery and Cardiothoracic Surgery, there are substantial flows to these
hospitals for district level services such as General Surgery and Medicine, Oncology,
Haematology and Respiratory Medicine.
3.3.2
Other demand factors

Along with population growth factors, the following factors are likely to impact on the demand for
health services:
3.3.3
improvements in medicine: Breakthroughs in treatments and the introduction of new medical

and surgical procedures into the profession will lead to an increase in demand for such
services.
technology changes: Ongoing technology changes, for example medical imaging equipment
improvements, provide a wider and better service offering than previously available to the
public.
other: Changing disease profiles and incidence rates are likely to impact the demand for
health services.
increase in aged population in the 75 years plus category
impact of increased range and complexity of tertiary services
lack of private sector growth in service capacity in line with population growth and current
service share.
Health service needs

The main health problems facing the GCHSD population relate to chronic disease. Leading
causes of death and illness are coronary heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary
46
Queensland Health
September 2008
disease, depression and lung cancer. Among the older population, this list is extended to
include Alzheimer and other dementias, diabetes and colorectal cancer.
The major impacts of growth in demand for overnight beds relates to sub-acute care
(rehabilitation, geriatrics and palliative care), orthopaedics, cardiology and acute psychiatry. For
day only care, the major impacts relate to renal dialysis, diagnostic cardiology, endoscopy,
chemotherapy and other day surgery.
In addition to the GCHSD addressing demand for these types of health problems, the Tertiary
Services Plan October 2004 for GCHSD identifies the need to develop a range of much needed
tertiary services and non-clinical services to support the development of super-specialist
services.
3.4
Health services plan

The future model of service developed by the GCHSD addresses the growth predicted for the
Gold Coast and surrounding areas. The model proposes:
the strengthening of community based health services through the development of a range
of Health Precincts and Community Centres across the Gold Coast. Funding sources are in
large part yet to be identified. The 2008/09 budget allocated $900,000 for Community
Based Rehabilitation and the Robina Health Precinct Stage 1 has received capital funding to
relocate existing services
a growth in general hospital based services via expanding the number of available public
hospital beds
establishing a range of super speciality services at the GCUH to provide improved access to
these types of services to the GCHSD residents. The proposed super speciality services are
Emergency services, Maternity services, Haematological malignancy and Medical
Oncology.
The GCUH HSP finalised in January 2008, provides a comprehensive documentation of the
current and proposed services, models of care and clinical relationships for the new GCUH.
This plan will continue to be updated as further information becomes available such as statewide planning documents currently under development which may impact on the GCUH service
delivery. Accordingly the GCUH HSP will be continually reviewed to ensure its on-going
consistency with state-wide directions. However, it is anticipated that the general space and
services proposed in the HSP will not change going forward.
This section presents an overview of the new tertiary and expanded services of significance that
are proposed for the new GCUH. A brief description of the associated clinical support services
is also presented. A detailed analysis of all services can be found in the GCUH Health Service
Plan January 2008.
3.4.1
Proposed role of Gold Coast University Hospital

The GCUH is intended to take on the role of tertiary referral hospital for the GCHSD and
Northern New South Wales. Broadly, the GCUH will provide a range of acute inpatient services
(including mental health) and specialist ambulatory care services, 24 hour emergency and
trauma service and the clinical support services required to support these. Details of the new
and expanded services are discussed further in section 3.4.3.
47
Queensland Health
September 2008
To undertake this role, both the capacity and the level of specialist services will be required to
increase, with a number of tertiary referral services required to be established. Additional clinical
and support staff will be required to create viable and sustainable services.
The District has planned services on the basis of an integrated network of hospital and
community locations. The GCUH service has been predicated on the availability of the
Community Health Precincts to support a significant volume of ambulatory activity offsite. This
was on the basis that these services can be delivered in the community with a relatively lower
infrastructure cost. Without the development of the Precincts, the long term implications for the
GCUH are that these services will be required to be located on site (as while ambulatory, they
are essential to care delivery), resulting in a future loss of capacity.
The following table summarises the proposed movements of services between facilities in the
District.
Table 3.4 GCUH Proposed bed profile
Year
2010/11
Description
Palliative Care services move from Pacific Private Hospital to Robina Hospital,
increasing bed numbers to 364.
2011/12
No changes.
2012/13
Most services at Gold Coast Hospital (Southport) transfer to Gold Coast University
Hospital, increasing bed numbers to 624.
Carrara Facility remains, but currently does not have recurrent funding from 2009/10.
2013/14
Gold Coast University Hospital bed numbers increase to 683,
2014/15
Gold Coast Surgery Centre services move to Gold Coast University Hospital, increasing
bed numbers to 716.
2015/16
Gold Coast University Hospital bed numbers increase to 750.
Notes:
(1) Renal dialysis, ATODS and District Executive Services do not transfer to GCUH in 2012/13. The
locations of these services are yet to be determined, but could potentially include the Southport Health
Precinct and existing offices east of Little High Street, Southport.
(2) The lease arrangement for the Gold Coast Surgery Centre expires in 2014, but has the option of 2 x 2
year extensions.
3.4.2

The Proposed Delivery Model has been developed to meet the requirements of the GCUH HSP.
This section outlines the bed profile and services to be provided by the Proposed Delivery
Model.
Proposed bed profile
The GCUH will absorb the present role of Southport as the major referral hospital and provider
for acute care services for the GCHSD. The announcement by the Queensland Government for
the GCUH to provide 750 overnight beds represents a significant increase from existing bed
numbers at Southport. The proposed bed profile is presented in the following table.
Table 3.5 GCUH Proposed bed profile
48
Queensland Health
September 2008
Unit
No. of overnight
beds
Generic inpatient unit:

Medical inpatient beds
180
Surgical inpatient beds
220
Division of medicine:
Inpatient cancer unit #
56
20
Emergency medicine short stay
observation unit
Day oncology/haematology
Cardiac Catheter Labs
Ambulatory services
Others
Division of surgery and critical care:
Intensive care / High Dependency Unit
50
Interventional suite, same day
Division of family, women and children:
Obstetric services
48
Neonatal intensive care
44
Paediatric services
32
OPD and ambulatory services
Division of mental health and ATODS*
Adult inpatient unit
72
Day therapy unit
Division of community, allied health,
rehabilitation and aged services:
Acute rehabilitation
28
Total No. of beds
750
Notes:
# incl. palliative care 6 beds
* Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Service (ATODS).
See Appendix H for updated beds / treatment places schedule
3.4.3
No. of same day

beds
No. of
alternative beds
14
-
29
18
20
30
40
10
10
74
97
Clinical service requirements

The proposed development of tertiary services at the GCUH is based on the projected
population growth for the GCHSD and related super-speciality services required for such a
population. There would be a phased introduction of services with service demands and
workforce availability dictating the timing of introduction of services. The new tertiary and
expanded services include:
Cancer Services
Cardiac Services
Neurosciences Services
Neonatal Services
49
Queensland Health
September 2008
Trauma Services.
In order for these services to be developed to the proposed level, a range of clinical support
services improvements will also be required.
An overview of each of the services listed above is described further in the following sections. A
more detailed analysis of all clinical and non-clinical support services is contained in the GCUH
HSP.
3.4.3.1
Cancer services
Current services
The GCHDS Cancer Service runs a large and growing ambulatory treatment program as well as
managing acute inpatients. The Southport campus currently provides cancer screening, early
detection, diagnosis, treatment, palliative and management services. It is a high growth service
with increasing demand from initial access through to follow up post treatment.
Cancer services at Southport are severely constrained by lack of space with limited capacity to
expand inpatient beds (currently 18). There are also problems in relation to access to outpatient
clinics, office space and facilities for multidisciplinary case conferences and related meetings.
Other service issues include: lack of multidisciplinary care, difficultly in accessing medical
imaging services, delays in receiving test results, lack of adolescent cancer services, and
transport problems arising from some medical oncology and radiotherapy services being
provided at different hospitals.
Proposed new services
To support the new model of cancer care proposed for the GCHSD, a comprehensive Cancer
Centre will be established at the GCUH. The provision of Radiation Oncology which is not
currently provided publicly in the Gold Coast Health Service District will enable the District to
provide an integrated comprehensive Cancer Centre approach to the treatment of cancer for
patients of the District and far north New South Wales. The new PET scanner will also enable
more highly specialised diagnostic and treatment services. The service will expand to create
capacity and develop a service which is conducive to recruitment and retention which has not
been possible at the current location. The Cancer Centre will provide a more specialist multidisciplinary service to manage common cancers as well as rare cancers and specialised
interventions. Services to be located in the Cancer Centre will include: super-specialist services,
an integrated haematology/oncology inpatient unit, radiotherapy suite, palliative care services,
satellite pharmacy and conferencing and teaching facilities. A total of 56 overnight beds and 29
bed alternatives will be provided.
A range of other cancer related services accessed outside the Cancer Centre will also be
provided.
3.4.3.2
Cardiac services
Current services
Cardiac care operates as a level 3 sub-speciality service at Southport. In addition to providing a
District service, referrals are received from cardiac patients residing in Northern NSW. The
service has the highest projected growth rate within the division of medicine and is a high bedGold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008
50
Queensland Health
September 2008
day consuming specialty. There is currently a lack of acute cardiac inpatient beds and lack of
ambulatory programs including cardiac rehabilitation and heart failure management. Currently
the Southport and Robina campuses have no cardiac surgery capacity, with all public patients
referred to Brisbane for treatment.
The future cardiac service will offer super-speciality services in acute cardiac management and
cardiac intervention at a zonal level and will accept referrals from northern NSW. The GCUH
campus will offer:
expanded inpatient cardiology services including increased interventional facilities and

cardiac beds
Chest Pain Assessment unit (CPA) as part of the Medical Assessment Unit co-located
with the emergency department and managed by the cardiology department, the CPA will
rapidly assess and treat potential cardiac patients presenting to the ED
expanded pacemaker services will be expanded to meet population demand
enhanced ambulatory services including a heart failure management program, cardiac

rehabilitation services and outpatient clinics.
It is proposed that the GCUH cardiothoracic surgery department will provide a comprehensive
adult service to the GCHSD and will be accredited for advanced training with the Royal
Australasian College of Surgeons.
The new cardiothoracic surgery service will establish:
3.4.3.3
dedicated beds for the treatment of cardiothoracic and thoracic surgical patients, staffed by
a dedicated multi-disciplinary team
protocols for the management of cardiothoracic patients.
Neonatal intensive care

Current services
The Special Care Nursery (SCN) at Southport provides specialist medical and nursing care for
premature and sick neonates, however, neonatal intensive care services are not available. The
SCN is a 20-bed unit, equipped to provide intensive respiratory, circulatory support and stabilise
neonates prior to retrieval to a tertiary centre (usually Brisbane). There are demands on the
capacity of the two tertiary neonatal services in South East Queensland and the nursery at the
Mater Mothers Hospital is frequently closed for transfers or retrievals.
Proposed services
The GCHSD has an annual birth rate (public and private) of 5,500 births per year and current
estimates of births in Northern NSW are 5,000 per year. To service the demand of the local
population as well as acting as a tertiary referral centre for Northern NSW, it is proposed to
establish a level 3 neonatal intensive care nursery at the new GCUH, including 10 neonatal
intensive care unit beds and 34 special care nursery inpatient beds.
The Neonatal Intensive Care Service has been planned as an integral part of the Statewide
Plan for neonatal services, in line with accepted benchmarks. As a part of the Statewide
51
Queensland Health
September 2008
network, the Gold Coast Service will serve the local catchment including northern New South
Wales and work in close cooperation with the Brisbane tertiary centres. The Gold Coast as
such may provide overflow capacity when Brisbane and or Townsville have peak periods.
3.4.3.4
Neurosciences
The new neuroscience service will provide a full range of services for the management of
neurosurgical and neurological conditions.
The GCUH will provide a combined neurology/acute stroke/ rehabilitation inpatient unit for the
management of patients with strokes and complicated or acute neurological disorders. The
combined unit will provide flexibility in accommodating changes in demand for stroke and
neurology patient beds. Acute stroke and neurology rehabilitation services will also be provided.
3.4.3.5
Trauma services
The new Trauma Service for the District and Northern New South Wales will form an integral
part of the Statewide Plan for Trauma services, in line with accepted benchmarks. As a part of
the Statewide network, the Gold Coast Service will serve the local catchment including northern
New South Wales and work in close cooperation with the Brisbane tertiary centres.
The helipad is an important element of supportive infrastructure to enable high level trauma
care. There will also be 10 dedicated high dependency beds collocated with neurosurgery to
ensure adequate care.
3.4.4

In order for the GCUH to provide the new tertiary and expanded services, a range of clinical
support service improvements will also be required. A selection of key support services are
described in the following sections.
3.4.4.1
Medical Imaging services

Current services
The Medical Imaging Department (MID) at Southport offers a full range of diagnostic and
interventional services. The department has a good range of modern equipment, but has
significant problems with floor space, excessive demand and staffing, and critical services such
as CT and MRI services suffer from significant waiting times. In addition, the MID does not have
a RIS or PACS system which has adverse effects on workflow, accuracy, patient safety and
cost-effectiveness.
To enable timely access to emergency, diagnostic and interventional radiography services, it is
proposed that the GCUH medical imaging services be expanded particularly through: additional
general radiology rooms and interventional fluoroscopy units; an increase in MRI units and CT
scanners; additional nuclear medicine units; a PET/CT; and a RIS/PACS system to support a
diagnostic imaging service throughout the District.
52
Queensland Health
September 2008
3.4.4.2
Teaching and Research

The GCUH will be the principal teaching hospital of the Griffith University and Bond University
medical schools. The collocation of the Hospital and Griffith University provides a unique
opportunity to build a contemporary teaching hospital where the public is able to benefit from
synergies between providing clinical services, teaching and research. To ensure the continued
close integration of teaching activities between the Hospital and the Griffith University, the
Universitys existing Medical and Dental School will be relocated from its present location at
Southport to University land opposite the GCUH.
The model ensures that teaching of health care professionals, both undergraduate and
postgraduate levels, is enmeshed within the Hospital service setting. Educational facilities will
be embedded in clinical service areas, together with proximate learning facilities that support
staff and students such as library, auditoriums, seminar rooms and collocated learning and
research hubs.
In addition, research facilities including clinical trials space and translational research involving
patient and staff participation linked to clinical service areas is planned. Bench research is to be
collocated in university buildings.
3.4.4.3
Other clinical support services

Other clinical support services to be expanded include the following:
The emergency services at the new GCUH will operate as a major tertiary Emergency
Department (ED) and provide State wide multi-trauma services. It is expected to form a
central transfer/referral point for tertiary referrals south of Brisbane and from Northern New
South Wales.
The ED services will be enhanced through additional resuscitation and treatment bays,
special care and short stay beds, and fast-track spaces. A new helipad for trauma and other
retrievals and transfer will also be provided.
3.5
Expanded pharmacy services will be established to cater for the introduction of superspeciality services. Emergency department based pharmacy reviews will be introduced,
together with increased involvement in cancer services and research activities and
automation at ward level to improve medication safety.
The intensive care unit and high dependency unit will have an expanded bed capacity to
cope with increases in demand for critical services.
A broad range of corporate support services (including administration services, library

services and conference facilities and so on), staff and public amenities and retail services
to support the new 750-bed hospital will also be provided.
Planned GCUH utilisation rates

The GCUH is not expected to be fully operational from December 2012. This is due to a range
of resource constraints such as the availability of appropriately skilled and experienced clinical
and support staff, as well as the time that is needed to develop super speciality services not
previously provided by the GCHSD. To address the resourcing and timing issues, a transition
strategy is to be implemented whereby a phased or ramp up process will be applied to
gradually bring the facility up to 100% operational capability. In the years prior to the GCUH
53
Queensland Health
September 2008
becoming operational, an Interim Demand Strategy will also be adopted (as outlined in section
3.6 below).
Queensland Health is in the process of developing detailed transition plans for the GCUH,
however this information is unlikely to be completed prior to submission of this Business Case.
An indicative ramp-up profile based on a draft transition strategy is shown in the following table.
Table 3.6 GCUH utilisation profile
% beds
operational
No. of overnight
beds operational
Services not at full
bed capacity
2012/13
Year 1
83%
2013/14
Year 2
91%
2014/15
Year 3
95%
2015/16
Year 4
100%
624
683
716
750
Cancer (low
acuity)
Cancer (high
acuity)
Obstetrics
Neonatal IC
ICU / HDU
Gastroenterolo
gy and
Gastrointestinal
Surgery
Orthopaedic/
Cancer (low
acuity)
Cancer (high
acuity)
Neonatal IC
ICU / HDU
Gastroenterolo
gy and
Gastrointestinal
Surgery
Orthopaedic/
General
General
Surgery
Surgery
Surgery
Vascular
acuity)
Neonatal IC
ICU / HDU
Gastroenterolo
gy and
Gastrointestinal
Surgery
Orthopaedic/
Trauma
Surgery
Trauma
Surgery
Trauma
Surgery
Cardiothoracic
Cancer (high
Cardiothoracic
Surgery
Vascular
Surgery
Surgery
Source: Queensland Health, Draft bed transition strategy 2008 to 2016_v Aug 2008
A more detailed Transition Strategy will be completed in early 2009 after release of updated
activity projections and more fully developed workforce plans.
3.6
Interim demand management strategy

The Gold Coast Health Service District Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008-2012
(IDMS) proposes a range of integrated strategies that maximises capacity within the GCHSD in
order to partially meet the growing local demand prior to the opening of the GCUH. This
involves creating capacity across the Continuum of Care, including a range of Community and
Hospital Based Programs.
The Gold Coast Health Service District Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008-2012 is a
dynamic document which is currently undergoing review in terms of contemporary relevance
and trend. Ongoing review will be a feature of the strategy.
54
Queensland Health
September 2008
A Concept Brief for Funding Proposal in relation to the IDMS has been prepared by the GCHSD
and submitted to CBRC for funding approval in 2008 where service delivery gaps remain. The
IDMS funding requirements and deliverables from the funding submission 2008/09 are attached
as Appendix L.
3.6.1
Proposed strategies
Accommodation pressures and service growth
To accommodate demand in the medium to long term, Robina Redevelopment, Robina Health
Precinct and the GCUH are proposed for development. Additionally, the purchase of land at
Coomera has been finalised to facilitate the development of health facilities. This will assist in
the management of the long term demand for community and hospital based services in the
GCHSD. In the short to medium term, a solution is required to support the maintenance of
services to meet existing demand.
All key clinical and support services are projected to be under significant pressure and each
service requires solutions that address community, ambulatory and inpatient aspects of care.
The IDMS addresses these issues by creating packaged strategies relocating a number of non
clinical services and creating additional clinical capacity at the Gold Coast Hospital (Southport).
Each Division has developed a highly prioritised list of strategies that involve a combination of
growth in community services, decanting of non-clinical services from clinical space and
associated capital refurbishment and utilisation of private sector capacity.
Proposed strategies
Proposed strategies, in order of priority involve:
3.6.2
expansion and redesign of the Gold Coast Hospital (Southport) emergency department
opening of an additional three intensive care beds at Gold Coast Hospital (Southport)
extended surgical and associated support services including extended theatre session
hours at Southport, increased utilisation of surgical capacity at Robina, and a stand alone
day surgery facility
specialist and private practice outpatient service development package including

reconfiguration of specialist outpatients to improve work conditions, leasing of additional
consulting rooms and leasing of alternative space for existing administration offices
community and ambulatory services to support the demand management strategy by

focussing on chronic disease management, rehabilitation, hospital avoidance and
diversionary programs.
expanded community medical packages and associated support services for the District.
Cost implications
Preliminary estimates of the capital and recurrent cost implications of the IDMS are presented in
the following table. Budget priorities for the current financial year are currently being finalised.
Table 3.7 IDMS preliminary cost implications
Cost component
Controlled Equity (Capital)
2008/09
$m
9.6
2009/10
$m
7.1
2010/11
$m
10.4
2011/12
$m
0
55
Queensland Health
September 2008
Cost component
Controlled Appropriation (Operating Revenue)
2008/09
$m
41.7
2009/10
$m
77.8
2010/11
$m
80.6
2011/12
$m
83.8
Source: Queensland Health (Funding Submission)

Note: 2008/09 includes $8.15m required in 2007/08 for Cara Land purchase
3.7
Future use of existing health services

The proposed longer-term service configuration for the GCHSD focuses most tertiary level
services at the GCUH, with inpatient network linkages to Robina and other public hospitals (e.g.
Tweed Hospital) and surrounding private hospital facilities.
3.7.1
Southport campus
This Business Case has been developed on the assumption that the new GCUH will fully
absorb the current operations of the Gold Coast Hospital Southport campus west of Little High
St (i.e. hospital based services). The Southport site will not operate as a major hospital post
commissioning of the GCUH, however some community health facilities may be provided on the
site interim to their placement in the proposed Southport Health Precinct. The future of the
Southport site will be subject to an economic and functionality assessment. This assessment
will identify options for future use and disposal. It anticipated that this assessment will be
completed late in 2008.
The timing for the availability of the site will be dependent on the relocation into the proposed
Southport Health Precinct of the community service particularly Renal services that currently
occupy the site.
The Southport Hospital site East of Little High St, will continue to be utilised for District
Executive Services post commissioning of the GCUH.
3.7.2
Robina Hospital
The inpatient role of Robina is to complement and extend the specialist acute and tertiary role of
the GCUH. Following planned upgrades for an additional 180 beds by 2009, Robina will function
as a 364 bed major hospital.
3.7.3
Other community /care centres

The Gold Coast Health Service District (GCHSD) is developing a plan for Community Based
Services in 2008, for the next five years and more broad strategies for the next 10 years.
It is intended that the GCHSD community based services will be physically located in major
precincts at Robina, Southport and in the longer term Coomera, and the related satellite
community health centres of Palm Beach, Nerang (Early Years Centre), and Helensvale (until
Coomera is commissioned). The long term role of the Bundall Community Health Services
relates to the ability for the future Precincts to accommodate administrative functions, existing
clinical functions and enable service growth to meet population demand. Priority in the
Precincts will be given to clinical service provision and Bundall has been identified as the
centralised location for administrative functions should the Precincts not be able to
accommodate these roles in addition to existing and new clinical roles.
These services will be aligned primarily to Robina Hospital or Gold Coast University Hospital as
well as the needs of the catchment populations.
56
Queensland Health
September 2008
The models of care planned into the new GCUH and the Robina Hospitals expansions are
predicated on the development of those community based Health Precincts.
There is a Government commitment of $26.1M for the Robina Health Precinct which is included
in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program. This precinct is anticipated to
be commissioned in 2010.
Currently there is no capital funding commitment to the proposed Health Precinct expansion
program for the GCHSD.
Carrara health facility
The District acquired a residential aged care facility in November 2007, which has the capacity
to provide approximately 63 additional sub acute bed capacity. The facility will progressively
open during 2008/09.
3.7.4
Integration with State wide health service planning

Current planning for the GCUH takes place within a hierarchy of planning instruments that are
designed to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach is undertaken in planning the
delivery of health services. Queensland Health has developed the State-wide Health Services
Plan 2007 2012 to provide an overarching vision with key objectives of improving access to
safe and sustainable health services and better meeting peoples needs across the health
continuum. The Southern Area Health Service (SAHS) Plan 2007-12 provides direction for
reform and development of health services in the Southern Area, in line with the broader
objectives. Associated with this plan are a series of cluster and Health Service District plans
that Project health service utilisation and which articulate strategies for responses by specific
service networks, including delineation of roles of facilities, identification of cross-district issues
and opportunities for improved integration of services.
Consistent with this approach, the GCHSD developed the Gold Coast Health Service District
Master Plan in 2005 following a consultation process. This plan has subsequently been
reviewed to provide specific plans for the GCUH, Robina Hospital and the Robina Health
Precinct. The GCUH Health Services Plan has been based upon a close cooperation between
the GCHSD, SAHS and the teams currently developing specific State-wide plans. As far as
practicable, the GCUH plan directly reflects the concepts under development in the following
planning processes:
Cancer Services State-wide Plan published 2008
Community Health Review due 2008/09
Cross Border Planning Study due 2008
Hardes Projection Data (based on the latest population census) due 2008
Mental Health State-wide Plan published 2008
NICU State-wide Plan published 2008
Oral Health State-wide Plan due 2008
Rehabilitation Services State-wide Plan published 2008
Renal services State-wide Plan published 2008
57
Queensland Health
September 2008
Southern Corridor Plan due 2008
Intensive Care Services State-wide Plan due 2008/09
Medical Imaging Services State-wide Plan due 2009.
The GCUH will act as a tertiary referral facility with limited super-specialist services. The District
will still be required to refer a limited number of patients to Brisbane for very low volume / high
cost / highly specialised interventions or interstate for an even more limited subset of patients at
Nationally Funded Centres. Over time, the GCUH may develop a limited number of services
which have a State-wide referral role, receiving referrals from all other Queensland Districts and
Northern NSW. The GCUH will also provide a supportive hub role for selected services from
the Logan Health Service District. Currently this role will be limited to renal services.
Within the GCHSD, the GCUH will form part of an integrated network of services encompassing
Robina Hospital, Robina Health Precinct,and a variety of Community Based Services primarily
at Palm Beach, Bundall and Helensvale, as well as a number of outreach clinics, with Carrara
Health Service providing subacute care. Within this network, the GCUH will provide higher-level
support services such as intensive care, trauma management, and neonatal care. For these
services the role of the facility will be to support the State-wide availability of capacity and act as
an integrated part of a network in peak periods of stress.
In relation to services provided by the private sector, planning for the GCUH and Robina
Hospital expansion are based on the assumption of private sector growth in bed capacity similar
to that of the public sector services. Accordingly, the incorporation of the strategy for the
collocation of a private hospital on the GCUH site is designed to facilitate that growth. The
collocation of the private hospital will also provide opportunity for the development of synergistic
relationships between the public and private sector for shared services. A footprint of 14,000m2
has been provided for a future Private Hospital facility.
3.7.5

A Joint Planning Study has been established by the NSW and Queensland governments to
ensure an integrated approach to service planning and delivery for the residents of the north
coast of NSW and the southern region of the Gold Coast. Some of the key assumptions that
have been identified by this joint study process to guide service planning include:
public sector expansion and changes will predominantly be in response to demand

associated with projected population growth and ageing
Lismore Base and The Tweed Hospitals will remain rural referral hospitals providing a range
of Level 4 and 5 services (NSW Role Delineation). Therefore, services such as specialty
paediatrics, neurosurgery, organ transplantation, and cardiothoracic surgery will continue to
be provided by hospitals located in Queensland (Gold Coast or Brisbane), the Hunter region
or metropolitan Sydney. Given the travel distances to the Hunter and Sydney, it is expected
that the majority of NSW residents in the far north coast will be referred to Queensland
in Queensland, the private sector will increasingly focus on developing day-only services.
With the exception of John Flynn and Pindara Private Hospitals, private sector providers
have indicated that they are not planning to significantly increase capacity generally to meet
population growth and ageing
over the next five years, both John Flynn and Pindara Private Hospitals have indicated
major planned expansion: John Flynn anticipates bed increases of 48, while Pindara Private
has advised of bed increases of 209. In addition the Allamanda Private Hospital has
58
Queensland Health
September 2008
announced in mid 2008 that it will become a 352-bed facility in the next three years, with a
two-stage expansion that included 100 extra private beds
no change to the private supply pattern or capacity on the NSW far north coast is expected
during the planning horizon
no planned reversal of private inpatients is expected from NSW private hospitals to public
hospitals.
These assumptions have been further developed to forecast patient flows by specific clinical
type and have been incorporated in the GCUH Health Service Plan.
59
Queensland Health
September 2008
Project description
4.1
Introduction
This section of the Business Case provides a description of the Project. It summarises the key
features of the Project as described in the Project Definition Plan (PDP) and as developed for
the Schematic Design. The following aspects of the Project are described in this section:
proposed site location and site definition, boundary and road networks, key features of the
site and required acquisitions
evaluation of alternative technical delivery models and the selection of the preferred delivery
model
design principles adopted in the development of the building facilities and proposed building
layout
accommodation floor space for each of the clinical divisions and the proposed single-bed
allowances
overview of the clinical services and various support services
environmental Sustainable Design principles incorporated and implementation process
transport and road infrastructure
car park facilities
provision of facilities management services
single beds analysis.
4.2
Site description
4.2.1
Precinct site
The hospital development is part of a 130 hectare site referred to as the Gold Coast Hospital
Coast, approximately 4km west of the Southport CBD and 36km north of Tweed Heads. The
major connector route to the Precinct is Smith Street which provides access to Southport and
other centres on the Gold Coast. The regional centres of Helensvale, Biggera Waters/Harbour
Town, Southport and Nerang currently form a ring around the Precinct with over 2km separation
distances generally.
Figure 4.1 below shows the general Precinct area, which currently contains a variety of uses
including the Griffith University (Gold Coast campus), Parklands Showgrounds, community
facilities, the Church of Christ, the Salvation Army, football clubs, residential development,
school, parks and industrial uses. In order to implement the total development plan, a number
of site acquisitions from some of these organisations will need to be made. More detailed
information on these acquisitions are provided in a sub-section below.
60
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.1 Gold Coast Hospital and Knowledge Precinct

4.2.2
Hospital site
The proposed site for the Hospital will occupy approximately 18.1 hectares of the Precinct land,
directly opposite the Griffith University site at Parkwood on the Gold Coast. The site is bordered
by Parklands Drive and Olsen Avenue. An aerial photo of the Hospital site is shown below
(figure 4.2).
61
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.2 GCUH proposed

4.2.3
Site features
The proposed site is generally undulating rising from levels of RL10.0 in the valleys to RL27.0 at
the highest point. Grades vary from 1:3 at the steepest point (adjacent to the greyhound and
harness racing track).
The site contains remnant vegetation primarily at the corner of Parklands Drive and Olsen
Avenue, and to the east of a line joining the high points and north of the existing Church of
Christ site and extending almost to the bottom of the valley to the east. A cleared area exists to
the northwest opposite a lawn cemetery.
Views and aspects will vary with the differing levels and undulations of the site. Views out into
parklands settings are proposed from all lower patient occupied levels at various points in their
journey. There are views across the treed canopy of the University to the south and a green belt
to the north. The west offers distant views to the mountains of the Gold Coast Hinterland.
4.2.4
Site acquisition
The relevant site acquisitions for the Project are being undertaken by Queensland Health with
assistance from the Department of Infrastructure.
Within the proposed GCUH footprint there are existing organisations currently operating that will
be affected by the Hospital development. The main organisations directly impacted by the
GCUH development, and the necessary land acquisition requirements are described below.
62
Queensland Health
September 2008
Griffith University
The construction of the new GCUH will require the relocation of the Universitys Medical and
Dental School which is currently adjacent to the existing Gold Coast Hospital at Southport.
Relocation is necessary to ensure continued close integration of teaching activities between the
Hospital and the University. Queensland Health and Griffith University have agreed that the new
facility will be located on University land.
Church of Christ
The Church of Christ is a freehold land owner located to the south of the lawn cemetery, central
to the proposed location of the Hospital. In addition to church services, it undertakes a range of
activities on their premises such as child care related functions, provision of off-street parking
for Griffith University students, crisis and relationship counselling, student support services
largely for international students, theological education and youth programmes for surrounding
State Schools.
Church of Christ has agreed to relocate to a portion of a site currently owned by Griffith
University on the southern side of Smith Street, subject to a number of conditions including the
acquisition of freehold title to the area in question, and funding for a temporary child care facility
on the Parklands Showground site.
Salvation Army
The Salvation Army currently occupies land in trust from the Queensland Government on the
proposed hospital site. A warehouse/distribution service for its district is operated from this site,
as well as the Fairhaven Rehabilitation Centre offering detoxification services relating to drug
and alcohol addictions.
The Salvation Army is currently being assisted with relocation to new premises with adequate
space to allow for expansion of their accommodation and drug rehabilitation services. A
warehouse facility at Molendinar has been purchased by Queensland Health and leased to the
Salvation Army. The Fairhaven Rehabilitation Centre is currently being assisted with relocation
to new premises.
The Greyhound Racing Authority and the Harness Racing Association
The Parklands Gold Coast Trust currently manages land in trust from the Queensland
Government upon which leases have been granted to Greyhound Racing Authority and the
Harness Racing Association. The land currently utilised as a greyhound track and associated
car park are within the footprint of the GCUH. An alternative venue for greyhound racing has
been identified. The Greyhound Racing Authority is scheduled to vacate in September 2008.
Southport lawn cemetery
The Lawn Cemetery is 12.4 hectares in size and is located in the north-western corner of the
proposed GCUH hospital site. The Gold Coast City Council, as trustees of the cemetery, have
agreed to supply surplus land for the GCUH.
63
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.3
Proposed Delivery Model and PDP preferred option

In order to decide on the Proposed Delivery Model for the Project, the Project Team assessed
five technical delivery options (Options A to E) based on a high-level multi-criteria options
assessment against the Project Objectives.
Description of Options
For the purposes of evaluating the options put forward for the PDP, the Project Team selected
the following five options as a representative overview of the development process (each of the
five options are illustrated and described in the following section).
Figure 4.3 Option A
Option A (Buildings of 6 to 8 levels):

This option is a linear concept with main entrance close to Parklands Drive, a transit stop at the
high points in Parklands Drive, a Northern Road boundary (now known as the Hospital
Boulevard), an Eastern Road boundary (now known as Hospital Street East), with the future
Private Hospital site to the east of Eastern Road, and future expansion to the northeast and
southeast.
64
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.4 Option B
Option B (Buildings of 6 to 8 levels):

This option is a linear concept with main entrance close to car parking and the transit stop at the
high points in Parklands Drive, a Northern Road boundary and an Eastern Road boundary. The
future Private Hospital site is to the east of Eastern Road, and future expansion to the north and
east.
65
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.5 Option C
Option C (Buildings 8 Levels):

This option is a linear concept developed on eastwest and northsouth pedestrian axis/spines
with the hospital entry plaza located in the southwest sector, the ward blocks in the southern
and western sectors and the diagnostic and treatment block in the northeast sector. The eastwest spine is linked to the car parks at either end of the site and the north-south spine links the
main entry to emergency and mental health. Links to pathology and education, the private
hospital and university occur off these spines. Connectivity with green spaces is achieved
between the pedestrian spines and the ward blocks. The Private Hospital is positioned in the
southwest sector.
66
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.6 Option D
Option D (Buildings 10 levels):

This option is a vertically stacked/compact plan form with an L-shaped diagnostic and
treatment block plan form. Vertical circulation nodes are at arrival at the main entrance and in
choice of direction east and north along the spines. The compact plan leaves more space for
future expansion and replacement with minimal intrusion into parklands. The Private Hospital is
positioned in the southwest sector.
67
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.7 Option E
Option E (Preferred Option)

This option is a vertically stacked/compact plan form with an L-shaped diagnostic and
treatment block plan form. Vertical circulation nodes are at arrival at the main entrance and in
choice of direction east and north along the spines. The compact plan leaves more space for
future expansion and replacement with minimal intrusion into parklands. This option is a
development of Option D, with the Private Hospital and Education/Pathology in new locations.
Assessment of Options
The Project Team assessed the options by scoring each of the options against the Project
objectives, the following scoring system was used in the assessment:
5
4
3
2
1
Exceeds objective
More than meets objective
Meets objective
Partially meets objective
Does not meet objective
68
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 4.1 Assessment of options

Project Objectives Total Score
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Service Delivery and Care

1
Create a patient-focused health system that

encourages innovative models of care
delivered in a major teaching Hospital
Deliver operational efficiency, optimising the

use of people and resources, capable of
achieving Health Service planning targets and
sustaining service levels into the future
Promote evidence based design to create an
environment that enhances patient safety,
patient outcomes and clinical excellence
Ensure ability to function in a post-disaster

environment
Enhance amenity for users of the site including
consideration of car parking, retail and colocated private hospital
4
5
People
6
Support attraction and retention of well trained,
committed and motivated staff
Site Access and Egress
7
Provide clear points of site access and egress ensuring the efficient movement of public/staff, emergency and
service vehicles in and around the site (Criteria as follows)
General Access
Optimum access at Hospital Front Door
Maximise integration of developing public

transport infrastructure to the new hospital
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Future Proof and Flexible

9
Encourage flexible design and infrastructure

capable of adapting to new technologies
(clinical and information) and emerging trends
in clinical practice, models of care and
changes in government policy, legislation and
standards
10
Promote an active learning environment,
providing appropriate facilities for teaching
and research within clinical areas and
between the Gold Coast University Hospital
and its key education and research partners
Business Continuity
11
Achieve a successful relocation to the new
hospital with no interruption to the ongoing
delivery of services
Stakeholder Relationships
12
Encourage a collaborative constructive
relationship between the new hospital and
stakeholders including education and research
partners, local community and communities of
interest
69
Queensland Health
September 2008
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
13
Minimise impact and disruption to the

surrounding community during construction
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
14
The new hospital is part of a network of

services including: 'District Wide' service
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Government Commitment, Policy and Objectives

15
Procure a new major teaching Hospital which delivers value for money to the State, within budget and other
parameters as agreed by the State (Criteria as follows)
Capital Cost
3
3
4
4
4
Recurrent Cost
Timing
16
Achieve State sustainability policies/objectives

including greenhouse gas and peak energy
reduction, water conservation and waste
minimization
17
Maximise benefits of co-location opportunities - with University, private hospital and other services (Criteria as
follows)
Co-location with Griffith University
Co-location with Private Hospital
Co-location with other services
Integration with Precinct Master Plan
56
57
67
74
76
Ranking
Source: Queensland Health PDP Report

Note 1: Objectives 11-14 were not assessed as design objectives.
Preferred Option
As a result of the assessment Option E gained the highest score and also achieved the best fit
to the required Model of Care. The next closest option (Option D) was very similar to Option E
but did not allow for the same level of potential future expansion and did not address the
teaching and research object as well.
The following image indicates the Project Definition Plan / Master Plan concept.
70
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.8 Preferred option concept
The image below shows the current axonometric view of the schematic design of the GCUH.
71
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.9 Schematic design image
The development of the GCUH design from Project Definition Phase to Schematic Design has
been in accordance to the Project design principles and vision. The development of the design
has seen the following changes:
4.4
the building has 9 storey levels, with an integrated service tunnel now at the basement level
in lieu of below the Basement floor level
clinical support building has been further articulated to maximise natural light and to frame
the entrance and atrium to the hospital
western and southern inpatient unit buildings have been modified to reflect the revised bed
numbers per Inpatient Unit (IPU). The southern IPU building has been slightly elongated to
provide two 28 bed units per floor, while the western IPU building remains with two 24 bed
units per floor. The revised bed configuration has reduced the number of floors to the
western IPU building
revised ground levels along Parklands Drive have enabled the Discharge Lounge and Loan
Equipment area to be located on the Basement level of the Southern IPU Building. This also
provides a secure corridor link to lifts from the on grade Cancer Car Parking area to
Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy areas.
Design process
The design of the GCUH commenced in July 2007 with the commissioning of a design team,
GCUH Architecture (PDT, STH and Hassell). The design team consists of Health Planners,
Health Architects and Design Architects as well as Interior Designers, Landscape Architects and
Urban Planners.
72
Queensland Health
September 2008
The design of the facility has been developed in order to address the Project objectives
described in section 2.2. To meet these objectives and to incorporate stakeholder interests, a
series of workshops and presentations occurred that progressively developed the design
principles.
4.4.1
Design principles
The design principles applied to the development of the Hospital include the following:
4.4.2
ensure ease of access from public and private transport
provide a campus of linked areas within the site that allow for future flexibility options
provide separate definition and identity for each area with in the site
provide clinical and operational services to all precincts and their departments separately
without interruption or access to adjacent precincts or departments
maximise visual connection with the parklands setting from all areas
minimise travel distances for staff, patients and visitors within and between areas
ensure intuitive and clear way-finding between each area
operate areas independently
maximise the sharing of support facilities between areas.
Design features
To meet the requirements of the GCUH Health Service Plan, the Hospital will feature the
following key attributes:
4.4.3
a compact solution, which is designed over nine levels and located in a parkland setting
a compact footprint which allows for future expansion
the potential for clear way-finding with the principle of having short travel distances to lift
cores. (The distance between the front entrance and the central lift core is less than 60
metres)
use of site topography to separate by level the key entrances points for visitors, patients and
services (i.e. main entrance, Emergency Department entrance and the loading docks)
a dedicated car park to be accessed by the Cancer Centre via the South block basement
level
direct and discrete connections between the Emergency Department and the Mental Health
Unit, which also has a dedicated entrance
designed with horizontal and vertical integration of clinical services, which responds to its
Model of Care.
Interior design
The philosophy for the interior design is to create a comfortable and healing environment for
patients, their families and carers and incorporate the qualities of friendliness, safety, privacy
and fun where appropriate. The overall result should be of a non-institutional, people-friendly
73
Queensland Health
September 2008
character that gives children, families/carers, public and staff positive surroundings in which to
experience healthcare.
Key interior design features
Patient areas will embody the same key health planning features as are characteristic of a
therapeutic environment privacy, control, choice and comfort. Patient privacy and
confidentiality is paramount, and consulting rooms and treatment rooms must be planned so
that a patient on a couch or bed cannot be seen from the doorway to the room. The design
should also incorporate features that enable effective nurse supervision.
Emphasis will be paid to the clarity of circulation patterns, demarcation and signage of
departments, and articulation of public spaces. Internal treatments will acknowledge the
Parklands setting whilst remaining functional, timeless and durable.
Patient waiting areas will be located to take advantage of natural light and outdoor views.
Separate play areas for children and adolescents are to be collocated, with chair groupings in
clusters for discretion and privacy. Public areas including circulation areas are to be designed
for the display of artwork. Artefacts celebrating past history should be displayed appropriately,
as should donor boards and relocated sculptures.
Staff lounges and other staff-specific areas are to be treated as breakout spaces providing relief
from high-stress work environments.
Lighting along walls and wall fixtures should be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce
glare and provide areas of interest for patients, many of whom are transported horizontally. The
use of indirect lighting is encouraged where appropriate.
Security must be dealt with as unobtrusively as possible, particularly at the main entrance, and
the triage area in the emergency department.
74
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.10 Atrium images

Atrium view to northwest
Southeast view to atrium
4.5
Facilities description
The GCUH will provide super speciality, tertiary services for the population of South East
Queensland, extending into Northern New South Wales and will comprise of the following key
facilities:
acute tertiary hospital with 750 overnight beds, 74 same day beds and 97 same day bed
alternatives
comprehensive Cancer Care centre
Family, Womens and Childrens cluster
acute mental health inpatient cluster
pathology and education facility with pedestrian links to a new Medical School, future library
and Medical research facilities
car parking facilities for 3,000 car parking spaces
opportunity for co-located private hospital and specialist medical consulting facilities
Central Energy facility
opportunity for Child Care Centre and Carer/relatives accommodation.
As a major teaching hospital, GCUH will be associated with both Griffith and Bond Universities
and will provide academic and research support for Medical, Nursing and Allied Health students.
To support the clinical services, there will be a range of administrative, general and staff support
services for not only the GCUH campus, but other campuses within the Gold Coast Health
Service District.
75
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.5.1
Facility layout
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 provide an overview of the facilities layout.
Figure 4.11 Perspective showing view from South West

Figure 4.12 Perspective showing view from North East
4.5.2
Building layout
Figure 4.13 shows the proposed hospital buildings with the major components being clinical,
family, womens and children, cancer, accident and emergency, and mental health.
76
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figure 4.13 Building layout

In order to minimise horizontal travel distances and provide clear way-finding the GCUH will be
designed over nine levels as follows:
the lowest level, referred to as the Basement, includes the Hospitals loading docks together
with its Operational Services Department (i.e. kitchen, stores, linen and waste handling) plus
Biomedical Engineering and Clinical Resource Unit
the Lower Ground Floor, the Ground Floor and the First Floor will deal primarily with all
Ambulatory Care Services and include Emergency and Allied Health Services, Medical
Imaging and Nuclear Medicine and Pharmacy.
South wing of the inpatient block will house the Radiotherapy Unit, Day
Chemotherapy/Haematology Unit and Cancer Services outpatient and at Level 1 the two
Cancer Care Services Inpatient units of 29 beds each are located. The Paediatric
Services are located on Ground Floor
there will be a direct link to the Mental Health Unit at both the Lower Ground Floor and
the Ground Floor. There will also be provision for future links through to the proposed
Private Hospital and public car parking. The Hospitals main entrance will be located on
the Ground Floor
the next level, the Second Floor, will include the Interventional Suites, the Birthing Unit and
two Inpatient Units together with some Pathology Units. There will be a direct link to the car
park and the proposed Private Hospital from this level
77
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.5.3
the remaining levels include support units such as the Sterilising Department, ICU, NICU,
Cardiac Catheter Labs and Clinical Measurement and Rehabilitation Therapy areas. In
addition to the Inpatient Units located on the Second Floor of the south and west wings,
additional Inpatient Units, including Obstetrics inpatient units and the Cardiology/Coronary
Care Unit are located on the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Floors
plant is located on the seventh floor and the helipad located on the rooftop.
Future proofing
Master planning principles
The Hospital Master Plan has a design philosophy that includes an effective expansion strategy,
and a replacement strategy.
The future expansion is planned to occur without impeding access to the facility by the public,
patient, visitors, staff or those supplying the facility with the goods and services during the
operation of the facility.
The Hospital will be modified or expanded to meet the requirements of changes in medical
technology, case mix and demand that will occur over the life of the facility.
Capacity
The new hospital is planned to occupy approximately 165,000m2 of gross floor area. The Health
Service Plan provides the short to medium term and long term implications for the Health
services to be provided at the new hospital and the most likely areas of expansion, such as
Cancer Care Services. The stage 2 expansion master plan is shown in figure 4.14.
Spatial allowance for future expansion
There has been provision for an expansion area of 90,000m2 of gross floor area provided as
extensions/additions or as new buildings, bringing the possible gross floor area to be in excess
of 250,000m2, which could increase the number of beds from 750 to approximately 1,000.
To accommodate a changing and growing hospital over a multiple of 25-year life cycles,
adequate plant capacity and spare space will be provided for future growth.
Worlds best practice indicates a site area of 20 hectares is appropriate. The current site area is
18.5 hectares, the net usable area of which is only 14.5ha due to road reserves and cut off land.
It is recommended that the current site be expanded from an area of 18.5 hectares to 20
hectares.
Figures 4.14 and 4.15 below highlight the additional proposed expansion area. It is Queensland
Health's intention to apply for additional land (referred to as stage 2) as part of the revised
Precinct Master Plan review which is scheduled for the last quarter of 2008.
78
Queensland Health
September 2008
Figures 4.14 and 4.15 Future expansion plans
79
Queensland Health
September 2008
80
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.5.4
Future Private Hospital facility

As part of the expansion allowance, a land area of 1.4 hectares has been provided for a future
Private Hospital facility. Expressions of interest from private health care providers have been
called and discussions are currently underway with private health owners/operators. A strategy
is being put in place to consider timing, interface, and other issues.
4.5.5
Private sector involvement

A retail consultant is to be engaged to assist with potential private sector involvement in utilising
approximately 1,000m2 of commercial space, for purposes such as a newsagency, bank, ATMs,
florist, pharmacy and gymnasium.
4.6
Accommodation
4.6.1
Development of accommodation schedules

The schedule of accommodation was developed with reference to Australasian Health Facility
Guidelines (AHFG) and through a benchmarking exercise. A series of user group meetings and
discussions were also conducted to inform the development of the schedules of
accommodation.
The proposed area allocation components of the Hospital were benchmarked against
comparable tertiary/quaternary teaching health facilities nationally and internationally, as well as
standards and regulations, relevant College of Medicine guidelines and local, national and
international trends towards the health needs of the Hospitals specific client group.
The schedules of accommodation were developed with reference to several documents and
guidelines including the following:
GCUH Health Service Plan
Queensland Healths Queensland Health Capital Works Guidelines
Queensland Healths Queensland Health Clinical Services Capability Framework for Public
and Licensed Private Health Facilities, version 2 July 2005
Australasian Health Facility Guidelines, November 2006
Department of Human Services, Victoria Hospital Project Planning Benchmark 2003, as

detailed for Level 6 hospitals
Queensland Health recommendations for single rooms
Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives.
Although several sources of information are available to guide the development of

accommodation schedules, the information is not entirely suited to the profile of the GCUH and
its designation as an educational and training facility. For example, AHFG considers 19
departments only and does not fully reflect the needs of tertiary level hospitals, while the
Victorian Department of Human Services guidelines mainly relate to level 4 Role Delineation
only.
In order to substantiate the design outcomes a benchmarking exercise was conducted based on
reference facilities. This is detailed further in this section.
81
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.6.2
Schedule of accommodation
Table 4.2 presents the floor space allocations and number of overnight beds for each of the
organisational groupings. Benchmarking information is provided further below.
Table 4.2 GCUH proposed floor space areas
Same
day
beds
Same
day
bed
alternatives
97
-
Over
night
beds
Treatment
places
Division
400
14
76
40
50
Division of Surgery and
Critical Care Services
20
124
Division of Family, Women &
Children
72
28
Division of Community,
Allied, Rehabilitation and
Aged Services
Corporate Services,
amenities and retail
Total
74
97
750
Travel space
Plant space
Main atrium
Total Gross Area
Source: GCUH Technical Advisor, DLA
Notes:
1. Accommodation places provided by DLA, 4 September 2008.
2. Gross areas provided by DLA, 16 September 2008.
3. Total Gross Area excludes Unenclosed Covered Area of 1,377m2.
Consulting
rooms
Gross
Area m2
1
115
39
13
115
11
19,057
24,437
26
39
28
99
16,032
14,018
5,923
5,817
10
7,359
8
-
316
188
5,039
3,871
16,556
118,109
17,380
27,673
1,200
164,362
See Appendix H for updated beds / treatment places schedule, and Appendix G for benchmarking and area schedule.
Benchmarking
The benchmarking exercise involved examination of comparative Australasian hospitals
including the following:
Queensland: Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital, The
Prince Charles Hospital and the Townville Hospital
Victoria: Royal Melbourne Hospital, the Alfred Hospital, the new Royal Childrens Hospital
(based on the PDP), Monash Medical Centre and Austin Hospital
New South Wales: the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the proposed Redevelopment of the
Royal North Shore Hospital (based on PDP)
South Australia: Royal Adelaide Hospital and the proposed Marjorie Jackson Hospital
(based on PDP)
82
Queensland Health
September 2008
Western Australia: Fiona Stanley Hospital (based on PDP).
The following factors and statutory requirements have been incorporated in this exercise:
additional floor space area associated with new Statutory Requirements (including Disability
Discrimination Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act and Building Code of Australia);
Queensland Health policy to move from average provision of 25% single bed rooms to 75%
single bed rooms (discussed further in Section 4.17);
introduction of Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives (plant and equipment)
increased provision of high-cost medical equipment.
Appendix E contains further benchmarking data and detailed explanations for the differences
between the proposed GCUH space allocations and the benchmarks. In general the GCUH has
relatively larger space allowances due to:
4.7
the mix of single beds to multiple beds (this is discussed later in this section), and the
associated increase in circulation requirements
the integration of education, training and research facilities incorporated into the wards
the model of care and preferred location of services. (For example the anaesthetics
department being located with the surgical cluster {in benchmark facilities this forms part of
central administration}, the inclusion of rehabilitation inpatient units and therapy areas that
are not part of the comparative hospitals, and the decentralised nature of pharmacy
services.)
Clinical services
A brief overview of each of the clinical services to be provided by the GCUH service divisions,
their space considerations and benchmarks are presented in the following sections.
4.7.1

The following table shows the space allowance and comparison to the benchmark for this
clinical service. The increase in area compared to the benchmark can be explained by a
greater allowance for single bed rooms, and inclusion of ambulatory care as part of this cluster.
Table 4.3 Area comparison with benchmark Division of family, women and children
Division
Gross Area m2
14,018
Benchmark Area m2
11,499
Difference %
21.9%
Obstetrics unit
The delivery suite/birthing centre will support all women from low risk to high-risk pregnancies,
including those that require tertiary level care. The delivery suite and birthing centre will
comprise ten delivery rooms, two high care rooms (including one to function as a HDU bed
room), and a six room-birthing centre. A dedicated obstetric theatre will be required in the
operating suite.
83
Queensland Health
September 2008
The Family, Women and Children (FWC) Services provides the full range of services including
the following inpatient services:
Antenatal Care
Delivery Services
Antenatal / Postnatal Inpatient Unit
private facility for labouring women outside room
clinical administration
clinical support services
Teaching and Research.
Neonatal intensive care unit

It is proposed to establish a Level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Nursery at the new GCUH to bring
the total inpatient capacity for neonatal services to 15 Level 3 neonatal cots and 40 Level 2
Special Care cots by 2016.
Paediatric unit
The Paediatric Service will be designed in accordance with the concept of family focus and
developmentally supportive areas and patient free areas. The design of the unit will take into
consideration the family centre focus nature of the service and include appropriate features to
enhance family relationships and functions within a hospital environment. It is comprised of:
Level 2 Paediatric Inpatient Unit of 32 beds
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit of 2 beds, within the Adult Intensive Care Unit
same day unit for medical and surgical patients (10 beds)
clinical administration
clinical support services
admission ward for surgical subspecialty.
Family, Womens Clinical outpatients

Family Womens and Childrens Ambulatory Care services will be provided as a dedicated unit
within the new hospital providing care to women and children separate to the specialist
outpatient department.
Services to be provided include:
Antenatal Care
Paediatric Services
Gynaecology Out Patients Service
Clinical administration
84
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.7.2
FWC Divisional Executive

clinical service. The difference is immaterial.
Table 4.4 Area comparison with benchmark Division of mental health
Division
Gross Area m2
5,817
Benchmark Area m2
5,895
Difference %
-1.3%
The following mental health services are proposed for the GCUH:
Acute Adult Inpatient Care service 72 beds
ECT Suite
Ambulatory Day programs accessible to both inpatients and community clients
capacity for specialty inpatient services including mother and baby, eating disorders and
mood disorders to be accommodated as required from existing adult bed complement.
Adult, Child and Youth Consultation Liaison Services
outpatient clinics including adult C/L, multidisciplinary eating disorders and paediatric
diabetes
research and teaching programs
capacity for intake assessment
general acute areas with capacity for close observation
a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit
capacity for sub specialty unit Mother baby, eating disorders, neuropsychology, mood
disorders.
There will be an easily identified entry to the Mental Health Unit with access to drop off and car
parking. Patients and visitors will be provided with a clear route from the Emergency
Department that is not through public spaces. A separate police and ambulance entrance will
provide discreet access to the units.
4.7.3
clinical service. The difference reflects a higher proportion of single rooms and the inclusion of
shared service areas.
85
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 4.5 Area comparison with benchmark Division of medicine

Division
Gross Area m2
24,437
Benchmark Area m2
22,887
Difference %
6.8%
The Division of Medicine is comprised of inpatient accommodation, ambulatory care/outpatient

facilities, and interventional and procedural units. It encompasses the following specialty units:
4.7.4
Cancer Services
Neurology/Neuroscience
Endocrinology/Diabetes Centre
Infectious Diseases/Immunology/Rheumatology
Cardiology
Respiratory Medicine, including Sleep studies
Dermatology
Gastroenterology
Renal Medicine including Acute Renal Dialysis Unit
General Medicine
Ambulatory Care
Day Medical Procedures Unit
Medical Assessment Unit, including Chest Pain Investigation
Aged Care Services.

clinical service. The increase in area compared to the benchmark can be attributed to the
increased size of interventional rooms in line with current international standards, and the
collocation of the Anaesthetics department within this cluster (compared to the benchmark
where it generally sits in clinical administration).
Table 4.6 Area comparison with benchmark Division of surgery and critical care
Division
Gross Area m2
16,032
Benchmark Area m2
14,376
Difference %
11.5%
86
Queensland Health
September 2008
The Division of Surgery and Critical Care includes the following departments:
4.7.5
Department of Anaesthetics and Pain Management. This department will provide services to
both GCUH and Robina Hospital including a comprehensive Acute Pain Management
Service (which also manages patients not involved in the operative suite), a separate
Chronic Pain Service, anaesthesia services for other areas, such as medical imaging.
Department of Surgery.
-
Surgical Specialties Services. The Surgical Specialties provides the full range of acute
and elective surgical services including inpatient, ambulatory care, interventional and
procedural services.
Surgical Specialties Outpatients
Orthopaedic and Trauma Services. This service will provide the full range of acute and
elective orthopaedic services including a major joint replacement program and
orthopaedic trauma surgery. It will have an active participation in rehabilitation.
Infusion Therapy Services
Intensive Care Unit. The proposed model of care for the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is based
the co-location of Intensive Care Unit and High Dependency Unit, with horizontal or direct
vertical access to Operating Suite, and direct access to the Emergency Department,
Helipad, Cardiac Interventional Unit and inpatient units.
Interventional Suite
The Central Sterilising Department. This department is responsible for the collection,
cleaning, packaging, sterilisation, storage and distribution of re-useable instruments and
equipment.
Division of Community, Allied, Rehabilitation and Aged Services

clinical service. The increase in area compared to benchmark can be explained by additional
services provided including orthotics, transitional care services and clinical education and
training areas.
Table 4.7 Area comparison with benchmark Division of community, allied, rehabilitation and
aged services
Division
Division of Community, Allied,
Rehabilitation and Aged Services
Gross Area m2
7,359
Benchmark Area m2
6,502
Difference %
13.2%
Allied Health
To enhance the GCUH model of care, the Allied Health units will be co-located. These include:
Clinical Psychology
Clinical Dietetics
Occupational Therapy
Physiotherapy
87
Queensland Health
September 2008
Social Work, with office located on each inpatient level.
Speech Pathology
Teaching & Research.
Other allied health units such as audiology, podiatry, orthotics and prosthetics will be located
with other clinical service departments.
Community Health
A Health Promotion Unit will be located within the front foyer of the Hospital, with ease of access
for staff, patients and visitors. The Health Promotions model is based on similar models of
service provided by like hospitals.
4.7.6

clinical service. The increase in area compared to the benchmark can be explained by the
inclusion of satellite imaging services with emergency and ambulatory care areas, and
equipment such as PET.
Table 4.8 Area comparison with benchmark Division of medical services
Division
Gross Area m2
5,923
Benchmark Area m2
5,143
Difference %
15.2%
The Division of medical services will provide medical imaging and pharmacy services.
Medical Imaging. The Medical Imaging Department (MID) of GCUH will provide a
comprehensive radiology service, including diagnostic and interventional services for
inpatients and outpatients of all hospital departments. These services are provided on an
elective and emergency basis.
Services will be primarily provided in the MID with a mobile service provided to intensive
care, the operating suite and inpatient units, as required. Satellite imaging will be located in
Emergency Department, Ambulatory Care, and Family/Women/Childrens services.
4.7.7
Pharmacy. Pharmacy services will include, but not be limited to, clinical pharmacy activities
relating to inpatients and ambulatory patients, drug distribution to inpatients and ambulatory
patients, IV additive service, cytotoxic preparation service, provision of medicines
information, clinical trial management, education and training, and research.
clinical service. The decrease in area compared to the benchmark can be explained by more
limited range of services and extent of pathology services planned for GCUH compared to
benchmark facilities. Certain specialised pathology services for the region can be delivered from
the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital which has a large pathology unit in line with the
benchmark (for a central provision facility).
88
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 4.9 Area comparison with benchmark Division of pathology

Division
Gross Area m2
5,039
Benchmark Area m2
6,360
Difference %
-20.8%
The division of pathology will provide the following services:
Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology, Haematology, Anatomical Pathology and Transfusion

Medicine. These will be provided by the Pathology Queensland Gold Coast laboratory,
which will operate out of the GCUH and service the pathology needs of the Gold Coast
District Health Service.
Mortuary. The major post-mortems studies for south-east Queensland are to be undertaken
at the new GCUH facility.
The decrease in area (21%) compared to the benchmark is due to certain specialised pathology
services for the region being delivered centrally from the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital,
with remaining pathology services being provided from the GCUH standalone pathology unit.
4.8
Non-Clinical service divisions

Space considerations and benchmarks for each of these divisions are presented in the following
table.
Table 4.10 Area comparison with benchmark non-clinical services
Division
Generic inpatient unit
Eduction and Research
Corporate services,
amenities, and retail
4.9
Gross
Area m2
19,057
Benchmark
Area m2
18,648
Difference
%
2.2%
3,871
4,125
-6.2%
16,556
16,318
1.5%
Comments
The increase in area compared
to the benchmark can be
allowance for single bed rooms,
shared eduction and training
areas, and a decentralised
model of care for allied health
areas.
The decrease in area can be
explained through the ability to
integrate and utilise education,
library, and research facilities at
Griffith university.
The difference is immaterial.
Operational and support services

The GCUH will provide a full range of operational services as required for a tertiary hospital
facility. Accommodation spaces will be allocated to all operational services including, but not
limited to:
Gold Coast University administration
89
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.10
Operational services including housekeeping and waste management, portages, security

services, ID production, linen services and mail room
Public amenities including a main foyer with 24 hour reception services, interview facilities,
lost property pastoral care department; links to retail services
Staff facilities including recreation rooms, medical officer rooms
Environmental services
Food services kitchen
Information Technology (IT)
Clinical information services and medical records.
FF&E requirements
The process of determining FF&E requirements for the GCUH will require a number of staged
approaches. The following bodies of work will need to be undertaken over the coming years to
clarify requirements. These include, but are not limited to:
4.11
Completion of room data sheets (currently 90% complete)
Identification of high capital value equipment (i.e. MRIs, CT Scanners, etc.) which has been
completed
Condition assessments on existing equipment at the Gold Coast Hospital which has been
completed and will be ongoing
Development of a Strategic Procurement Plan to achieve value for money principles.
Information technology
Information technology provisions will be critical services for delivery of health services for the
GCUH Project. Information technology (IT) will be integrated into the Project and fundamental to
the delivery of improved patient care and efficiency of health services.
The ICT system will cater for high bandwidth applications including:
Picture Acquisition and Communication Systems (PACS)
Telemedicine
Video conferencing.
Communications to staff will be enhanced with wireless technologies including:
Wireless telephony
Radio paging
UHF radio.
Digital technologies that will interface with patients include:
90
Queensland Health
September 2008
IT TV systems
Information kiosks
Public information displays
Patient queuing system.
Critical health care ICT technology that will be catered for include:
Patient (nurse) call systems
IP master clock system
Patient monitoring systems.
There is the potential for some or all of these IT services to be provided, operated and
maintained by a third party IT provider. This can have advantages in terms of cost certainty,
risk transfer and cost efficiency through provision of service by providers who focus on these
services as part of their core business.
4.12
Education
The future teaching facilities will be developed in collaboration with the university sector.
Teaching will be embedded within the Hospital setting together with proximate teaching and
research. Education areas will include:
240 seat lecture theatre
two 120-150 seat lecture theatres
one conference room, two seminar rooms and four tutorial rooms
OH&S Training and Staff Development facilities
Computer Learning Centre
Clinical Training Service including Clinical Skills Laboratory and training rooms.
Research
A spatial allowance has been made for hospital-based research, where all such dry research
undertaken by the various Clinical Departments is to be conducted.
Queensland Academy of Health and Medical Science
The development of the $43.5 million Queensland Academy of Health and Medical Science
opened for the 2008 academic year and will ultimately accommodate 450 students from Years
10-12. The Academy will provide students with the opportunity to combine their senior schooling
with tertiary studies, focused on health and allied industries, offered by Griffith University.
The Academy is funded by the Queensland Government in partnership with Griffith University
and is to be located within the Griffith University southern campus expansion area on 2.36
hectares of land, bounded to the north by the proposed Smart Water Research Facility, the
Griffith University Student Housing Village to the south and bushland to the west.
91
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.13

An ESD working group has been established within Queensland Health Major Projects to
determine appropriate strategies and objectives for hospital development projects currently
underway.
In parallel with the ESD Working Group, the GCUH Project Team progressed their ESD design
for the GCUH Project in order to meet program timescales.
As a starting point, the GCUH Project Definition Plan identified that the Project team would
design for a non-accredited Green Building Council of Australia 4-Star Green Star equivalent
rating with the aspiration for the 5-Star rating if budget permits. During the course of Scheme
Design, studies performed by the GCUH Project team identified a number of options aspiring to
a sustainable outcome which were costed for the GCUH Project. Some of the options and
outcomes investigated are as follows. The options were provided in 2 parts; Formally Accredited
Design, and Non-accredited Self-assessed Design.
The cost estimates for each option presented below are Project costs including managing
contractor fees, professional fees and risk adjustments.
Formally Accredited Design
An accredited design approach has the benefit of formal and independent recognition (with the
GBCA) for the implementation of environmentally sustainable initiatives, the use of cutting edge
technologies and the application of sustainable building practices.
Independent accreditation would showcase the ability and will of the Queensland Government
to preserve the environment and at the same time not only deliver a modern healthcare and
education facility but a high-grade environmentally sustainable workplace for future generation
of healthcare professionals.
Formal accreditation further serves as proof of achievement of a national benchmark
increasingly gaining national and international recognition among industry leaders,
governments, local and global community.
Option 1: Four Star Green Star
Option 2: Five Star Green Star
$65.8m
$92.9m
Non-Accredited Self-assessed Design

The current approach is to use the draft tool as a guideline only without accreditation.
Option 3: Four Star Green Star
Option 4: Five Star Green Star
$63.7m
$90.8m
Note: Above figures are capital cost estimates and are inclusive of professional and managing
contractor fees, and contingency as at July 2007 but are exclusive of escalation
92
Queensland Health
September 2008
Budget allowance
Currently, the Project team is endeavouring to provide a sustainable hospital consistent with
Option 1 (accredited four star rating),which equates to $82 million nominal14. A detailed
description of the ESD initiatives is provided in Appendix K.
The GCUH Project team believe that it is possible to achieve a sustainable hospital that is in line
with community expectations, an appropriate response to greenhouse gas emissions issue, is in
line with Queensland Health policy guidelines, and will assist in meeting staff aspirations.
The Project will, however, be registered with Greenstar in order to, in the first instance, create
dialogue with the GBCA and to influence the outcomes of development of future versions of the
Healthcare tool to ensure regional and geographical issues for future hospitals in Queensland
are addressed. If market forces reduce ESD initiative costs sufficiently and it becomes possible
to achieve an accredited Greenstar rating within the assigned budget, then this could be
pursued.
4.14
Transport and roads infrastructure

SKM has been appointed to conduct an overall site transport study and analyse car-parking
requirements.
4.14.1
External Road access

General vehicle access to the Hospital site is to be provided from the Smith Street end of
Parklands Drive and from Olsen Avenue. Additional vehicular access is to be provided from
Musgrave Avenue following road upgrades planned by the Department of Main Roads (DMR) to
Smith Street and Olsen Avenue (DMR is the road network owner and manager of these two
major thoroughfares).
Upgrades to Smith Street and Olsen Avenue, and other roads that surround the GCUH site, are
proposed at an estimated funding cost of $250 million. The proposed road upgrades consist of
the following projects:
upgrading of the existing Smith Street Connection Road/Labrador-Carrara Road (Olsen

Avenue) grade separated interchange
construction of new Smith Street Connection Road/Parklands Drive (eastern end) grade
separated interchange
construction of a signalised at grade intersection at Tonga Place at an estimated cost of

$7m
preferably (but not essential) an improved more directional left-turn off Labrador-Carrara
Road (Olsen Ave) into the western end of Parklands Drive at an estimated cost of $1m
preferably (but not essential) an improved more directional left-turn lane off Labrador Carrara Road (Olsen Ave) into Southport - Nerang Road at an estimated cost of $1m
non-signalised at grade intersection from the Hospital to connect to Musgrave Avenue to

provide an additional low-usage ambulance and emergency vehicle access point to the
surrounding local road network at an estimated cost of $1m
14
Or $47m (excluding managing contractor fees, professional fees and risk adjustments)
93
Queensland Health
September 2008
new Hospital Boulevard signalised intersection on Olsen Avenue
upgraded Parklands Drive signalised intersection on Olsen Avenue
Smith Street / Olsen Avenue interchange upgrade
new Smith Street / Parklands Drive interchange.
DMR are currently updating and refining the road upgrade costs required for the GCUH in line
with developments on the master planning for the Precinct and hospital site.
4.14.2
Internal Road access

The Hospital site traffic and transport plan will include the location and specification of the
following accesses:
between the Hospital and Parklands Drive
between the Hospital and the proposed Hospital Boulevard
between the surrounding road network and car parking areas.
between the emergency department and surrounding road network, from all approaches
between the surrounding road network and pick-up and set-down locations.
Access to the emergency department shall be clearly signed from each approach direction. A
minimum of three separate emergency access routes are proposed.
All new roads, intersections, driveways, access paths, etc. within the identified boundary of the
GCUH (refer to section 2.1.4) will be constructed and funded as part of this Project. This
includes the extension of Melia Court to the proposed Hospital Boulevard but excluded is the
new intersection of Olsen Avenue and Hospital Boulevard and the first section of Hospital
Boulevard from Olsen Avenue to the next intersection. This scope of work will be designed,
funded and constructed by the Department of Main Roads as agreed by the CEOs committee.
4.14.3
Other transport modes

In addition to general vehicle access, other transport facilities will be provided for:
Bicycle facilities
Bicycle facilities shall be provided to meet the objectives of the Queensland Cycle Strategy.
End-of-trip cycle facilities are to be fully integrated including secure undercover cycle parking,
personal lockers, shower and change facilities. Cycle parking for visitors and couriers will be
located in convenient and safe locations and protected from adverse weather conditions.
Motorcycles
Motorcycle parking zones will be provided to meet anticipated demand. As an incentive to
reduce car driver trips to the Hospital, the master plan will assess the potential for separate
undercover parking areas for small scooters.
Public transport facilities.
The Queensland Government has identified the proposed Gold Coast Rapid Transit (GCRT)
System as a priority Project in SEQIPP with a cost estimate of $1.67 billion. This Project is a
94
Queensland Health
September 2008
major public transport spine linking the Gold Coast rail line at Helensvale to Griffith University
and Southport, and then following the coastline to Broadbeach and ultimately to Coolangatta.
On 22 August 2008, the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations
noted the outcomes of the preliminary business case to date, which lean towards light rail as the
preferred mode and Project delivery being staged, with priority given to the section from Griffith
University to Broadbeach. The GCRT system will be of significant benefit to the Hospital,
providing an alternate mode of transport for bringing patients, staff, visitors and students to the
Precinct and the Hospital.
Queensland Transport is planning the development of the GCRT Project and has indicated a
station servicing Griffith University and the GCUH is a priority for the Project. Construction of
this station is included in the first stage of the Project. Queensland Transport advise that the
rapid transit construction works adjoining the new hospital can be completed by December
2012, however the GCRT will not be operational by this time. Queensland Transport will
provide bus arrangement to service the hospital until the GCRT is operational. A joint working
group, facilitated by DIP, involving Queensland Health, Queensland Transport, GCCC and
Griffith University is negotiating a whole of government outcome for the public transport
interface within the hospital and university precinct.
Other public transport facilities will be incorporated in order to support the public transport
components of the Precinct Framework. This will include pedestrian access between the
proposed rapid transit stations and proposed bus stops on Parklands Drive.
4.15
Car park facilities
4.15.1
Procurement approach
As part of the initial business case, a car parking financial analysis was prepared in November
2007 discussing the proposed options for delivery of the car parking facilities. A copy of this
report is located in Appendix D.
Queensland Health subsequently decided to procure the car parking facilities required for the
GCUH under a Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) style procurement process.
The car parking facilities comprise a minimum of 3,000 spaces in two separate vertical
structures (the East and West Car Park), with the East Car Park to be completed by August
2010 to ensure sufficient parking is available for construction workers and commissioning of the
hospital.
The lease term is expected to be between 20 and 25 years.
Queensland Health has commenced the competitive tender process to select the BOOT
partner. The BOOT partner is proposed to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of
all car parking spaces allowing for optimisation of operating costs across all car parks.
Expression for Detailed EOI closed on 25 August 2008. Queensland will release RFP
documentation in September with RFP anticipated to close in November 2008 and contractual
close targeted for March/April 2009.
95
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.15.2
Car parking tariff

The staff car parking rates need to be agreed between Queensland Health and the private
operator/consortium. The car parking financial analysis undertaken in November 2007 indicated
that the car park facilities are unlikely be delivered at zero cost to Queensland Heath without car
parking tariffs applicable to staff and visitors being increased by between 20% and 30% as
compared to current parking rates applicable for staff working at the Royal Brisbane Hospital
and Princess Alexandra Hospital.
4.16
Facilities management services

Queensland Health is considering the possibility of entering into a Facilities Management
contract with a Managing Contractor and/or a nominated third party provider. The specialist
provider would provide certain facilities management services over a 20 year operational phase,
commencing upon completion of construction of the GCUH. Collecting like elements into the
overall ambit of responsibility of a facilities manager should result in better initial installation or
choice of plant and or equipment.
Alternatively these services would be managed by a facilities manager within Queensland
Health, with some outsourcing to third parties through supply agreements. The Queensland
Health Strategic Working Group for Industrial Relations is in the process of assessing the
industrial relation issues pertaining to this opportunity and is expected to provide feedback in
late 2008.
The following services are proposed for inclusion in either a facilities management contract or
within the remit of a facilities management group provided by Queensland Health:
4.16.1
building maintenance
grounds maintenance responsibility
external cleaning
utilities Management
facilities Management helpdesk and associated management services.
Building maintenance
Facilities management will provide a comprehensive building maintenance service on a full
lifecycle basis. The service will cover all facilities on the GCUH campus and will include
Group 1 equipment items such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning plant, lifts, and
fixtures and fittings, which could be within a Managing Contractors remit. Equipment items in
Group 2 and Group 3 would generally be acquired, maintained and replaced by Queensland
Health in accordance with conventional maintenance arrangements.
Queensland Health will prepare a specification setting out its requirements in relation to the
following building maintenance services:
maintenance planning
planned and preventative maintenance
programmed replacement maintenance
96
Queensland Health
September 2008
statutory maintenance, testing, auditing and certification
reactive maintenance
condition-based survey.
Maintenance planning
The facilities manager will be required to prepare monthly and annual maintenance plans setting
out the activities and rosters to be implemented over the relevant period in various parts of the
facility. The plans will reflect the requirements of condition based surveys, planned and
preventative maintenance activities and programmed replacement maintenance. In addition, the
facilities manager may be required to prepare five-year plans setting out the programmed
replacement maintenance to be carried out over the period. Under a Managing Contractor
arrangement the facilities manager would also be required to prepare maintenance manuals
comprehensively setting out the detailed information and procedures essential to effective
management of the maintenance services.
Planned and preventative maintenance
The facilities manager will be required to perform preventative and condition-based
maintenance and associated testing and inspection services. Under a Managing Contractor
arrangement the facilities manager would need to provide scheduled maintenance activities to
ensure that all elements within the facilities meet certain specified minimum condition standards.
Programmed replacement maintenance
The facilities manager will be responsible for replacing facility components in accordance with a
pre-agreed program reflecting appropriate component life-cycles.
Statutory maintenance, testing, auditing and certification
The facilities manager will be responsible for carrying out maintenance, testing, auditing and
certification to ensure the facilities comply with applicable laws and with the requirements of the
facility maintenance plans. This may include, for example, maintenance and testing of back-up
generators, emergency lighting, fire systems, and some communications systems.
Reactive maintenance
The facilities manager will provide a reactive maintenance service to rectify any damage,
defects or other faults in the facilities. The facilities manager must carry out the reactive
maintenance to ensure that the facilities comply with minimum condition standards determined
by Queensland Health. Under a Managing Contractor arrangement comprehensive
specifications would be set out with response and rectification times and other requirements that
must be met in relation to different types and severity of building and equipment failure.
Condition-based survey
The facilities manager will generally be required to carry out a condition based survey of the
facilities at least every five years to record elements that do not comply with the minimum
maintenance standards and to describe the maintenance program that is necessary to
implement all necessary repair, replacement and refurbishment activities.
97
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.16.2
External cleaning
The facilities manager will be required to carry out a programmed clean of external surfaces of
the facility on an annual basis. Under a Managing Contractor arrangement the facilities manager
would develop a manual detailing the procedures to be followed to carry out the cleaning to
comply with minimum standards that will be specified by Queensland Health.
4.16.3
Grounds maintenance
The facilities manager will be responsible for maintenance of the campus grounds including
lawns and gardens, internal roads, pathways and other paved areas, external lighting, furniture
and other elements of external infrastructure. The service will not include maintenance of the
car parks which will be provide by a private car park operator under a separate BOOT contract.
The service will involve reactive maintenance and planned and preventative maintenance of the
Hospital grounds. Under a Managing Contractor arrangement the facilities manager would be
required to provide an operating manual detailing how it will provide the services to meet
minimum standards that will be set out in the service specification provided by Queensland
Health.
4.16.4
Utilities management service

The facilities manager will be responsible for ensuring the continuous provision of the following
utilities to the facilities:
electricity
gas
fuel oil
water
sewerage
surface water, stormwater and in-ground water disposal.
The facilities manager will be required to maintain supply from the relevant utilities meter and to
ensure that adequate capacity is provided to supply the requirements of the GCUH under
foreseeable operating conditions. The service will include:
undertaking all testing, cleaning and maintenance, including complying with any reasonable
requirements of the utility provider
providing and ensuring backup systems are continually operational and there is no
interruption in the provision of emergency backup systems
complying with policies for energy management and energy conservation
developing and implementing contingency plans for addressing and minimising the affect of
the possible loss of one or more Utilities
providing adequate sub-metering to support Queensland Healths utilities reporting

requirements, including any arrangements that are entered into by the parties to share the
risk of energy consumption.
98
Queensland Health
September 2008
Under a Managing Contractor arrangement, Queensland Health could transfer a level of energy
volume risk to the facilities manager to incentivise the Managing Contractor to implement
energy efficient designs and building management systems and to actively promote energy
conservation measures during the term of the operations contract.
4.16.5
Helpdesk and associated management services

The facilities manager will be required to establish a helpdesk which will operate 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week and to be the primary point of communication for all requests regarding
the delivery of facilities management services. In particular, the helpdesk will accept notification
of faults and complaints relating to the facility management services, coordinate facilities
management responses to service failures and provide a system for logging and reporting calls,
service failures, incidents, work orders and a range of other relevant information.
The helpdesk will be required to use appropriate software applications to support the above
functions. In particular, the software application will be required to support performance
monitoring and to generate a monthly performance report which will support the monthly invoice
and will calculate the level of any payment abatements that are applicable because of service
failures.
Queensland Healths service specification may require the facilities manager to undertake a
range of management services that are complementary to its facilities management services.
These management services may include activities such as quality assurance; disaster, fire and
emergency management; employee training; occupational health, safety and rehabilitation; risk
management and similar activities.
4.17

The profile of the GCUH, being a major tertiary / super-speciality hospital for South East
Queensland, together with other planned tertiary hospitals for the region, prompted an
investigation by Queensland Healths Capital Works & Asset Management Branch (CW&AMB)
into the optimal proportion of single beds to multiple beds.
three major hospital projects (including the GCUH Project) were to proceed on the basis of the
infectious patients
80% single rooms for high acute ward environments
60% single rooms for variable acuity medical wards
It should be noted that the room sizes will vary from 24m2 (critical care), to 15-18m2
(high/variable acuity) to 12m2 (mental health). Queensland Health is also undertaking some
further analysis of the recurrent costing associated with the increased amount of the single bed
rooms.
99
Queensland Health
September 2008
Applying these principles has increased the single bed ratio for inpatient units from current
Queensland allowances of 25% to between 71% and 75%. Along with an increase in the
proportion of single bed rooms, the Queensland Health recommended single room size for the
GCUH is an increase from the current AHFG room size of 15m2 to 16.5m2. The increase in
proportion of single rooms together with the increase in room sizes results in a requirement for
an additional space of 5,123 m2.
Increasing the number of single-bed rooms will also have an impact on other rooms and spaces
within the Hospital, for example, circulation areas will increase from the standard 32% to 40%.
A pod ward design with decentralised staff stations and supplies is also proposed.
4.17.1
Studies supporting single beds

The significant increase in single-beds to multi-beds is based on the findings and
recommendations of the CW&AMB investigation that reviewed over 150 evidence based
research studies. Of particular relevance to the investigation were recent studies undertaken by
the European Health Property Network UK (2004), and the American Institute of Architects
(2006). The Fiona Stanley Hospital Assessment of the use of single patient rooms (August
2007) was also used as a key reference for the study.
The CW&AMB literature review identified a strong body of opinion which suggests that an
increase in provision of single-bed rooms will help to improve performance and reduce costs
simultaneously, by decreasing the risks of adverse clinical events and increasing operational
efficiencies. These findings are discussed further in the sections below.
The proposed single bed allocation for the GCUH is consistent with worldwide trends. In
Australia, the Royal Childrens Hospital in Melbourne is planning for 80-90% single bed rooms,
while the Fiona Stanley Hospital in WA has recommended 83% inpatient single bed rooms plus
100% single-bed rooms in ICU, short stay and mental health units.
Recent studies conducted in Australia and internationally (particularly Europe and the United
States) provide strong arguments for an increase in the proportion of single-bed rooms. Studies
recommend that decisions for the optimal single-bed ratio should reflect the population profile of
the Hospital and clinical service mix. Accordingly, a tertiary teaching hospital will have a higher
preferred single-bed ratio compared to secondary and community hospitals.
The findings of these studies point to a number of benefits for increasing the number of single
patient rooms and these are summarised below. However, potential risks should also be
acknowledged including the creation of public and clinical expectations of single rooms,
potential for increased staffing costs and possible shift in demand from privately insured
patients.
4.17.2
Benefits of increased single-bed
4.17.2.1
Infection control
It is estimated that around 35% of healthcare-associated infections are acquired from other
inpatients. The associated cost to Queensland hospitals is estimated to be around $2.8 million
per 100,000 population per year. The proximity of patients in a multi-bed environment and staff
behaviour leading to person to person transmission (e.g. contact by hands) have been cited as
contributing to the spread of infections. The risk of infection has been found to increase in
higher acuity settings as there is a greater proportion of immuno-compromised patients. An
100
Queensland Health
September 2008
increase in multi-resistant pathogens and ageing population are seen as risks to infection
control.
Evidence based design studies have found that the provision of single patient rooms contributes
to lowering the incidences of hospital acquired infections. Reasons include better protection
against airborne pathogen transmission by enabling isolation of patients; restricting pathogen
transmission by direct contact; and encouraging culture change toward hand washing. There
are of course a range of important factors to controlling infection rates including an appropriate
design to re-enforce behavioural change.
The annual potential savings through effective isolation of infectious patients in single-bed
rooms is estimated at between $0.25 to $1 million per 100,000 population.
4.17.2.2
Reduction in clinical errors

Medication dispensing errors have been found to increase with noise distractions and
interruptions typically associated with multi-bed rooms. Multi-patient rooms often necessitate
patient transfers and this is another source of medication error due to delays, communication
discontinuities among staff and loss of information for example.
4.17.2.3
Reduction in patient falls and injuries

Patient falls is the second highest cost associated with adverse events in hospitals in the United
States. Additional costs result from extended lengths of stay, morbidity, mortality and litigation.
Improved single-bed room visibility, designs that encourage a presence of family and carers and
decentralised staff stations help to increase surveillance and therefore reduce patient fall
incidents.
4.17.2.4
Shorter length of stay

Single bed rooms can also contribute to shortening length of stay periods. International studies
(for example Ulrich et al., 200415) indicate that the physical environment strongly impacts
hospital-acquired infection rates and that evidence-based design measures (including climate
and sunlight influences) play a key role in shortening hospital stays. Other international studies
have attempted to estimate the impact on the length of stay of patients that have hospital
acquired infections (HAI).
In particular, a study undertaken in the UK16 estimated that the average length of stay of nonHAI patients was 7.6 days compared to HAI patients of 21.7 days. The reduction in length of
stay provides for a greater capacity for the facility in terms of population it can serve and hence
net reduction in overall health costs for the district.
4.17.2.5
Patient impacts
The GCUH design principles embrace a positive healing environment. Single-bed rooms create
a more therapeutic environment which provide patients with more control and choice over their
environment, thereby reducing stress levels and improving healing. Increased patient privacy
and patient satisfaction are further benefits of the single-room concept.
15
Ulrich, R.S., Zimring, C., Joseph, A., Quan, X., and Choudhary, R. (2004). The role of the physical environment in
the hospital of the 21st century: A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
16
R.Plowman, N Graves, M.A.S. Griffin, J.A. Roberts, A.V. Swan, B Cookson and L. Taylor: The rate and cost of
hospital acquired infections in patients admitted to selected specialties of a district general hospital is England and the
national burden imposed. Journal of Hospital Infection 2001 47:198-209.
101
Queensland Health
September 2008
4.17.3
Cost impacts
4.17.3.1
Capital cost impacts

The following table shows the impact of the additional 5,123 m2 on the Proposed Delivery Model
Capital Cost Estimate of $38.4 million in nominal dollar terms.
Table 4.11 Additional space due to increase single rooms (by planning unit)
Additional space due to single rooms
Planning Unit
Floor Space (m2)
Nominal $M
1,940
14.5
240
1.8
Division of Surgery and Critical Care Services
375
2.8
620
4.6
360
2.7
Division of Community, Allied, Rehabilitation and Aged

Services
240
1.8
3,775
28.3
Travel
604
4.5
Plant
744
5.6
5,123
38.4
Sub total
Total increase in area

Source: GCUH Architecture, DLA
4.17.3.2
Facilities cost impact

The facilities management additional operating cost of the increased single bed space allocation
is shown in the following table in 1 July 2007 terms.
Table 4.5 Additional facility cost associated with increased single beds
Facilities management cost category
Annualised life cycle costs
July 2007 dollars

($ 000)
899
Annual electricity, gas and water costs

Internal Cleaning
Total recurrent costs
497
307
1,703
Source: Source: DLA

Notes:
1
Life cycle costs (LCC) includes a capex and opex component. The capex component is the annualised cost of
replacement or renewal items of a capital nature. The opex component includes all mandatory and nonmandatory maintenance and outgoings.
4.17.3.3
LCC excludes internal portage, internal cleaning and waste management
LCC costs includes help desk, external cleaning to the facades and grounds and for a Facility Manager.
Other recurrent costs

An impact analysis of other recurrent costs associated with the increase in single beds is
currently being developed by Queensland Health. However, this information will not be finalised
until after the submission of this Business Case. It is understood that the analysis will include
the impact on staffing levels and the potential recurrent cost savings impact.
102
Queensland Health
September 2008
Staffing levels
Initial research by the CW&AMB indicates that the levels of nursing staff is not expected to be
significantly impacted as a result of increasing the proportion of single-bed rooms. This is
primarily due to the following assumptions:
The proposed new pod ward design is implemented with appropriate designs to increase
visibility into patient rooms (e.g. increased use of glass) together with decentralised staff
and supplies stations.
Staff workloads will continue to be allocated via a patient-nurse dependency system.
Various international studies support the initial findings by the CW&AMB in relation to
minimal staffing levels impacts. In particular, the Fiona Stanley Hospital Business Case
(August 2007) cites the following studies:
Heindrich et al. (2004) reported that in hospitals that adopted single patient room concept,
combined with adequate decentralised nursing bases and supplies, staffing ratio did not
increase, and in fact marginally declined. Chaudhury and colleagues (2003) observed that
although monitoring of patients and staffing was initially considered somewhat problematic
in both single and double rooms, the multiple advantages (e.g. control over infection
transmission, flexibility for families, less medication and diet errors, suitability for
confidentiality, faster recovery rate, etc.) rapidly outweighed the initial concerns. The same
study reported that staff efficiency was found to be greater in single patient rooms.
Moreover, there are currently no published peer-reviewed studies indicating an increase in
staffing requirements linked with single patient rooms.
Extracted from the Fiona Stanley Hospital Business Case (August 2007)
Recurrent cost impact savings

The initial research conducted by the CW&AMB suggests that these should decrease due to
better infection control and potential reductions in adverse clinical events. Single patient rooms
have been associated with a more efficient environment to achieve improved bed utilisation,
shorter lengths of stay and reduced patient transfers leading to reduced recurrent costs.
As noted earlier a detailed cost impact analysis is currently being undertaken by Queensland
Health and this will include a recurrent cost savings analysis. In relation to savings through
effective isolation of infectious patients, the GCHSD has initially estimated these savings to be
in the range of $0.25m - $1.0m.
4.17.4
Decision to increase the proportion of Single Beds

The capital cost of this increase required is $35.6m in nominal terms, and less than 2% of the
Proposed Delivery Model Capital Cost Estimate. Recurrent additional operating costs are
$1.7m and less than 2.5% of the annual average Facilities Maintenance and Management
estimate. An impact analysis of recurrent cost savings (matching the benefits outlined above) is
currently being developed by Queensland Health. It is noted that the policy position of
Queensland Health will only be confirmed once the recurrent cost studies currently underway
are completed.
Queensland Health believes when considering the marginal relative cost of this decision to the
overall budget, that the qualitative (and quantitative) evidence presented in this Business Case
together with the results of the recurrent cost study is sufficient to validate the policy position.
103
Queensland Health
September 2008

This chapter of the Business Case provides information on the selected procurement method for
the GCUH Project. In particular it describes:
5.1
the selection of the proposed procurement method
definition of the proposed procurement method
key commercial principles of the proposed procurement method
proposed project plan including indicative timetable and resources.

The decision making process in relation to the selection of the proposed procurement approach
for the GCUH has been completed separately to this Business Case process. The Cabinet
Budget Review Committee in April 2007 determined that the current Business Case for the
GCUH Project would not consider an option for delivery of the hospital as a Private Finance
Initiative/Public Private Partnership.
In determining the preferred procurement method, the Department of Public Works (DPW)
undertook extensive consultation with Tier 1 (major) contractors given the current
unprecedented level of construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas. There
are currently nine Tier 1 Building Contractors servicing the Queensland market. Consultation in
early 2007 included formal meetings between DPWs Deputy Director General (Works) and
Director Contracts and the CEO level of each of the major contractors.
This consultation resulted in the decision to tailor procurement strategies to attract an
appropriate tender market for the major projects. These strategies have included key factors
that contractors noted as important to be attracted to the State Government building works,
including:
a general registration of interest in early 2007 to encourage forward planning of projects to

enable contractors to better plan for undertaking government work
a more specific Expression of Interest in April 2007 based on the 14 Government building
contracts known to be going to tender within the next 18 months to 2 years. The
Expressions of Interest were scored by an evaluation team and contractors ranked by score
for each Project. The interest in the Project, the ranking order, an acceptable level of score,
projects won at tender and eligibility under the DPW PQC system were factors in
determining the final select tender list.
agreement with industry to a Managing Contractor form of contract well known to industry
but including provision for early contractor involvement to enable contractors to not only
provide value adding services to the Project, but also to enable the contractors to secure the
required supply-chain resources early (e.g. trade subcontractors).
The key stakeholders for the GCUH Project (Queensland Health, DPW, Treasury, Department
of Infrastructure and Planning) in March 2007 participated at a number of procurement analysis
workshops which considered a range of procurement methods for the Project including
Alliancing, Design, Construction and Maintenance and Managing Contractor and hybrids of
these three methods. The participants at the workshop identified a number of advantages for
the Managing Contractor method.
104
Queensland Health
September 2008
Queensland Health and the DPW endorsed the selection of the Managing Contractor
Guaranteed Construction Sum as the proposed procurement method for the GCUH in April
2007. The proposed advantages given for the selection of the procurement method included:
the appointment of the Managing Contractor at an early stage ensures that, in a period of
unprecedented construction activity in the building and civil infrastructure areas, the Project
has certainty of construction resources
provides a greater degree of price certainty once the Guaranteed Construction Sum is
agreed between parties
allows Queensland Health to commence work on the Project quickly and easily as not all
issues need to be resolved prior to the appointment of the Managing Contractor
reduces Queensland Healths exposure to design and construction risks as the risks are
transferred to the Managing Contractor.
The Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum is also the procurement method that
has predominantly been used by Queensland Health to undertake major capital works over the
past decade. Further details on the advantages and disadvantages of the Managing Contractor
procurement model are provided in Section 5.4.
5.2

In delivering the Project with the Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum
procurement method there are three further distinct phases to be completed following the
completion of the Master Plan and the Project Definition Plan, including:
the development of the Schematic Design phase completed by the Project Team including a
Building Consultant and the appointment of a Managing Contractor to proceed to the next
stage of the procurement process.
the Managing Contractor undertaking the Developed Design phase and producing a
Guaranteed Construction Sum (GCS) Offer. The GCS Offer is assessed and upon
agreement of acceptable terms the Managing Contractor is appointed. This phase will
include early works packages.
the Managing Contractor undertaking construction work, commissioning work and all other
design work and documentation work not completed in the previous phase.
The three phases and the key tasks to be completed in each phase are outlined in the following
table.
Table 5.1 Key procurement phases
appointed

approval
The Project Team & Building

Consultant (BC):
The Project Team and MC:
The MC and the Project Team:
complete the Developed Design

for the facility
The MC:
complete the Construction

Documentation (Project Team
reviews)
completes construction of the

facility (Project Team reviews
and makes progress payments
to MC)
complete decanting into the
complete the Schematic Design

finalise the draft Contractual Terms
for Managing Contractor (MC)
Contract
prepare revised Project Capital

Budget
The Project Team:
engages consultants
prepares GCS
submits proposal including GCS
to Project Team
105
Queensland Health
September 2008

appointed

approval
The Project Team:
Prepares the Request for Tender

Documentation for the MC and
conducts the process
Provides updated Business Case
(e.g. revised Capital Budget) to
CBRC for endorsement
Reviews the MCs proposal and

if required further negotiates
price and terms
Seeks approval from

Queensland Health to accept the
offer
Appoints the MC to complete

Developed Design and submit
proposal including GCS
new facility
Complete the defects liability

period for the facility (Project
Team reviews)
Phase 1 - Schematic Design and the appointment of the Managing Contractor

A Building Consultant has been appointed as part of the consultant team to complete the
Project Definition Plan and Schematic Design. The role of the Building Consultant in the
development of the Schematic Design is to provide key subcontractors input into the design
stages, allowing (amongst other benefits), resources and industry production rate constraints to
be factored into the overall Project planning as well as value management and constructability
advice.
Appointment of the Building Consultant
Two construction companies were asked to formally tender for the Project role as the Building
Consultant. The two construction companies were Bovis Lend Lease and John Holland.
In tendering for this consultancy, tenderers submitted a proposal which contained fees for
undertaking the services and they also addressed specific non-price selection criteria including
their proposed resources, experience and capacity to provide consultancy design advice in the
development of the Project Definition Plan and Schematic Design.
The tendered proposals were evaluated and Bovis Lend Lease was selected as the Building
Consultant.
Other major consultants employed for the Project include:
Project Manager
Quantity Surveyor
Programmer
Principal Consultant and Architect
Services Engineers
Civil and Structural Engineers.
As part of the Schematic Design phase the proposed Capital Estimate is further refined by
taking into account the additional design work and technical studies completed.
The contractual terms and conditions of the Managing Contractor Contract are finalised during
this phase. Managing Contractor tenderer(s) will be required to tender:
106
Queensland Health
September 2008
fees to undertake the works including management fees, off site overheads, profit, onsite
overheads and consultant fees
proposed resources to complete the design and construction of the facility including
proposed personnel and their capacity and commitment to the Project
experience of the organisation and personnel proposed
methodology for the construction of the proposed facility.
One or more tenderers may be invited to tender for the role of the Managing Contractor. While
the Building Consultant role is only to the end of the Schematic Design, there is an intention the
Building Consultant will be invited to submit a tender for the role of Managing Contractor.
However, there is no contractual requirement for this to occur. The State can invite only the
Building Consultant to submit a proposal or alternatively can invite other organisations not
including the Building Consultant to submit proposals. The Building Consultant shall be invited
to tender for the Managing Contractor role as a single select tenderer.
The Project Team will also provide an updated Business Case to the Cabinet Budget Review
Committee which will contain the revised capital estimate. CBRC endorsement of the Business
Case will provide the basis for a request to Governor-in-Council for funding approval for the
endorsed Project sum.
The Project Team will evaluate the proposal received from the Building Consultant to act as
Managing Contractor and will make a recommendation.
The State will then appoint the Managing Contractor to proceed with the Developed Design
process and the preparation of a Guaranteed Construction Sum Offer.
For the remaining phases of the Project, the Project Manager, Quantity Surveyor and
Programmer will provide audit role services. All of the other consultants commissions with the
State will end and they will be engaged by the Managing Contractor for the Developed Design
Process and subsequent stages.
To meet the predetermined completion date of December 2012, a Prior Works contract has
been implemented. The Building Consultant was asked to tender on a medium works contract
that will be rolled into the Managing Contractor contract as early works. The significant scope of
works in the Prior Works contract is bulk earthworks, demolition and fencing.
Phase 2 Agree Guaranteed Construction Sum and obtain approval to proceed
(Developed Design)
The Managing Contractor will work with the Project Team to undertake the Developed Design
phase. The Developed Design phase will result in a design that has been developed to the
stage where the scope, spatial requirements, functionality and quality standards of the Project
are sufficiently detailed to allow the Project to be costed and constructed with a suitable degree
of certainty. Where approved, documentation and construction of early works packages may
also be undertaken.
Based on the work completed in the Developed Design phase and earlier work, the Managing
Contractor will prepare a Guaranteed Construction Sum Offer. The Guaranteed Construction
Sum is the maximum price payable to perform construction work for the proposed Project. The
107
Queensland Health
September 2008
Managing Contractor will then submit to the State the Guaranteed Construction Sum as part of
a GCS Offer for consideration. The GCS Offer will include:
a Guaranteed Construction Sum
a time for Practical Completion
documentation identifying the design upon which the Guaranteed Construction Sum is
based, including a revised Project Brief whereby any changes from the original Project Brief
are clearly shown
an elemental cost plan
the Managing Contractors proposed trade package breakup and estimate for each trade
package.
On behalf of the State, the GCS Offer shall in the first instance be reviewed by the Project Team
(i.e. Principals Representative, Project Director, Project Manager, Audit Quantity Surveyor and
Audit Programmer). The State has the option of either rejecting or accepting the GCS Offer. If
the GCS Offer is considered acceptable (i.e. consistent with the funding allocation approved by
Governor-in-Council) then the Project Team will seek approval from Queensland Health to
accept the GCS Offer.
However, if the GCS Offer is considered unacceptable then the following options are available:
further negotiate, with the Managing Contractor, the Guaranteed Construction Sum, scope
of work and/or terms and conditions of the contract until an acceptable outcome is achieved
terminate the Managing Contractor Contract. The State may then invite other organisation to
submit GCS Offers based on the documents that have been produced through the
Schematic Design and Developed Design phases. The State will then assess the submitted
GCS Offers and again has the option to either accept or reject the GCS Offer.
Upon acceptance of a GCS Offer, contractual close is reached and the Project proceeds to the
next phase of procurement (i.e. Construction Documentation and Construction).
Phase 3 Construction Process
Upon acceptance of the GCS Offer the Managing Contractor will be responsible for the
completion of the design and construction of the Gold Coast University Hospital and associated
infrastructure. If facilities management is also incorporated into the contract then the Managing
Contractor will provide these services for the length of the contract term. The major tasks to be
completed during this phase include:
completion of the Developed Design and Construction Documentation process. This task is
completed by the Managing Contractor and includes the finalisation of the design
documents and work packages. The Project Team will review and monitor the Construction
Documentation
construction of the facility. The Managing Contractor will be responsible for the management
of the construction process and the Project Team will review and monitor construction and
also administer the contract. During the construction process the State will make
progressive payments to the Managing Contractor for the construction of the Project
108
Queensland Health
September 2008
5.3
commissioning of the facility. The Managing Contractor will complete the predetermined
commissioning tests required for the facility. The Project Team will monitor the
commissioning process
decanting into the new facility. The decanting process will include the transfer of
predetermined furniture, fixtures, plant, equipment, records, staff and patients from the
existing Southport campus to the new facility. The decanting process is likely to be
conducted on a progressive basis
completion of the Defects Liability Period. The Defects Liability Period is a set period of time
in which the Managing Contractor has to be available to quickly and efficiently resolve any
defects that appear. The Managing Contractor contract will include provisions where a level
of security (e.g. retention of money or performance bonds) is held by the State until the
Defects Liability Period is satisfactorily completed.
The final contract terms and conditions of the Contract are finalised. These terms and
conditions were developed in parallel with the design process. A Draft Managing Contractor
Two Stage Design and Construction Management Contract was provided in the Building
Consultants tender documents as a guide and the final contract is similar. The contract for this
Project is a Managing Contractor Design and Construction Management Stage One with option
for Stage Two (Negotiated Guaranteed Construction Sum). The key commercial principles
included in the Managing Contractor contract documents are discussed below.
5.3.1
General risk allocation

The Managing Contractor warrants to the Principal that the Managing Contractor has
investigated and satisfied itself of the adequacy and suitability of the GCS offer Project brief and
the contract to enable the Managing Contractor to perform all of the work under the contract
without limitation in accordance with the Contract. In particular the Managing Contractor
warrants the sufficiency of the Guaranteed Construction Sum.
In general terms the Project risks are transferred from the State to the Managing Contractor
following acceptance of the GCS Offer and the high level proposed allocation of risks is shown
in the following table:
Table 5.2 High-level risk allocation
Risk
Design and documentation
Actual cost of construction
Scope changes
Inadequate Project brief or GCS offer brief
Wet weather
Latent conditions as defined in the contract
Defective design
Authority approvals
Escalation
Fit for intended purpose
Managing
Contractor
9
9
State
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
109
Queensland Health
September 2008
Risk
Defective workmanship
Industrial (site specific)
Principal delays Managing Contractor in decision making
Delay in delivery of Group 2 and Group 3 FF&E
Labour shortage
Subcontractor default
Environmental
Noise, dust and nuisances
Performance warranties
Consultant performance
Statutory changes
Managing
Contractor
9
9
State
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A more detailed risk matrix is provided in Appendix C to this Business Case, which includes a
description of the identified risks, their proposed allocation, a mitigation strategy and an
indicative quantification.
5.3.2
Performance bonding (security)

It is proposed that the Managing Contractor will be required to provide security and retention
moneys. All security provided by the Managing Contractor shall be in the form of either cash or
an approved unconditional undertaking given by an approved financial institution or insurance
company.
During Stage two, the proposed amount of retention moneys or security in lieu of retention
moneys is 10% of each progress payment up to a limit of 5% of the Guaranteed Construction
Sum. At Practical Completion it is anticipated that the amount of retention moneys or security is
reduced to 50%. Following the issue of the Final Certificate, the remaining retention moneys or
security is released.
5.3.3
Liquidated damages
Queensland Health and Department of Public Works have agreed that Liquidated Damages
clauses will not be included in the contract. However there is a maximum liability of the
Managing Contractor to the Principal for costs and damages for failure to reach Practical
Completion of the Works within a reasonable time. The limit is $50million.
5.3.4
Defects liability period

The Defects Liability Period is 12 months. However, a 24 months Defects Liability Period will
apply to nominated plant / services.
5.3.5
Foreign Currency Exchange Risks

The Contract will allow for variations in rates of foreign exchange and duty. The Managing
Contractor has to nominate, prior to Stage Two of the Contract, those goods from overseas that
will be subject to foreign exchange and duty. The Contract provides a formula for adjusting the
values of overseas goods.
110
Queensland Health
September 2008
5.3.6
Insurance
Insurance provisions for the Contract are being finalised. A Principal Arranged Insurance
Program is being implemented and a current State Government contract is being extended for
this Project. Insurances that may be required are as follows:
insurance against loss or damage to the Works.
public liability and third party insurance
professional indemnity insurance
insurance of employees.
Appropriate levels of insurance will be determined during the tender of the Managing
Contractor.
5.3.7
Price
The Guaranteed Construction Sum is the maximum price that may be payable by the Principal
to the Managing Contractor to perform all construction work, as adjusted in accordance with the
provisions of the Contract. Construction work excludes onsite overheads, off site overheads,
design work and documentation work.
This contract allows for a construction bonus which is applied when the final Actual Construction
Sum is less than the adjusted Guaranteed Construction Sum. The Managing Contractor
receives a 20% bonus on the difference to a maximum 2% of the Actual Construction Sum.
In developing the Contract, discussions were held with the Building Consultant to assist in
ascertaining appropriate commercial terms for the contract. The Managing Contractor shall
engage key subcontractors for Stage One to advise on design and costs and will tender
approximately 75% of trade packages for the GCS Offer.
5.3.8
Termination provisions
The contract includes a number of instances where termination may occur:
substantial breach of Contract by either the Managing Contractor or State
insolvency
frustration
rejection of Guaranteed Construction Sum offer
at the Principals sole discretion.
Where there is a substantial breach of contract by the Managing Contractor, the State may take
out of the hands of the Managing Contractor the whole or part of the work remaining to be
completed or may terminate the Contract. The Managing Contractors exposure is not limited to
just costs and damages.
Where there is a substantial breach of contract by the State, the Managing Contractor may
suspend the whole or any part of the work under the Contract. This may end in termination. The
Managing Contractor shall be entitled to recover any damages.
111
Queensland Health
September 2008
Where the Managing Contractor becomes insolvent, the State may take out of the hands of the
Managing Contractor the whole or part of the work remaining to be completed or may terminate
the Contract. Termination may also occur if the Contract becomes frustrated. The State shall
pay the Managing Contractor for work completed and incurred. The State may take possession
of drawings, specifications and other information.
Under the contract, the Managing Contractor submits a GCS offer. The State may accept the
Managing Contractors GCS offer or reject the Managing Contractors GCS offer. If the
Managing Contractors GCS offer is rejected by the State, the State may terminate the Contract.
The State may also go to tender with any of the documents that have been produced. If the
Managing Contractor has not submitted a GCS offer within the nominated time frame then there
is a substantial breach.
The State may at any time at its sole discretion and without obligation to act reasonably, by
written notice to the Managing Contractor terminate the Contract. The State shall pay the
Managing Contractor for work completed and incurred. The State may take possession of
drawings, specifications and other information. The State shall not be liable to the Managing
Contractor for any cost, loss, expense or damage incurred by the Managing Contractor
including without limitation compensation for loss of profits.
5.3.9
Maintenance and facility management

As previously addressed in section 4.16, some maintenance and facility management services
are currently being investigated by Queensland Health to determine the extent that
maintenance and facility management may be included within the contract of a Managing
Contractor.
To achieve this, Queensland Health in conjunction with the Department of Public Works have
engaged a facilities management consultant to work with the Asset Management Unit of
Queensland Health to determine a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) for maintenance
levels/activities that can be used across all health facilities.
In addition to this, Bovis Lend Lease (BLL) in its role as Building Consultant, has engaged a
separate facilities management consultant to review the adequacy of the Schematic Design
report in relation to whole of life considerations. This consultancy has been extended to
include the production of the necessary documentation to allow BLL to tender and appoint
(notionally) two facilities management providers to work with the design team throughout the
Detailed Design phase of the Project. The intent of this is to then allow the two facilities
management providers to submit, for Queensland Healths consideration, a fully costed
proposal at the end of the Detailed Design phase for long term or extended maintenance of the
facilities.
5.4
Advantages and disadvantages (Managing Contractor Guaranteed

Construction Sum)
The following table identifies potential advantages and disadvantages associated with this
approach.
112
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 5.3 Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum Advantages and

disadvantages
Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum
Key Advantages
Key Disadvantages
provides a greater degree of price certainty

once the Guaranteed Construction Sum is
agreed between parties
allows Queensland Health to commence work

on the Project quickly and easily as not all
issues need to be resolved prior to the
appointment of the Managing Contractor
reduces Queensland Healths exposure to

design and construction risks as the risks are
transferred to the Managing Contractor
the appointment of the Managing Contractor at

an early stage ensures that, in a period of
unprecedented construction activity in the
building and civil infrastructure areas, the
Project has certainty of construction resources.
the Guaranteed Construction Sum for the

Project is not competitively tendered but
rather a negotiation between the State and
the Managing Contractor this may result in
a price premium to the State
the time saved by commencing early can be

lost if the Managing Contractor fails to submit
an acceptable GCS Offer and the
procurement process is delayed leading to
a delay in delivery of the Project.
Mitigation strategies for the Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum procurement
method disadvantages include:
Where the State believes the GCS Offer does not offer value for money then the State has
the options to:
-
further negotiate, with the Managing Contractor, the Guaranteed Construction Sum,
scope of work and/or terms and conditions of the contract until an acceptable outcome
is achieved
terminate the Managing Contractor Contract. The State may then invite other
organisations to submit GCS Offers based on the documents that have been produced
through the Schematic Design and Developed Design phase (provided tenderers are
available). The State will then assess the submitted GCS Offers and again has the
option to either accept or reject the GCS Offer.
Where there is a delay to the Project due to the Managing Contractor failing to submit an
acceptable GCS Offer then the State may be forced to re-tender the Project. However, as
the State owns all of the work completed by the Managing Contractor then the re-tendering
process should be relatively short (approximately 3 to 4 months). The Project Team needs
to ensure that any negotiations to the GCS Offer with the Managing Contractor are not
protracted and are terminated if sufficient progress is not being made.
The effectiveness of the mitigation strategy may be reduced if substantial early works
packages are undertaken prior to the acceptance of the GCS Offer.
Attached as Appendix J is a paper prepared by the Department of Public Works, explaining the
rationale for using the Managing Contractor Guaranteed Construction Sum procurement
strategy for the Gold Coast University Hospital.
113
Queensland Health
September 2008
5.5
Proposed Project Plan

The proposed Project Plan for the procurement, design and development are outlined in the
following section. The Project Plan includes:
list of the key resources (including consultants) required to execute the Project Plan
an indicative timetable.
A high level description of the key procurement stages is provided in Appendix I.

5.5.1

The following table provides a preliminary indication of the Project resources (i.e. Queensland
Health employees and external consultants) required through to completion of the Project. The
table provides a breakdown of the resources into the key procurement stages going forward and
also by resource classification.
Table 5.4: Indicative Project Resources
Resource Type
Queensland Health (Major
Projects & Gold Coast
Team)
Project Managers
Architects
Engineering
Quantity Surveyors
Programming
Procurement and
Principal Representative
Commercial & Financial
Building Consultant
Total (People)
Managing Contractor
Schematic
Design
Developed
Design
Construction
Documentation
Construction
Defects
Period
19.5
19.5
19.5
24.5
14.0
9.0
46.0
42.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
9.0
52.0
51.5
4.0
4.0
5.0
8.0
75.0
63.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
7.8
57.0
18.0
4.0
4.0
6.2
6.5
9.0
4.0
145.0
37.0
178.7
94.0
121.5
184.0
36.5
4.0
1.0
11.0
140.0
3.0
Source: Queensland Health, Project Services, Building Consultant
5.5.2
Indicative Procurement Timetable

The following indicative Gantt chart shows the current forecast for significant procurement dates
with regard to the key procurement stages.
114
Queensland Health
January 2008
Figure 5.1 Procurement timetable

115
Queensland Health
September 2008
Project cost estimates

This section outlines the total cost of the Proposed Delivery Model, including the Managing
Contractor Construction Cost, Queensland Health Project Development Costs, estimated
annual clinical and support services costs and facility maintenance and management costs
proposed for transfer to the contractor under a long-term operations contract. The section
includes:
6.1
a list of the project costs that are included in, and excluded from, the Projects capital cost
estimates
contractor raw capital costs and project development raw capital costs under the Proposed
Delivery Model
escalation and risk adjustments to the capital costs
total project capital costs
annual facility maintenance and management costs
annual clinical and support service costs
depreciation expenditure associated with the project assets.
Key infrastructure components

The following table describes the key infrastructure components that are included in, and those
that are excluded from, the Projects Capital Cost Estimate:
Table 6.1 Summary description of the Project infrastructure
Infrastructure included in Project Estimate
Infrastructure excluded from Project Estimate
Hospital buildings (165,000 m2)
Car Park Costs
Fixtures, fittings, furniture and equipment
Griffith University Footbridge
Demolition and site works
External Road Upgrades
Managing Contractor fees, statutory charges
External Utility Service Upgrades
Roads and other external infrastructure within the
site boundary
Queensland Health procurement costs,
professional fees & public art allowance
Site acquisition & relocation of existing facilities
Griffith University Medical and Dental School
Note: Additional infrastructure refers to additional external site infrastructure not included in the original
scope of work.
A more detailed description of the project is contained within section 4.
6.2
Gold Coast University Hospital contractor capital costs

In order to develop the total capital cost for the Project, the following adjustments are made to
the raw capital costs:
116
Queensland Health
September 2008
escalation adjustments
transferred and retained risk adjustments.
This section identifies the value of the raw capital costs and the value of each of the above
adjustments to provide an estimate of the total project capital cost.
6.2.1
Contractor raw capital costs

Queensland Health has developed the raw capital costs for the project in conjunction with
various technical advisers, in particular Capital Insight, Davis Langdon Associates (DLA),
Connell Wagner, SKM, S2F, GCUH Architecture and Project Services. The raw capital costs are
summarised in the following table:
Table 6.2 Contractor raw capital costs
Items
Central Plant etc
ESD Initiatives
External Works
Raw capital cost
Note: All costs are at the base date 01July 2008.
Source: Queensland Health, DLA

$M
134.72
21.31
184.36
128.38
86.56
30.40
38.37
82.35
41.83
101.79
187.75
183.40
67.84
63.44
1,352.51
Appendix B outlines the methodology and assumptions used to develop the raw capital costs.
6.2.2
The projects nominal capital costs have been calculated by adjusting the raw capital costs
provided by the technical advisers for construction cost escalation.
The raw construction costs, managing contractor fees, professional fees and statutory fees have
been escalated from the cost base date of 1 July 2008 at the rates in the following table, in
accordance with assumptions agreed between DLA and the technical advisers on the Sunshine
Coast Hospital and Queensland Childrens Hospital projects.
117
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 6.3 Capital cost escalation rates

Items
2007/08
2008/09
0.0%
8.0%
Construction costs, MC fees, novated

professional fees and statutory fees
Source: DLA
Escalation rate
2009/10 2010/11
7.0%
6.0%
2011/12
2012/13
6.0%
5.0%
Further details on the escalation rate are contained in Appendix B. The escalation rates have
been applied to the raw costs in accordance with the following capital cost profile (S-curve)
provided by the technical advisers.
Figure 6.1 S-curve profile of the Gold Coast University Hospital
S-curve raw capital cost
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
Ju
n07
ct
-0
Fe 7
b08
Ju
n0
O 8
ct
-0
Fe 8
b09
Ju
n0
O 9
ct
-0
Fe 9
b10
Ju
n1
O 0
ct
-1
Fe 0
b1
Ju 1
n11
O
ct
-1
Fe 1
b1
Ju 2
n12
O
ct
-1
Fe 2
b13
Ju
n13
0.00%
The following table summarises the nominal project capital costs (i.e. the raw project costs
adjusted for escalation) for the Project assets.
Table 6.4 Contractor Nominal capital costs
Items
Division of Community, Allied Health Aged &
Rehabilitation Services
Escalation $M
27.41
4.38
35.97
25.25
17.75
6.23
7.90
Proposed Delivery
Model $M
162.13
25.69
220.33
153.64
104.32
36.63
46.27
118
Queensland Health
September 2008
Items
Central Plant etc
ESD Initiatives
External Works
Nominal Capital Costs
6.2.3
Escalation $M
14.69
8.36
20.70
39.21
38.34
14.18
13.26
273.63
Proposed Delivery
Model $M
97.03
50.19
122.49
226.96
221.74
82.02
76.70
1,626.15
Risk adjustment
The purpose of the risk adjustment is to provide a more accurate estimate of the projects outturn costs by quantifying the potential cost impact of individual project risks on a probabilityweighted basis. The methodology used to quantify the risks is detailed in Appendix C. The
proposed risk allocation contained in the draft Managing Contractor Contract (as advised by
DPW) was assumed to allocate the quantified risk values into transferred and retained risk
components.
6.2.4
Transferred risk adjustment

Transferred risks are risks that are transferred to the Managing Contractor under the proposed
contract approach (i.e. if a transferred risk eventuates, the consequences will be borne by the
Managing Contractor, including any cost impacts).
The following table details the mean value of the transferred risk adjustment in percentage and
nominal dollar terms. The value of the transferred risk adjustment is added to the raw nominal
capital costs to calculate the nominal capital cost adjusted for transferred risks. The transferred
risks have been dissected in the table between risks which would primarily cause a delay to the
project, with consequent impacts on cost escalation and certain time-based costs (e.g.
Managing Contractor overheads), and risks that would lead to increases in project costs.
Table 6.5 Transferred risk adjustment
Items

$M
Post Contract - Delay risks

Building certificate delayed
2.39
Industrial action
0.80
Materials shortage
2.07
Breach of OH&S standards
0.89
6.14
Post-contract - Cost risks

Escalation estimate inadequate
12.75
Non-compliance with PDP/Schematics
2.72
Detailed design error
0.74
Estimating error
17.96
119
Queensland Health
September 2008
Items

$M
0.95
Default of major sub-contractor
10.53
Shortage of labour (MC)
0.16
Change in law
45.82
51.97
Total capital cost transferred risk adjustment ($M)

% of total nominal Contractor Capital cost
3.20%
Note: The transferred risk adjustments were based on a number of risk workshops. All risks are in
nominal dollars.
Source: Queensland Health Risk Workshops
The transferred risks associated with the GCUH capital costs are discussed in more detail in
Appendix C.
A detailed risk assessment (including quantification) was completed as part of the previous Gold
Coast University Hospital Business Case and a reconciliation of the changes to the risk
adjustments from the last Business Case including the rationale for the changes are provided in
Appendix C.
6.2.5

Retained risks are risks that are retained by the State under the proposed contract approach
(i.e. if a retained risk eventuates, the consequences will be borne by the State, including any
cost impacts). The retained risk component has been dissected into two categories, as follows:
risks that, if they eventuate, would lead to an increase in the level of Managing Contractor
costs that are passed through to the State - these are listed in this section.
risks that, if they eventuate, would lead to an increase in Project Development costs
incurred by Queensland Health - these are listed in section 6.3.3.
The following table details the mean value of the retained risk adjustment in percentage and
nominal dollar terms. The value of the retained risk adjustment is added to the transferred risk
adjusted nominal capital cost to calculate the total risk adjusted nominal capital cost. The
retained risks have been dissected in the table between delay risks and cost risks. These
categories have been further dissected into risks that could occur prior to a contract being
signed with the Managing Contractor and after a contract is signed with the Managing
Contractor (the timing reflects the timing of occurrence of the risk, not the consequential impact
on expenditures).
Table 6.6 Government retained risk adjustment
Items
Pre contract - Delay risks
Site access problems
GCS negotiations protracted
Contract drafting delayed

$M
12.20
10.45
1.23
120
Queensland Health
September 2008
Items
Pre contract - Cost risks
Future proofing
Planning approval additional costs
Negotiations with MC fail, retender required
Escalation provision inadequate
Capital costs underestimated
Post contract - Delay risks
Building certificate delayed
Equipment selection delayed
Default of MC
Materials shortage
Principal delays decision making
Commissioning delay Energex substation

$M
23.88
2.81
0.13
13.39
2.25
35.17
53.75
1.59
1.08
1.04
0.52
4.83
0.12
9.18

Adverse geotechnical conditions
Non-compliance with PDP/Schematics
Equipment selection delayed
Client minor variations
External infrastructure upgrade required
Default of MC contractor
Change in law
4.80
0.68
0.59
15.54
0.50
1.91
0.49
24.51
Total capital cost retained risk adjustment ($M)
111.32
% of total nominal Contractor Capital cost
6.85%
Note: The retained risk adjustments were based on a number of risk workshops. All risks are in nominal
dollars.
Source: Queensland Health Risk Workshops
The retained risks associated with the GCUH capital costs are discussed in more detailed in
Appendix C.
Appendix C.
6.2.6
Total contractor capital costs

The following table summarises the estimated total Contractor nominal capital costs. These
for escalation, transferred and retained risk adjustments.
121
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 6.7 Capital Costs Gold Coast University Hospital

Items

$M
178.41
28.27
242.46
169.06
114.79
40.30
50.92

106.78
55.23
134.79
249.75
Central Plant etc
244.01
ESD Initiatives
90.26
External Works
84.41
Total Contractor related capital cost
1,789.44
Note: Total capital costs include adjustments for escalation, transferred and retained risk adjustments. This table
include retained risks even though they will not form part of the Total Contractor Price.
6.3
Project development costs

The project development costs included all costs incurred by Queensland Health in planning
and procuring the project other than sums paid to the Managing Contractor. This section of the
report summarises the adjustments for escalation and risk that have been made to the project
development capital costs provided by the technical advisers.
6.3.1
Project development raw costs

Queensland Health has developed the raw capital costs for the project in conjunction with
various technical advisers, in particular, Capital Insight, Davis Langdon, Connell Wagner, SKM,
S2F, GCUH Architecture and Project Services. The project development raw capital costs are
Table 6.8 Raw project development costs
Item
Professional Fees
Public Art Allowance
Site acquisition
Project Development Raw Costs

$M
31.00
55.02
2.00
52.20
62.20
62.20
264.62
122
Queensland Health
September 2008
Item

$M
Notes
(1) All costs are at the base date 01 July 2008.
(2) Additional infrastructure refers to additional external site infrastructure not included in the original scope of work.
Source: Queensland Health, DLA
More information on the raw project development cost is provided in Appendix B.

The escalation rates that apply to the project development capital costs are set out in the
following table.
Table 6.9 Project development costs escalation rates
Items
Professional Fees
Public art allowance
Site acquisition
Project Development Cost Escalation Rates

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
0.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.0%
0.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.0%
The escalation rates have been applied to the project development capital cost from the cost
base date of 1 July 2008 in accordance with the expenditure profile in the following graph:
Figure 6.2 Project development cost expenditure profile
S-curve project development capital cost
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Ju
n07
O
ct
-0
7
Fe
b08
Ju
n08
O
ct
-0
8
Fe
b09
Ju
n09
O
ct
-0
9
Fe
b10
Ju
n10
O
ct
-1
0
Fe
b11
Ju
n11
O
ct
-1
1
Fe
b12
Ju
n12
O
ct
-1
2
Fe
b13
Ju
n13
6.3.2
123
Queensland Health
September 2008
The nominal Project development costs (i.e. the raw costs adjusted for escalation) are
Table 6.10 Nominal project development costs
Items
Escalation $M
Commissioning / decanting/QH Costs

Professional Fees
Site acquisition
Total nominal project development capital
costs
2.99
4.18
0.36
0.00
13.66
16.16
Proposed Delivery
Model $M
33.99
59.20
2.36
52.20
76.26
78.76
37.35
302.76
Notes
(1) All costs are in nominal dollars.
(2) Additional infrastructure refers to additional external site infrastructure not included in the original scope of work.
6.3.3
Project development capital costs risk adjustment

The following table identifies the mean value of the risk retained by Queensland Health in
percentage and nominal terms retained risks being those risks not fully transferred to the
private sector.
Table 6.11 Project Development Cost - retained risk adjustment
Pre contract - Cost risks
Early works require modification
Medical school escalation not separately funded
Inadequate site acquisition budget
Delay due to shortage of labour resulting extended use of
Southport facilities
Inadequate resourcing (decanting)
Southport facility not secured adequately following decant to
GCUH

Nominal $M
0.11
7.50
3.00
10.61
0.80
4.20
0.49
5.49
Total project development cost retained risk adjustment
16.10
% of total nominal project development cost
5.32%
Note: The retained risk adjustment for the Project are based on a Managing Contractor procurement
approach.
Source: Risk workshops
The project development risks associated with the GCUH capital costs are discussed in more
detailed in Appendix C.
124
Queensland Health
September 2008
Appendix C.
6.3.4
Total project development costs

The following table summarises the total nominal risk adjusted project development capital
costs. These costs have been calculated by adjusting the raw capital costs provided by the
technical advisers for escalation and retained risk adjustments.
Table 6.12 Total Project Development Costs Gold Coast University Hospital
Items
Total nominal project development capital costs

Nominal $M
318.86
Note: Total capital costs include project development raw capital costs plus adjustments for escalation
and retained risk.
6.4

The following table summarises the projects total nominal risk adjusted capital costs for the
entire project (i.e. the Contractor Capital Costs and Project Development Capital Costs). These
for escalation and risk adjustments.
Table 6.13 Total Project Capital Costs Gold Coast University Hospital

Nominal $M
178.41
28.27
242.46
169.06
114.79
40.30
50.92

106.78
55.23
134.79
249.75
Central Plant Etc
244.01
ESD Initiatives
90.26
External Works
84.41
Total Contractor capital cost
1,789.43
125
Queensland Health
September 2008

Project development capital costs

Nominal $M
318.86
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS

Note: Total capital costs include adjustments for escalation, transferred and retained risk.
6.5
2,108.30
Facility maintenance and management costs

The estimate of the projects facility maintenance and management costs is an aggregate of the
raw facility maintenance and management costs, escalation and a transferred and retained risk
adjustment. The paragraphs that follow outline the contribution of these components to the
projects total facility maintenance and management costs.
6.5.1
Facility maintenance and management raw cost

The estimated raw average annual facility maintenance and management costs of the project
are contained in the following table and are based on an assumed 20 year operations contract
from completion of the new GCUH.
Table 6.14 Average Annual Facility Maintenance and Management Raw Costs
Items
Cleaning
Helpdesk
Utilities
Note: All costs are in base date (01 July 2007) dollars.
6.5.2

Average Annual Cost ($M)
15.89
0.35
0.34
0.35
14.96
12.01
43.90
The escalation rates that apply to the facility maintenance and management costs vary
depending on the individual cost component. The following table identifies the escalation rates
that have been applied to facility maintenance and management costs all of which have a cost
base date of 1 July 2007:
Table 6.15 Facility Maintenance and Management Costs Escalation Rates
Cost Category
Routine building and plant maintenance
Routine building maintenance - labour component
Grounds maintenance
Cleaning
Helpdesk
Utilities
Escalation rate
3.20%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
3.20%
126
Queensland Health
September 2008
Cost Category
6.5.3
Escalation rate
3.20%
Facility maintenance and management costs transferred risk adjustment

The following table identifies the transferred risk adjustment for facility maintenance and
management costs.
Table 6.16 Facility maintenance and management transferred risk adjustment
Facility maintenance and management transferred risk
Transferred risk adjustment (%)
10.6%
Note: The above facility maintenance and management costs transferred risk adjustment is the average risk
adjustment over the 20-year operating period under the Managing Contractor procurement method.
Source: Queensland Health Risk Workshop
6.5.4
Facility maintenance and management costs retained risk adjustment

The following table details the retained risk adjustment for facility maintenance and
management costs. The small valuation of this risk adjustment reflects shared risks and the fact
that the operations risk analysis has focussed on transferred risks which are relevant to
estimating the potential cost of the operations contract. The analysis has not attempted to cost
retained risks during the operations phase including the significant risks associated with clinical
service delivery.
Table 6.17 Facility Maintenance and Management Costs - Retained risk adjustment
Facility maintenance and management retained risk

0.03%
Note: The above facility maintenance and management costs retained risk adjustment is the average risk adjustment
over the 20-year operating period under the Managing Contractor procurement method.
Source: Queensland Health Risk Workshop
The operating and maintenance risks associated with the GCUH are discussed in more detail in
Appendix C.
Appendix C.
6.5.5
Average annual facility maintenance and management costs

The average annual facility maintenance and management risk adjusted nominal operating
costs are shown below:
127
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 6.18 Average annual facility maintenance and management nominal costs
Nominal $M
25.82
0.70
0.67
0.71
26.57
54.47
25.29
79.76

Cleaning
Helpdesk
Utilities
Subtotal
Note: The above costs include adjustments for escalation, transferred and retained risk
Theses costs are average annual cost over 20 years
The assumptions, inclusions and exclusions adopted in generating the above raw costs are
detailed in Appendix B.
6.5.6
Total facility maintenance and management costs over 20 years

The total nominal operating costs for facilities maintenance and management over 20 years,
including a transferred and retained risk adjustment, is approximately $1,595 million. The
following chart graphs the profile of the nominal facility maintenance and management costs
over 20 years of operations.
Figure 6.3 Total nominal facility maintenance and management costs for 20 years
Nominal risk adjusted facility maintenance and management costs
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
$m
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Year ending
6.6
Routine Building & Plant maintenance
Cleaning
Helpdesk
Utilities
Transferred risk
Retained risk
Clinical and support service costs

This section summarises the Clinical and Support Services costs for the GCUH. The costs have
been estimated using the following methodologies:
128
Queensland Health
September 2008
Casemix costing
Queensland Health has used the casemix costing methodology to estimate total recurrent costs.
The methodology involves an estimate of activity (number of cases) within Diagnostic-Related
Groups (DRGs) and costs this activity based on acuity levels (cost weights per case) applicable
to each DRG. Queensland Healths Resource Management Practice Statement 2007/08
requires that all Business Cases use casemix to determine revenue requirements (funding) for
spending initiatives. However, casemix can also be used to estimate expenditure and is
appropriate in the context of a new hospital because there is no basis to assume that
expenditure at GCUH will be more or less efficient than the benchmark level assumed in the
casemix cost weights.
In applying the casemix methodology Queensland Health has been responsible for all
calculations and assumptions, including the following key assumptions:
initial capacity of 624 beds in 2012/13 rising to 750 beds over 4 years in accordance with
the Bed Transition Strategy, discussed in section 6.6.3, below
bed occupancy of 80% for general inpatient beds in 2012/13, moving to 82% by 2015/16
and 73% for critical care beds in 2012/13, declining to 68% by 2015/16. 85% bed occupancy
for general inpatients is normally used when determining inpatient utilisation rates. To keep
within the allocated funding when the facility has all inpatient bed available in the fourth
year, an average bed occupancy rate of 82% has been applied. For critical care services,
bed occupancy is usually 75% and for these services the overall utilisation rate as beds are
brought online changes from 73% in 2012/13 to 68% by 2015/16
average lengths of stay based on benchmark hospitals (Royal Brisbane Hospital, Princess
Alexandra Hospital and Gold Coast Hospital) and Queensland averages, as appropriate for
each DRG. The assumptions concerning average length of stay have not been adjusted for
the potential impact of increased use of single beds. However, a general indication of this
potential impact is provided in Section 4
acuity levels (factors used to weight the mix and number of cases in a DRG and reflecting
the resource intensity of that DRG relative to the average cost per case) based on current
levels at Gold Coast Hospital and Princess Alexandra Hospital (e.g. Neurosurgery) and
Royal Brisbane & Womens Hospital (e.g. NICU)
a cost of $3,800 per case (i.e. for a standard case with an acuity factor of 1), reflecting the
Queensland casemix funding provision in 2007/08 dollars.
Queensland Health has adopted the assumptions of Southport acuity levels (acuity factors
based on Princess Alexandra and Royal Brisbane would be more representative of the Health
Services Plan requirements) and reduced occupancy levels for the additional beds at GCUH in
order to ensure that recurrent expenditure is affordable within available funding under the More
Beds for Hospitals program by 2015/16, when all 750 overnight beds will be available. Further
detail on the affordability analysis is provided in section 7.9.
The casemix costing methodology includes all clinical services with the following exceptions:
Community health services. These services are expected to be provided from community
health hubs outside the GCUH.
Commonwealth programs. These programs are assumed to be fully supported by

Commonwealth funding and therefore budget neutral.
129
Queensland Health
September 2008
Emergency Department. A fixed supplementary payment of $15 million per year has been
assumed, based on expenditure at Princess Alexandra Hospital.
Radiation therapy. The recurrent estimate includes provision for three linear accelerators,
costed at $17 million per year, based on expenditure at Princess Alexandra Hospital.
Clinical education. The recurrent estimate for clinical education has been costed at $21.0
million per year and has been extrapolated from the proportion of the current Gold Coast
District budget allocated to clinical education.
The casemix methodology has been used to estimate the cost of the ramp up in activity at the
GCUH between 2012/13 and 2015/16 under the Bed Transition Strategy.
Labour analysis
Queensland Health has used its labour analysis template to calculate total recurrent costs. All
assumptions underpinning the analysis have been developed by Queensland Health and
include assumptions relating to bed occupancy levels and patient acuity that have been
necessary to ensure that the cost estimates are affordable within available funding (in a similar
fashion to the casemix methodology outlined above). The labour analysis methodology involves
an estimate of the labour (Full Time Equivalents, or FTEs) required to provide the planned
activity levels. It involves the following basic steps:
Information about patient numbers, type and acuity level is used to estimate nursing staff
hours per patient day based on standard ratios established under the Queensland Health
Business Planning Framework.
Once nursing staff numbers are determined, other labour categories are estimated on a pro
rata basis with a relevant benchmark hospital (in this case Gold Coast Hospital was used).
Total FTE numbers are used to calculate total employee costs including on-costs and backfill rates (for annual leave, etc) using the terms and conditions from the latest enterprise
bargaining agreements.
The goods and services costs are calculated as a proportion of labour costs based on
experience with a relevant benchmark hospital (in this case Gold Coast Hospital was used).
Queensland Healths Resource Management Practice Statement 2007/08 requires that all
Business Cases use the labour cost template to determine expenditure for new projects and
other initiatives. The labour analysis methodology has been used as a cross-check on the
accuracy of the casemix methodology for the GCUH operating at full capacity (i.e. 750 beds in
2015/16).
Benchmark costing of maintenance and utilities
DLA has estimated the cost of building and equipment maintenance, utilities consumption and
related costs that may be included within the proposed long-term Facilities Maintenance and
Management contract. This approach has been necessary to permit a more accurate estimate
than is possible with the casemix and labour cost methodologies, particularly in relation to major
periodic maintenance costs which are typically under-estimated in conventional hospital
budgets. The casemix and labour cost methodologies each include a component of
maintenance and utilities costs and these costs have therefore been removed from each of
130
Queensland Health
September 2008
these methodologies to avoid double-counting with the separate estimate of expected costs
under the proposed Facilities Maintenance and Management contract.
6.6.1
Clinical and support services casemix costing methodology

The following table shows the Clinical and Support Services costs in 2007/08 dollars for the first
year of full operations, 2015/16, as calculated using the casemix methodology. Repair and
maintenance and utilities costs have been excluded from the total cost as these costs are
calculated separately in section 6.5. The amount deducted is based on Queensland Health
advice as to the portion these costs comprise of the standard casemix unit price.
Table 6.19 Casemix costing of clinical and support services (excluding maintenance and
utilities) for 201516 (in 2007/08 dollars)
Clinical Services
Overnight
Beds
Medical Inpatient beds

Surgical Inpatient beds
Division of Family, Women &
Children
196
192
68
50
SameDay
Beds
14
40
Bed
Alternatives
124
20
72
Division of Community, Allied Health

Aged & Rehabilitation Services
Special Grants
48
750
74
97
2015-16
Cost $M
97
-
Own Source Revenue

Total
Note: Costs are in 2007/08 dollars
6.6.2
441.1
Clinical and support services labour analysis methodology

The following table shows the Clinical and Support Services costs in 2007/08 dollars for the first
year of full operations, 2015/16, as calculated using the labour analysis methodology. Repair
and maintenance and utilities costs have also been excluded from the total cost as these costs
are calculated separately in section 6.5.
Table 6.20 Labour analysis costing of clinical and support services (excluding maintenance and
utilities) for 2015/16 (2007/08 dollars)
Expense item
Medical Officers
Visiting Medical Officers
Professional/Technical Officers
Nurses
Executive Officers(DES,DSO)
Administration Officers
FTEs
2015-16 Cost $M
480.0
17.7
356.7
1,561.5
2.2
431.9
91.0
6.8
29.6
132.1
0.3
23.0
131
Queensland Health
September 2008
Expense item
Operational Officers
Total Labour
Goods and Services
Total
FTEs
2015-16 Cost $M
472.1
3,322.1
25.2
308.2
132.9
441.1

Note: Costs are in 2007/08 dollars
Queensland Health has compared the estimated total labour cost at GCUH with two major
Brisbane tertiary hospitals, for benchmarking purposes. This analysis is summarised in the
following table.
Table 6.21 Comparison of estimated labour costs at GCUH relative to benchmark tertiary
hospitals (2007/08 dollars)
Hospital
FTEs
Cost $M
GCUH (921 beds and bed alternates)

Benchmark Tertiary Hospital (901 beds and bed alternates)
Benchmark Tertiary Hospital (1,042 beds and bed alternates)
3,322
4,573
5,347
308.2
465.6
518.2
Avg cost
per FTE
$000/FTE
92.8
101.8
96.9

Note: (1) Costs are in 2007/08 dollars
(2) GCUH FTEs and cost excludes maintenance & utilities
(3) Benchmark Tertiary Hospital includes whole of district services
6.6.3
Clinical and support services raw costs from 2012/13 to 2016/17

The following table shows the Clinical and Support Services costs from commencement of
operations in 2012/13 to 2016/17. The ramp up of operations at the GCUH is based on the
Queensland Health Bed Transition Strategy 2008 to 2016 which includes additional activity
planned under the Interim Demand Management Strategy.
The Interim Demand Management Strategy assumes that the existing 654 beds in the Gold
Coast Health Service District in 2007/08 will increase to 952 beds by 2011/12, including:
63 subacute beds through purchase of a nursing home at Carrara, allowing backfill of 37

acute medical beds and 26 acute surgical beds at Southport and Robina
35 mental health beds at Robina including 16 available through sourcing additional

accommodation at the private Palm Beach Currumbin Clinic
29 subacute beds through leasing space at Pacific Private until 2012/13
6 additional ICU beds at Southport to alleviate demand across the Southern Area
3 additional cancer beds and 1 cardiac bed at Southport
180 beds with opening of Robina Stage 2 in 2011/12.
By 2011/12 Queensland Health expects to have 364 beds at Robina, 63 beds at Carrara and 44
Community Care Units. Fully opening 750 beds at GCUH in 2012/13 would provide total
132
Queensland Health
September 2008
capacity in the district of 1,221 beds. Demand in that year is projected to be at least 1,009
beds, giving a surplus of up to 212 beds.
Queensland Healths Bed Transition Strategy recommends that 624 overnight beds should be
provided at the GCUH when it is commissioned in 2012/13. This projection is higher than the
minimum number of 538 beds that must be commissioned to maintain a neutral bed balance
and takes into account:
indications that 2001 census projections are low
high levels of bed occupancy in the Gold Coast Hospital relative to appropriate levels in the
new GCUH
the need to smooth out expansion following commissioning of the new hospital to enable a
matching with new service model development and supportive infrastructure
The overnight bed numbers are projected to increase to 683 beds in 2013/14, 716 beds in
2014/15 and 750 beds in 2015/16. The main strategies determining the mix of beds that will be
expanded over this four year period are summarised below.
a maximum of 17 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds are expected to be available at Southport
prior to the opening of GCUH when it is planned to open 34 ICU beds (i.e. an extra 17
beds). Given the time required to recruit the necessary staff, expansion will then occur at
the rate of 6 beds in 2013/14, 4 beds in 2014/15 and 6 beds in 2015/16
thirty Special Care and Neonatal Intensive Care beds will open in 2012/13 (additional 8
beds) and will expand by 5 beds in 2013/14 and 4 beds in 2014/15
two cancer wards of 16 beds each will open in 2012/13 with a further 8 beds opened in each
successive year
forty maternity beds will be opened in 2012/13 and, assuming current birth rates, an
additional 8 beds will be opened in 2013/14.
The annual recurrent costs of this ramp up program have been determined based on the
casemix costing methodology and are shown in the following table, excluding expected costs
under the Facilities Maintenance and Management contract.
Table 6.22 Clinical and support services raw costs for 2012/13 to 2016/17 (2007/08 dollars)
excluding facilities maintenance costs.
2012-13
$M
2013-14
$M
2014-15
$M
2015-16
$M
374.4
394.7
413.4
441.1

Note: All costs are in 2007/08 dollars
6.6.4
Escalated costs
The following table shows the annual recurrent costs of the ramp up program in nominal dollars.
Escalation of casemix costs has been estimated on the basis of Queensland Health advice that
the standard casemix cost per case comprises approximately 66% labour, 20% supplies and
14% equipment and other expenses. The labour component has been escalated at 4% per
133
Queensland Health
September 2008
annum, the non-labour component at 3.2%, in accordance with assumptions advised by

Queensland Treasury and Queensland Health.
Table 6.23 Clinical and support services escalated costs for 2012/13 to 2016/17, excluding
facilities maintenance costs.
2012-13
$M
2013-14
$M
2014-15
$M
2015-16
$M
442.1
483.5
525.5
581.7

6.6.5
Depreciation expense
In accordance with Queensland Health accounting policies, capitalised costs include the
contracted value of the acquisition plus costs incidental to the acquisition such as project
planning and procurement costs and all directly attributable costs incurred to bring the asset to a
state where it is ready for use, except for training costs which are expensed as incurred.
Queensland Health does not recognise facilities procured under BOOT-type agreements as
assets. Consequently, the car parks proposed to be included in a BOOT contract will not be
assets of Queensland Health and will not incur a depreciation expense.
Assets (other than land and artworks) are depreciated on a straight-line basis from the time of
acquisition or, in respect of work in progress, from the time an asset is completed. Any material
expenditure that increases the originally assessed capacity or service potential and/or useful life
of an asset is capitalised and the new depreciable amount is depreciated over the remaining
useful life of the asset to the department.
For each class of depreciable assets, the following depreciation rates are used:
Class
Depreciation Rates
Buildings
3.33%
Land Improvements
2.50%
Plant and Equipment
5.0% - 20.0%
The total annual depreciation expense has been estimated based on dissecting the total,
escalated, risk-adjusted project cost into building and plant and equipment components and
depreciating the former at 3.33% and the latter at 5%. The results are summarised in the
following table.
Table 6.22 Annual depreciation expense
Asset
Buildings
Plant & Equipment
Initial value ($M)

1,653.2
455.1
Annual Depreciation expense ($M)

54.6
22.8
134
Queensland Health
September 2008
Affordability
7.1
Introduction
This section assesses the affordability of the Proposed Delivery Model for the GCUH in capital
and recurrent expenditure terms. In particular, the affordability analysis determines the gap
between proposed expenditure and committed funding by comparing:
the annual cost and estimated total cost of capital expenditure on the GCUH with the
Governments announced funding commitment
the annual recurrent expenditure on the GCUH with existing funding based on 2006/07
activity levels at the Gold Coast Hospital.
The capital expenditure is calculated on a risk adjusted and escalated basis. The announced
capital funding of $1.549 billion in July 2008 dollars is escalated on the same basis to allow for
cost increases over the construction period.
The recurrent expenditure at the new GCUH is estimated on the basis of bed numbers required
under Queensland Healths preliminary Bed Transition Strategy and using the casemix costing
methodology. Services proposed for transfer to a private sector operator under a long-term
facilities management contract are costed on a risk-adjusted basis. Committed recurrent funding
is assessed on the basis of existing expenditure, with no allowance for growth funding in
2007/08 or future years.
7.2
Capital budget
7.2.1
Methodology
The capital affordability analysis in sections 7.3 to 7.5 below will compare the capital
expenditure under the Proposed Delivery Model with the capital funding approved by the
Government in July 2008 to determine the extent of any affordability gap.
Inclusions and exclusions
Expenditure on the Proposed Delivery Model reflects the cost estimates developed in Chapter 6
and, in particular, the various cost items shown as included and excluded from the project in
table 6.1.
The following table summarises the planned funding arrangements for the various items that are
excluded from the Preferred Delivery Model.
Table 7.1 Exclusions from the affordability analysis
Excluded item
External infrastructure e.g. road upgrades, utilities
upgrades
Funding
Funding is provided outside the project by
Department of Main Roads and utilities providers.
135
Queensland Health
September 2008
Excluded item
Car-parks
Interim Demand Management Strategy Capital

works on Southport Campus
Funding
Funding for car-parks is being addressed in a
separate business case. If procured under a BOOT
arrangement, the capital costs will be privately
financed under a long-term concession to a private
car park operator. Costs for any basement or early
car parks may be included in the Managing
Contractor contract and, if so, would be funded by
Queensland Health on an interim basis until the
cost is recouped through an upfront payment from
the private car park operator.
Funding is being addressed in a separate business
case.
Source: Queensland Health, Department of Infrastructure and Planning
Escalation
Escalation has been applied to July 2008 construction costs based on the rates and S-curve as
described in section 6.3.2 to derive a total end-cost estimate. The Governments funding
commitment of $1.549 billion in July 2008 dollars has been escalated to end cost terms
assuming the same escalation rates and S-curve as the Proposed Delivery Model.
Risk adjustment
The Proposed Delivery Model includes valuation of transferred risks and retained risks. The
calculation of the risk adjustment is described in Appendix C.
Appendix C.
7.3
Estimated capital expenditure

Table 7.2 sets out the estimated capital expenditure on the Proposed Delivery Model in each
year of the project from commencement in June 2007 to completion in 2012. Managing
Contractor costs and Queensland Health costs amount to $1,320 million, and $279 million,
respectively, in raw (non-risk-adjusted) terms and excluding escalation. Transferred and
retained risk adjustments amount to $146 million or 9.2% of the total capital cost in real (i.e. July
2008) terms17. Escalation amounts to $434 million. The annual expenditure cash flow until
completion of the facilities is based on the construction S-curve set out in Section 6.
Table 7.2 Proposed Delivery Model: estimated capital expenditure
Managing Contractor
costs
Queensland Health costs
Est.
Total
Cost $m
1,352.21
2007-08
$m
0.00
2008-09
$m
55.65
2009-10
$m
263.36
2010-11
$m
375.49
2011-12
$m
462.07
2012-13
$m
195.94
265.42
30.88
67.17
21.82
49.11
64.38
32.06
17
The risk adjustment in the following table is expressed in real terms to permit affordability analysis in real and
escalated terms. The risk values therefore differ from those indicated in Section 6 in nominal dollar terms.
136
Queensland Health
September 2008
Transferred risk
adjustment
Escalation
Total capital
expenditure
Est.
Total
Cost $m
42.27
2007-08
$m
0.00
2008-09
$m
1.28
2009-10
$m
7.74
2010-11
$m
11.20
2011-12
$m
13.02
2012-13
$m
9.03
106.64
341.45
2,108.00
0.26
0.00
31.14
19.33
4.61
148.05
17.07
37.85
347.83
23.85
86.43
546.10
28.51
139.23
707.20
17.63
73.32
327.98
Source: Queensland Health, DLA, KPMG Financial Model, Risk Matrix

Note: Costs other than Escalation and Total capital expenditure are in July 2008 dollars.
7.4
Committed capital funding

The Government has announced capital funding of $1.549 billion in July 2008 dollars and has
committed to construct the new 750 bed GCUH by December 2012. The announced funding
budget has been treated as exclusive of any allowance for cost escalation and that the funding
budget for this Business Case has been escalated to ensure adequate provision for cost
increases over the construction period. The Announced Government Capital Budget has been
escalated based on the escalation rates in Table 6.3 and an S-curve for total project capital
costs.
Table 7.3 Committed Capital Funding inclusive of escalation
Construction costs
Escalation
Total funding
Est.
Total
Cost $m
1,549.00
319.54
1,868.54
2007-08
$m
29.57
0.00
29.57
2008-09
$m
117.59
4.12
121.71
2009-10
$m
273.02
33.55
306.58
2010-11
$m
406.51
79.31
485.82
2011-12
$m
504.02
133.05
637.06
2012-13
$m
218.29
69.51
287.80

Note: Construction costs are in July 2008 dollars.
7.5
Affordability analysis of capital expenditure

The estimated total cost of the Proposed Delivery Model is $240 million higher than existing
committed funding, in escalated (end cost) terms. The annual affordability gap is highest in the
years of peak expenditure for the project, reaching $70 million in 2011/1218.
The explanation and justification for the difference between the Proposed Delivery Model and
committed funding is provided in Section 8.
18
The annual affordability gap as a proportion of annual expenditure varies over the period because of differences in
the calculation of escalation for the expenditure and funding cashflows. In particular, the Proposed Delivery Model is
based on different s-curves for raw construction costs and project risks whereas the funding cashflow is based solely on
escalation of the announced budget in accordance with the construction s-curve.
137
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 7.4 Affordability of Preferred Delivery Model

Capital Expenditure
Committed Capital
Funding
Capital affordability
surplus / (deficit)
Est.
Total
Cost $m
2,108.30
2007-08
$m
31.14
2008-09
$m
148.05
2009-10
$m
347.83
2010-11
$m
546.10
2011-12
$m
707.20
2012-13
$m
327.98
1,868.54
29.57
121.71
306.58
485.82
637.06
287.80
(239.76)
(1.57)
(26.34)
(41.25)
(60.28)
(70.13)
(40.18)
Source: Queensland Health, KPMG Financial Model

Note: Costs are in nominal dollars
Section 8.7 also identifies a range of capital cost offset initiatives which may reduce the
affordability gap.
7.6
Recurrent budget
The following paragraphs describe the methodology used to develop the estimates of annual
expenditure on clinical and support services, incorporating a ramp up in activity following
commissioning of the GCUH based on Queensland Healths Bed Transition Strategy and
including adjustments for escalation and risk.
7.6.1
Methodology
Recurrent expenditure for the Proposed Delivery Model has been estimated using the casemix
funding methodology which will be used to determine hospital funding in Queensland hospitals
from 2008/09 onwards. The methodology is described in section 6.6 together with the labour
analysis methodology which has been used as cross-check for accuracy on the GCUH in
2015/16 when the hospital is expected to be operating with 750 overnight beds.
Support services proposed for inclusion in a 20-year operations contract have been costed
separately by DLA, as described in section 6.6. The estimates include a capital replacement
component which is included in the capital expenditure estimates from commissioning of the
GCUH and a routine maintenance component which is included in the recurrent expenditure
estimates. In addition, DLA has estimated the cost of electricity, gas and water in the new
facilities as well as the cost of the other minor services proposed for inclusion in the operations
contract, namely, grounds maintenance, external cleaning and provision of a helpdesk and
associated management services.
Transition Strategy
Queensland Healths Interim Demand Management Strategy plans for increased activity within
the Gold Coast Health Service District between 2007/08 and 2011/12. This strategy is separate
from the GCUH Business Case and is the subject of a separate submission to the Queensland
Government for funding in the State Budget to be announced in June 2008. The projected
expenditure under this strategy (for Operating Revenue), amounting to $68.4 million in 2008/09
and rising to $83.3 million in 2012/13, is not included in this affordability analysis which assumes
that expenditure over the period to 2012/13 is based on 2006/07 activity levels. The annual
amount of capital expenditure sought for the Interim Demand Management Strategy is
contained in Table 3.5.
138
Queensland Health
September 2008
Following commissioning of the GCUH, recurrent expenditure is projected to increase in line

with the bed numbers planned under Queensland Healths Bed Transition Strategy, as outlined
in section 6.6.3. The overnight bed numbers are projected to increase to from 624 beds in
2012/13 to 683 beds in 2013/14, 716 beds in 2014/15 and 750 beds in 2015/16. Expenditure
corresponding to these bed numbers has been estimated using the casemix costing
methodology, with some adjustments for occupancy levels.
Escalation
Escalation of casemix costs has been estimated in accordance with the methodology outlined in
section 6.6.4 based on assumptions advised by Queensland Treasury and Queensland Health.
Risk adjustment
A risk adjustment has been applied to the maintenance and related services proposed for
transfer to the private sector under an operations contract as determined in Queensland Health
risk workshops. The calculation of the risk adjustment follows the methodology outlined in
Appendix C. The risk quantification has been confined to the services proposed for transfer to
the private sector and all other components of the recurrent estimate (e.g. clinical costs) have
not been risk-adjusted.
7.7
Estimated recurrent expenditure

The estimated recurrent expenditure prior to commissioning of the GCUH is based on budgeted
Gold Coast Hospital expenditure of $249.8 million for 2007/08 plus supplementation under the
More Beds for Hospitals program amounting to $7.3 million in 2007/08 and $14.5 million in
subsequent years. As noted above, additional expenditure of $14.2 million has been funded in
2008/09 for the following initiatives:
Gold Coast Surgery Centre - $9.985 million
ICU (3 beds, PYE) - $2.100 million
Emergency Department expansion - $1.200 million
Community Based Rehab Team - $0.900 million.
Including the above and other future planned but unfunded initiatives, additional expenditure will
increase to $78.9 million in 2011/12, but this is the subject of a separate funding approval and is
not included in this analysis.
Table 7.5 Estimated recurrent expenditure
Projected overnight bed

numbers
Clinical services and
support services
(excluding Operations
contract services from
commissioning of
GCUH) ($m 2007/08)
200708
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
201314
201415
201516
480
480
480
480
480
624
683
716
750
257.0
264.3
264.3
264.3
264.3
374.4
394.7
413.4
441.1
139
Queensland Health
September 2008
200708
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
Operations contract
services (including risk
adjustment) ($m
2007/08)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.7
Escalation ($m)
0.0
4.9
15.0
25.5
36.4
71.8
Total recurrent
expenditure ($m
nominal)
257.0
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
464.8
Note: Costs other than Escalation and Total Recurrent Expenditure are in 2007/08 dollars
201314
201415
201516
37.0
98.0
36.7
122.7
36.4
152.7
529.7
572.8
630.2
Recurrent expenditure under the Proposed Delivery Model for clinical and ancillary services (but
excluding operations contract services) in 2012/13 has been estimated by Queensland Health
at $374.4 million (in 2007/08 dollars). Queensland Health has assumed that 624 overnight beds
will be available from completion of the GCUH in December 2012 and that expenditure to
operate these beds will be required for the whole of 2012/13 to cope with start-up costs.
7.8
Committed recurrent funding

The committed recurrent funding is based on budgeted expenditure at the Gold Coast Hospital
at Southport of $249.8 million in 2007/08 plus supplementation under the More Beds for
Hospitals program amounting to $7.3 million in 2007/08, with an annual effect of $14.5 million
in subsequent years, plus $192 million in 2012/13 (in 2012/13 dollars). No allowance has been
made for potential funding under the Interim Demand Management Strategy or other possible
growth funding in the future that is not currently approved.
Funding for escalation of the More Beds for Hospitals program is based on the fixed provision
for escalation contained in the program for the period up to and including the first year that
additional funding is provided. The existing Gold Coast Hospital funding level (and increments of
More Beds for Hospitals escalation funding, once provided in 2007/08 and 2012/13) has been
escalated in the forward years using the same methodology described in section 7.6.1 to
escalate casemix expenditures.
Table 7.6 Committed Recurrent Funding Southport service transfer and GCUH More Beds for
Hospitals Program
Projected overnight
bed numbers
Gold Coast Hospital
funding in 2007/08 ($m
2007/08 )
More Beds for
Hospitals Program ($m
2007/08)
Own Source Revenue
($m 2007/08)
Estimated funding for
cost escalation ($m
nominal)
200708
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
201314
201415
201516
480
480
480
480
480
750
750
750
750
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
229.9
7.3
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
206.6
206.6
206.6
206.6
19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8
21.7
22.6
23.4
24.6
0.0
4.9
15.0
25.5
36.4
48.1
63.7
83.6
104.4
140
Queensland Health
September 2008
Total recurrent
funding ($m nominal)
200708
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
201314
201415
201516
257.0
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
506.3
522.8
543.5
565.5

Note: Funding other than Escalation and Total Recurrent Funding is in 2007/08 dollars
7.9
Affordability analysis of recurrent expenditure

The following table compares projected expenditure under the Proposed Delivery Model with
the existing committed funding level in terms of both current prices and escalated prices.
200708
2007/08 dollars
Projected overnight
bed numbers
480
Expenditure on
Preferred Delivery
Model ($m real)
257.0
Committed Funding
($m real)
257.0
Real Expenditure
Surplus / (Deficit)
0.0
Nominal dollars
Escalated value of
Proposed Delivery
Model ($m nominal)
257.0
Escalated value of
Committed Funding
($m nominal)
257.0
Total nominal
recurrent surplus /
(deficit) ($m )
0.0
200809
200910
201011
201112
201213
201314
201415
201516
480
480
480
480
624
683
716
750
264.3
264.3
264.3
264.3
393.1
431.7
450.1
477.5
264.3
264.3
264.3
264.3
458.2
459.1
459.9
461.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.1
27.4
9.8
(16.4)
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
464.8
529.7
572.8
630.2
269.2
279.3
289.8
300.7
506.3
522.8
543.5
565.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.4
(6.9)
(29.3)
(64.7)
In 2007-08 dollars, the table shows a funding surplus of $65.1 million in 2012/13 which reduces
to a small deficit of $16.4 million by 2015/16. These results reflect the following key factors:
As indicated in section 6.6, in forecasting recurrent expenditure, Queensland Health has

assumed continuation of Gold Coast Hospital acuity levels and reduced occupancy levels
for the additional beds at GCUH in order to ensure that recurrent expenditure is affordable
within available funding under the More Beds for Hospitals program by 2015/16. For the
GCUH to function at the higher acuity level identified in the Health Service Plan or to have
higher activity levels and occupancy rates, the recurrent funding would need to be
reassessed and increased.
Additional funding in 2012-13 under the More Beds for Hospitals program is provided in
nominal dollars (hence the total funding is partly in 2007-08 dollars and partly in 2012-13
dollars).
141
Queensland Health
September 2008
Additional funding under the More Beds for Hospitals program assumes 750 beds will be
available in 2012-13 compared to the 624 beds assumed by Queensland Health under the
Bed Transition Strategy in that year (rising in subsequent years to 750 beds by 2015-16).
In nominal dollars, the table shows a funding surplus of $41.4 million in 2012/13 which reduces
to a deficit of $64.7 million by 2015/16. This affordability gap is greater than the deficit in real
terms (2007-08 dollars) primarily because, as noted above, the latter deficit includes a
component of nominal funding under the More Beds for Hospitals program.
142
Queensland Health
September 2008
Capital cost comparison with government budget and reference

case budget
This section of the Business Case provides an analysis of the Projects capital cost estimate
(Proposed Delivery Model Capital Budget contained in section 6 and 7) against the
Governments Announced Capital Budget. In particular, this section addresses the following
related topics:
8.1
the amount of the Announced Capital Budget (August 2006) and a breakdown of the cost
components of the budget
the amount of the Updated Announced Capital Budget (July 2008) and a breakdown of the
additional capital cost components and escalation included and the updated budget
development of a Reference Case (including budget) based on standards likely to have

been assumed in the Announced Capital budget to provide a basis for detailed comparison
with the Proposed Delivery Model
the major areas of difference between the Proposed Delivery Model capital cost budget and
the Reference Case budget
a list of potential capital cost offsets that have been identified for the Project including
indicative values.
Announced Capital Cost budget (August 2006)

On 18 August 2006, the Queensland Government announced an election commitment for the
2014, however, growing pressure on existing staff and resources, coupled with rapid growth,
had fast-tracked the project.
The proposed budget for the GCUH of $1.23 billion was subsequently announced in a number
of press releases and was also included in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and
Program (SEQIPP) 2007-2026 at $1.23 billion.
The Announced Capital Budget and the high level components that make up the budget are
contained in the following table.
Table 8.1 GCUH Announced Capital Budget (August 2006)
GCUH Announced Capital Budget Basis of the Budget Calculation
Components
Building Costs
Siteworks and external works
Central Energy Building
Escalation
MC Fees
Total $M
456.00
45.00
85.00
240.00
146.00
143
Queensland Health
September 2008
GCUH Announced Capital Budget Basis of the Budget Calculation

Components
Total $M
Consultants Fees
Contract Contingency
Statutory Charges
Professional Audit Fees
Clerks of Works
Procurement Management Fees
Q Health Costs
Artwork 1%
Project Reserve
Total Cost (based on GFA of 144,000m2)
81.00
34.00
4.69
6.70
1.01
1.68
84.00
11.76
33.60
1,230.44
Source: Queensland Health / Project Services

Note: All dollars are real as at August 2006
8.2
Updated Announced Capital Cost budget (July 2008)

In July 2008, the Government revised the Gold Coast University Hospital Project capital cost
budget to $1,549 million (July 2008 dollars). This Updated Announced Capital Cost budget
contained a number of additional scope items including site acquisition, Medical and Dental
School and additional surrounding infrastructure.
Table 8.2 GCUH Updated Announced Capital Budget (July 2008)
Description
Hospital
Budget ($M)
Approved Budget as at August 2006

Escalation from August 2006 to December 2007 (16
mths, 6.8% escalation)
Site Acquisition (December 2007)
Medical and Dental School (December 2007)
Additional Surrounding Infrastructure (December
2007)
Escalation December 2007 1 July 2008 (4.4%)
Approved Budget as at 1 July 2008
Additional
Scope ($M)
Total Budget
($M)
$1,230
$84
$1,230
$84
$50
$60
$60
$170
$58
$1,372
$7
$177
$65
$1,549

Note: All dollars are real dollars at the date specified
8.3
Government approved capital cost budget - escalation calculations

In the following table the Announced Government Capital Budget has been escalated based on
the escalation rates in Table 6.3 and an S-curve for total project capital costs to reach a nominal
end-cost budget of $1,868.54 million.
144
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 8.3 GCUH Announced Capital Budget Escalation Calculations

GCUH Announced Capital Budget Escalation Calculations
Element
Announced Budget as at Base Date of 1 July
2008 (Real Dollars)
Plus escalation to commissioning based on agree
escalation rates and the DLA construction curve
Escalation Rate
$M
1,549.00
2008-2009 = 8% per
annum
2009-2012 =
7%,6%,6%,5% per annum
DLA construction curve
Total Announced Budget in Nominal Dollars
319.54
1,868.54
Source: Escalation rates based on report from Quantity Surveyors for the three current health projects, Construction
Curve provided by DLA
The Government Approved Capital Budget in nominal dollars of $1,868.54 million can be
compared with the Proposed Delivery Model Capital Cost Estimate, as calculated in Section 6 of
this report, of $2,108.30 million in nominal dollars.
8.4
Need for a Reference Case

It is understood that the Announced Capital Budget ($1,230 million in August 2006 dollars) was
developed based on the following assumptions:
that the Gold Coast University Hospital is a 750 bed tertiary referral hospital with the costs
broadly based on the Townsville Hospital which is also a tertiary referral hospital
a total gross floor area of 144,000 m2
a Managing Contractor procurement model with broadly similar risk allocation to the
Townsville Project
the estimated budget is as at August 2006 (i.e. real August 2006 dollars). It is assumed that
the escalation included in the table in section 8.1 relates to the escalation from the date of
completion of the Townsville hospital to the date of the Announced Capital Budget in August
2006.
These broad assumptions, combined with the absence of a detailed schedule of areas, mean
that it is difficult to determine the mix and level of services that the Announced Capital Budget
would provide. Consequently, the Announced Capital Budget is an insufficient basis for
meaningful comparisons with the Proposed Delivery Model. In order to address this problem, it
has been necessary to develop a suitable Reference Case and budget that:
provides clarity about the underlying assumptions through development of a detailed

schedule of areas and associated cost plan; and
is based on similar assumptions to the Announced Capital Budget concerning facility

standards and consequently reconciles to the Announced Capital Budget in terms of its
aggregate cost.
145
Queensland Health
September 2008
Accordingly, a Reference Case has been developed to reflect facility standards that may have
been assumed in, or can reasonably be associated with, the Announced Capital Budget to
permit analysis of the main factors that account for the difference in cost associated with the
Proposed Delivery Model. The Reference Case is based on a schedule of areas that is
consistent with delivering the level and mix of services required by the Health Service Plan.
Consequently, the Reference Case will deliver essentially the same service outputs in terms of
activity levels as the Proposed Delivery Model.
Nevertheless, there are some significant differences between the Reference Case and the
Proposed Delivery Model in terms of service outcomes as a result of differences in facility
standards and equipment levels, as detailed below. In addition, the cases differ in terms of their
reliability of delivery because of differential provision for project risks.
It is emphasised that the Reference Case has not been developed as a viable delivery solution
and it would not be able to be delivered because it fails to achieve certain statutory standards
and does not reflect essential requirements for the GCUH, such as FF&E levels appropriate for
the super-specialty services at the hospital.
8.5
Proposed Reference Case

While the Announced Capital Cost Budget is not explicit as to the facility standards that have
been assumed, the stated gross floor area of 144,000 m2 provides a reasonable guide. The
following table shows a series of area schedules that have been developed to determine the
Reference Case. The table shows the following for comparative purposes (in columns from left
to right):
the total gross floor area required for the Proposed Delivery Model of 165,000 m2 dissected
by planning unit
the total gross floor area of the existing Townsville Hospital of 55,715 m2, dissected by
planning unit. The Townsville Hospital was the last major tertiary hospital to be constructed
and was used as the benchmark in developing the Announced Capital Cost Budget
the floor space that would have been required for the Proposed Delivery Model excluding
the impact of the revised Health Facility Guidelines, increased provision of single beds, and
new statutory requirements. This area amounts to 122,095 m2, and represents the floor
space required to deliver the 750 beds and mix of services required for the Proposed
Delivery Model at standards (AHFG, single beds and statutory) that are comparable to those
prevailing when the Townsville Hospital was constructed
the floor space that would have been required for the Proposed Delivery Model including the
impact of the revised Health Facility Guidelines but excluding increased provision of single
beds and new statutory requirements
impact of the revised Health Facility Guidelines and increased provision of single beds but
excluding the new statutory requirements
146
Queensland Health
September 2008
impact of the revised Health Facility Guidelines, increased provision of single beds and the
new statutory requirements (in effect, corresponding to the Proposed Delivery Model).
Table 8.4 Floor space reconciliation
Planning Unit
Generic inpatient unit
Division of Surgery and
Critical Care Services
Division of Family, Women
& Children
Division of Medical
Services
Division of Mental Health &
ATODS
Division of Community,
Allied, Rehabilitation and
Aged Services
Corporate Services,
amenities and retail
Total
Travel space
Plant space
Main atrium
Total Gross Area
Comparable Townsville area (m2)

+
+
+
AHFG
Single Statutory
VHFG
rooms
require
17,043
18,983
18,983
26,102
26,342
26,342
Proposed
Delivery
Model (m2)
19,057
24,437
Existing
Townsville
375 bed
(m2)
6,904
10,119
16,032
5,672
12,418
14,527
14,902
14,902
14,018
5,001
9,674
10,988
11,608
11,608
5,923
2,228
5,100
5,858
5,858
5,858
5,817
2,146
4,952
5,582
5,942
5,942
7,359
2,672
5,554
6,425
6,665
6,665
5,039
3,871
1,181
2,281
3,888
3,866
4,493
3,866
4,493
3,866
4,493
3,866
16,556
6,192
12,095
14,513
14,513
14,513
118,109
17,380
27,673
1,200
44,396
95,319
13,319
26,776
109,399
17,504
21,573
113,174
18,108
22,317
113,174
18,108
22,318
164,362
57,715
122,095
148,476
153,599
10,445
164,045
750 bed
with old
guideline
15,820
21,952
Notes:
(1) Under AHFG and VHFG an allowance of 20% has been applied based on changes to the 1992 Guidelines applied at
the time of constructing Townsville
(2) Statutory Requirements includes DDA, BCA, OH&S and ESD. An allowance of 6.8% has been applied based on
recent PPP projects in Victoria and New South Wales
Source: GCUH Architecture, Townsville PDP
On the basis of this analysis, a Reference Case has been established involving a schedule of
areas which assumes application of the revised Health Facility Guidelines and would require a
gross floor area of 148,476 m2 which is comparable to, but slightly higher than, the gross floor
area assumed in the Announced Capital Cost Budget (August 2006) of 144,000 m2.
A cost plan has been developed for the Reference Case and is summarised in the following
table. The total nominal risk-adjusted cost of the Reference Case equates to the Updated
Announced Capital Budget (July 2008) because the risk adjustment has been used as a
balancing item. This approach is considered reasonable because the amount of the risk
adjustment (approximately $170 million) is 11.9% of the capital cost and is comparable to the
level of risk contingencies assumed for the Proposed Delivery Model.
147
Queensland Health
September 2008
This approach means that there is a different proportion of risk in the Reference Case budget
compared to the Announced Capital Budget (August 2006) where the contingency amounts to
5.5% of the capital cost (as contained in table 8.1). This contingency is relatively low and the
treatment of risk is just one of a number of assumptions that are unclear in relation to the
Announced Capital Budget (August 2006), necessitating the development of the Reference
Case.
Table 8.5 Capital Cost Estimates for Reference Case and Proposed Delivery Model
Items
Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & Rehabilitation
Services
Central Plant, etc.
ESD Initiatives
External Works
Raw capital cost
Raw Project Development Costs
Additional scope items (Site Acquisition, Additional
Infrastructure and Medical School)
Total Raw Capital Costs (July 2008)
Escalation
Risk adjustment
Total Nominal Risk Adjusted Cost
Reference Case
Capital Cost
$M
119.18
21.04
183.60
112.88
68.00
28.82
Proposed Delivery
Model Capital Cost
$M
134.72
21.31
184.36
128.38
86.56
30.40
33.38
71.77
36.59
88.42
159.13
165.51
0.00
75.02
1,163.33
86.34
38.37
82.35
41.83
101.79
187.75
183.40
67.84
63.44
1,352.51
88.02
177.40
1,427.08
177.40
1,617.93
272.04
169.42
310.98
179.38
2,108.30
1,868.54
Note: All amounts are in July 2008 dollars except escalation, risk adjustment and total nominal risk adjusted cost,
which are in nominal dollars.
Source: Reference Case Capital Cost provided by DLA, Proposed Delivery Model Capital Cost based on
assumptions provided by DLA and KPMG Financial Model
8.6
Comparative analysis of the Reference Case with the Proposed Delivery

Model
A number of factors have been identified that explain the difference between the estimated cost
of the Proposed Delivery Model and the Reference Case budget. These factors are discussed
in the following sub-sections and relate to:
increased provision for risks relative to conventional project allowances for contingencies
(albeit relatively small);
148
Queensland Health
September 2008
8.6.1
Queensland Health policy to move from average provision of 25% single bed rooms to
approximately 75% single bed rooms;
additional floor space area associated with new/revised Statutory Requirements (including
Disability Discrimination Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act and Building Code of
Australia);
introduction of Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives (plant and equipment); and
increased provision of FF&E (high-cost medical equipment).
Increased risk adjustment

The following table shows that the risk adjustment in the Proposed Delivery Model is more than
the risk adjustment included in the Reference Case. As the Schematic Design and a number
of detailed technical studies have been completed for the Proposed Delivery Model the risk
adjustment has now been reduced. This reduction is a result of some risks materialising and
therefore included in the raw cost rather than being a contingency and other risks have been
avoided or failed to eventuate.
Table 8.6: Additional cost due to risk adjustment
Risk Adjustment
Element
Risk adjustment included in the Reference Case
Risk adjustment included in the Proposed Delivery Model
Difference between the two estimates
Nominal $M
169.42
179.38
9.96
Source: Queensland Health risk workshops
The risk adjustment for the Proposed Delivery Model has been based on detailed identification
and valuation of project risks as described in Section 6 and Appendix C of this report.
8.6.2
Increased ratio of single beds

three major hospital projects (including the GCUH Project) was to proceed on the basis of the
infectious patients
80% single rooms for high acute ward environments
60% single rooms for variable acuity medical wards
Noting that the room sizes will vary from 24m2 (critical care), to 15-18m2 (high/variable acuity) to
12m2 (mental health). Queensland Health is also undertaking some further analysis of the
recurrent costing associated with the increased amount of the single bed rooms. Applying these
principles has increased the single bed ratio from current Queensland allowances of 25% to
75%. The increase in proportion of single rooms together with the increase in room sizes
149
Queensland Health
September 2008
results in a requirement for an additional space of 5,123 m2. The following table shows the
increased floor area and cost of this additional space on the Proposed Delivery Model estimate.
Table 8.7 Additional space due to single rooms
Additional space due to single rooms
Floor Space (m2)
Nominal $M
1,940
14.5
240
1.8
Division of Surgery and Critical Care Services
375
2.8
620
4.6
360
2.7
Division of Community, Allied, Rehabilitation and Aged

Services
240
1.8
3,775
28.3
Travel
604
4.5
Plant
744
5.6
5,123
38.4
Planning Unit
Sub total
Total increase in area

8.6.3
The new Statutory Requirements (including Occupational Health and Safety, Building Code of
Australia, Disability Discrimination Act, etc) are estimated to add a further 10,445m2 to the
required floor space and also include additional costs associated with a faade and insulation
required by BCA.
Table 8.8 Statutory requirements
Element
Total funding for additional Statutory Requirements
Nominal $M
76.2
8.6.4
Environmentally Sustainable Design Initiatives

The following table provides an estimate of the additional cost of plant and equipment
associated with Environmentally Sustainable Design Initiatives. Currently, the project team is
endeavouring to provide a sustainable hospital consistent with an accredited four star rating. A
detailed description of the ESD initiatives is provided in Appendix A.
Table 8.9 Environmentally Sustainable Design Initiatives (plant and equipment)
Environmentally Sustainable Design Initiatives Requirements
Element
Additional capital cost for ESD plant and equipment
Nominal $M
82.0
8.6.5
Furniture Fixtures & Equipment

The allowance for furniture, fittings and equipment (FF&E) in the Proposed Delivery Model
estimate is $42.1 million higher than the allowance in the Reference Case budget, as shown in
the following table. This difference reflects a higher level of FF&E in the Proposed Delivery
150
Queensland Health
September 2008
Model as a proportion of the total capital estimate, relative to the level in the Reference Case
which is based on the Townsville Hospital. The estimated FF&E requirement at GCUH will be
subject to further review, including incorporating the results of an audit of FF&E at the existing
Southport campus to determine the equipment that may be transferred to GCUH.
Table 8.10: Additional FF&E requirements
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment
Element
FF&E included in the Reference Case
FF&E included in the Proposed Delivery Model
Difference between the two estimates
Nominal $M
152.5
194.6
42.1
The increased FF&E provision in the proposed Gold Coast University Hospital compared to the
Townsville Hospital (and therefore the Reference Case) reflects the higher role delineation
associated with the Gold Coast University Hospital and the consequent need for additional highcost medical equipment. The following table compares the role delineation of the existing Gold
Coast Hospital (GCH) with the proposed Gold Coast University Hospital and the current
Townsville Hospital. The Gold Coast University Hospital will require a number of superspecialty services that are not present at Townsville. It should be noted that the Royal Brisbane
Hospital, which represents a more appropriate benchmark hospital for the Gold Coast University
Hospital in terms of services and role levels, has a similar percentage of FF&E as a proportion
of its capital cost as the Proposed Delivery Model.
Table 8.11: GCUH role levels relative to GCH and Townsville Hospital
Clinical Department
Core Clinical Services
Emergency Services [1]
Endoscopy Services
Maternity Services
Supporting Clinical Services
Anaesthetic Services
Coronary Care Services
Diagnostic Imaging
Intensive Care Unit (Adult)
Intensive Care Unit (Paediatric)
Interventional Radiology
Neonatal Services
Nuclear Medicine
Operating Suite Services
Pathology
Pharmacy
Surgical Sub-Specialties
Breast surgery
Burns
Cardiothoracic surgery
Colorectal surgery
2006/07
2016
Current
GCH
GCUH
Townsville
3
3
3
Super-Specialist
3
Super-Specialist
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
N/A
1,2,3
2
2
3
3
3 [3]
3
3
3
3
3 [2]
1,2,3
3
2,3
3
3
3 [4]
3
3
3
3
N/A
1,2,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
N/A
3
3
2
3
3
N/A
151
Queensland Health
September 2008
Clinical Department
Ear, nose and throat surgery
Endocrine surgery
Gastrointestinal surgery
General surgery
Gynaecology
Head and neck surgery
Hepato-biliary and pancreas
Maxillofacial surgery
Neurosurgery
Ophthalmology
Orthopaedic surgery
Paediatric surgery
Plastic and reconstructive
Podiatric surgery
Trauma
Urology
Vascular surgery
Medical Sub-Specialties
Cardiology
Clinical genetics (medical)
Clinical haematology
Clinical immunology
Dermatology
Endocrinology
Gastroenterology
General paediatrics
Geriatrics
Hepatology
Infectious diseases
Internal medicine
Neurology
Rehabilitation medicine
Renal medicine
Rheumatology
Sleep medicine
Thoracic medicine
Cancer and Palliative Care
Haematological malignancy
Medical oncology
Palliative care
Radiation oncology
Surgical oncology
2006/07
2016
Current
GCH
3
N/A
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
N/A
N/A
3
3
GCUH
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Townsville
3
N/A
3
3
3
3
Primary
2
Primary
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
N/A
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Primary
3
3
3
2
N/A
3
Super-Specialist
Super-Specialist
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 to 3
3
3
2
2 to 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
152
Queensland Health
September 2008
Clinical Department
2006/07
2016
Current
GCH
GCUH
Townsville
Notes: Where no indication of service is defined, this is due to the lack of definition of the Service at Townsville
based on the Townsville Hospital PDP documentation
8.6.6
High level variations table

As noted in Section 8.3 above, the Reference Case is based on the Australian Health Facility
Guidelines and the Victorian Health Facility Guidelines but otherwise reflects standards and
conditions that prevailed in relation to construction of the Townsville Hospital. The following
table summarises the impact on the Reference Case of the other factors discussed above,
specifically, the increased provision for risk, the increased proportion of single rooms, increased
Statutory Requirements and increased provision for FF&E. Together, these factors amount to
$248.7 million and they substantially explain the additional cost of the Proposed Delivery Model
compared to the Reference Case.
Table 8.12: Summary of cost differences between the Reference Case and Proposed Delivery
Model
Additional costs ($000)
Category
(Nominal $)
Total Capital
Cost
Total Capital
Cost
Proposed
Delivery
Model
($M)
Reference
Case
Budget
($M)
Risk
Adjust
-ment
1,868.5
10.0
Single
Room
Statutory
Requirements
Space
ESD
Plant &
Equip
FF&E
Reference
Case plus
additional
costs ($M)
38.4
76.2
82.0
42.1
2,117.2
2,108.3

8.7
Potential capital cost offsets to fund the affordability gap

The estimated total cost of the Proposed Delivery Model is $240 million higher than existing
committed funding, in escalated (end cost) terms as contained in Table 7.4.
The following table identifies potential cost offset initiatives which may reduce the affordability
gap, which is the difference between the capital cost estimate of the Proposed Delivery Model
and the committed funding, as specified in the Updated Announced Capital Cost (July 2008).
153
Queensland Health
September 2008
Table 8.13 Potential Cost Offset Initiatives

Potential Cost Offset Initiatives for the Gold Coast University Hospital
Proposed cost
offset initiative
Estimate of
potential cost
offset
Rationale for cost offset

initiative
Risks associated with

achieving the cost offset
initiative
Sale of
Southport site
(West of Little
High Street)
$60 million
(July 2008)
Offsetting the sale of an

existing asset for the funding
of a new asset is a standard
saving initiative.
Revenues are subject to

rezoning
approval
for
residential
development,
Council requirements (for floor
space ratios, site coverage,
setbacks, height restrictions,
etc), building demolition /
remediation, market risk at
time of sale for proposed use
and the relocation of any
additional QH activities off the
site.
Escalation is based
on CPI assuming
the land is sold in
2013/14 (CPI is
likely to be a
conservative
escalation index)
$69 million
(nominal)
An indicative high level

valuation has been completed
by QH which resulted in a $60
million estimate.
State Valuation Services is
currently preparing a formal
highest and best use valuation
report for the Southport
Hospital. This valuation report
is to be available by mid
October 2008.
The timing of the sale will be

post the capital expenditure for
the Project and will therefore
still have budgetary impact in
the years in which capital is
expended.
Revenues
could
be
significantly higher or lower
than the estimate provided.
Commonwealth
funding for
oncology
facilities
$91 million
(nominal)
No escalation is
assumed
QH
has
submitted
an
application for Commonwealth
funding
for
the
GCUH
Oncology
facilities
(construction and FFE costs)
as part of the Australian
Healthcare
Agreement
negotiations.
The Commonwealth funding

application was made in July
2008.
The amount of any potential
offset will depend on the
success of the Commonwealth
funding application.
A fully cost estimate of the

Oncology
Facilities
was
forwarded
to
the
Commonwealth as part of the
application.
154
Queensland Health
September 2008
Proposed cost
offset initiative
Estimate of
potential cost
offset

initiative

initiative
Reduction in
FF&E and ICT
$15 million
(July 2008)
A reduction in the FF&E / ICT

budget may be achieved
through greater re-use of
existing
equipment
(i.e.
transfer of equipment from the
Southport Hospital).
Estimate is subject to audit of

existing FF&E to confirm
suitability for re-use.
The GCUH site includes a

14,000m2 provision for a
collocated private hospital to
meet expected growth in
private sector bed capacity as
assumed in the GCUH and
Robina hospital expansion
plans. Expressions of Interest
have
been
called
from
potential
private
hospital
developers.
QHs ability to charge an

upfront payment for the private
hospital land and infrastructure
will depend on the level of
private sector interest and the
investors ability to pay an
upfront contribution based on
viability of the private hospital.
The payment of an upfront
contribution may also result in
a reduction to the ongoing
rental stream to be paid by the
private operator.
Escalation is based
on FFE escalation
rate and will
postpone
expenditure in 2012
$18 million
(nominal)
Private hospital
collocation
$15 million
(July 2008)
Escalation is based
on CPI and it is
assumed that the
private hospital
payment will be
paid in 2012/13
$17 million
(nominal)
This amount is intended to be

an upfront contribution by the
successful private operator to
QH as a contribution towards
the infrastructure that has
been developed as part of the
Project.
This upfront contribution is not
a payment for the purchase of
the land (i.e. QH is not selling
the land and it is intended that
a rent stream will be paid by
the private operator).
Six
private
sector
organisations registered formal
Expressions of Interest in the
Private
Hospital.
The
proposed
procurement
process for the private hospital
is planned to be completed by
early 2009.
The timing of the upfront
contribution will potentially not
align
with
the
capital
expenditure for the Project and
could therefore still have
budgetary impact in the years
in which capital is expended.
155
Queensland Health
September 2008
Proposed cost
offset initiative
Estimate of
potential cost
offset

initiative

initiative
Deferred fit-out
(shelling) of
critical care,
surgery and
paediatrics
spaces
$15 million
(July 2008)
Shelling is feasible for 4

operating rooms, 20 ICU beds,
24 surgery beds, 14 paediatric
beds.
Dependent on policy view

concerning timing of capital
budget constraint (Saving is
achieved during construction
phase but is offset by fit-out
expenditure when ramp-up
phase to 750 beds is
undertaken).
Escalation is based
on construction
escalation rate and
assumes deferment
of expenditure at
the mid point of
construction
$17 million
(nominal)
Shelling
is
defined
as
structural completion of the
areas but with no final flooring,
ceiling, internal walls, lighting
and FFE completed.
Fit-out expenditure would be
required during ramp-up phase
as beds are opened.
Deferment of FFE will ensure
that the latest equipment can
be procured and that the
equipment
does
not
deteriorate prior to use.
Remove
1,000m2 of gym
space for
rehabilitation
services
$4 million
(July 2008)
Escalation is based
on construction
escalation rate and
assumes deferment
of expenditure at
the mid point of
construction
$5 million (nominal)
Gym capacity can be reduced

while retaining an option to
complete if required at a later
date.
The area will be constructed
but will be shelled. Shelling is
defined
as
structural
completion of the areas but
with no final flooring, ceiling,
internal walls, lighting and FFE
completed.
Shelling is a cost deferment as

the costs will eventually have
to be incurred. It is likely that
completing the construction fitout at a later date will result in
more expensive outcome.
If the deferred fit-out is treated
as cost not included in the
Project capital cost budget
then an additional source of
funding will be required for the
deferred capital costs.
Subject to health planners
review as to service needs
during ramp-up phase.
If the deferred fit-out is treated
a cost offset and not included
in the Project capital cost
budget then an additional
source of funding will be
required for the deferred
capital costs.
156
Queensland Health
September 2008
Proposed cost
offset initiative
Estimate of
potential cost
offset

initiative

initiative
Outsourcing of
commercial
kitchen space
for cafeteria
$3 million
(July 2008)
The private sector will be

responsible for the capital
costs associated with the fitout of the cafeteria / kitchen
facilities.
Subject to viability of private

sector delivery.
Escalation is based
on construction
escalation rate and
assumes deferment
of expenditure at
the mid point of
construction
$3 million (nominal)
The upfront fit out may result

in a lower rental stream from
the private sector tenant.
As part of the Project the area

will be constructed but will be
shelled. Shelling is defined as
structural completion of the
areas but with no final flooring,
ceiling, internal walls, lighting
and FFE completed. The
private sector will then pay for
the fit out.
Private
sponsorship
and naming
rights
$5 million
(nominal)
Private sector and community

organisations
may
make
donations or other contribution
to equipment or facilities.
Requires
significant
promotional activity and there
is uncertainty over timing of
revenues
relative
to
expenditure.
Radiotherapy
(private sector
provision of
equipment and
service)
$20 million
Services
to
non-admitted
patients can potentially be
provided cost-effectively by the
private sector who are able to
recoup costs through the MBS
rebate and a small out of
pocket component. The MBS
payment also includes a
capital recovery component.
Private providers may require

financial
incentives
to
commence services in parallel
with commissioning of the
GCUH.
The level of out of pocket

expenses may be included in
negotiations as part of the
lease arrangements.
There will be some costs in

contracting small volumes of
inpatient activity.
Proposed savings are based

on equipment costs, not
building costs. It is assumed
that QH
There is also the potential to

obtain an ongoing rental
stream for private sector use
of
QH
building
space
(recurrent saving).
This option is
only available if
the application
for funding
from the
Commonwealth
for the
Oncology
Facility is
unsuccessful.
Escalation is based
on FFE escalation
rate and will
postpone
expenditure in 2012
$24 million
(nominal)
Requires the Commonwealth

support for radiotherapy in the
local area.
157
Queensland Health
September 2008
Evaluation of the Proposed Delivery Model
9.1
Possible evaluation approaches

The Queensland Governments Project Assurance Framework requires that, in preparing a
Business Case for Government consideration, agencies should use Cost Benefit Analysis
(CBA), or Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) if appropriate, to demonstrate that the project
option recommended in the Business Case will optimise value for money in its use of resources.
The Queensland Government has issued Cost-Benefit Analysis Guidelines to assist agencies in
conducting CBA and CEA.
9.1.1
Cost benefit analysis

CBA is used to assess the impact of a project on the economic welfare of the community. It
involves the comprehensive identification and estimation of project costs and benefits, including
external social and environmental impacts, to rank project options according to their net
economic benefit. Economic valuation of costs and benefits involves adjustments for market
distortions, such as tax and subsidies, and the estimated valuation of inputs and outputs not
traded in the market, such as lives saved. CBA is not generally used in the evaluation of
hospital projects because of the difficulty of reliably valuing significant benefits of reduced
morbidity and mortality in the community.
9.1.2
Cost effectiveness analysis

CEA is used for projects where benefits can be identified but it is not possible to value them in
monetary terms. Instead, benefits are expressed in terms of outcome statistics such as number
of hospital beds. Only one benefit is used as a measure of effectiveness and therefore the
predominant benefit of the project needs to be identified. Project options are valued only in
terms of costs in achieving the measured predominant benefit. The CEA will therefore
determine the least cost option for achieving a particular outcome but it will not show whether
benefits outweigh costs.
CEA is an appropriate methodology in principle for evaluation of the GCUH project and could
be applied in assessing options for delivering 750 beds which, while an input measure,
represent a convenient proxy for the predominant outcomes of the project. However, CEA has
not been applied for the following reasons:
in the development of the Project Definition Plan and related user consultation processes,
Queensland Health has developed a single option, described in this Business Case as the
Proposed Delivery Model, for progressing the project
as noted in section 8.3, this Business Case has developed a Reference Case to reflect
facility standards that may have been assumed in, or can reasonably be associated with,
the Announced Capital Cost budget to permit analysis of the main factors that account for
the difference in cost associated with the Proposed Delivery Model. The Reference Case
was not developed as a viable delivery solution and it would not be able to be delivered
because it fails to achieve certain statutory standards and does not reflect essential
requirements for the GCUH, such as FF&E levels appropriate for the super-specialty
services at the Hospital
the factors that account for the differences between the Reference Case and the Proposed
Delivery Model have been separately costed and evaluated in Chapter 8; evaluation of the
Reference Case and Proposed Delivery Model in a CEA framework would not add any
further information or analysis.
158
Queensland Health
September 2008
Based on the factors discussed above, the proposed approach for evaluating the Proposed
Delivery Model is a qualitative assessment against the project objectives. This approach does
not evaluate the Reference Case because, as noted above, it is not considered to be a viable
delivery option. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to summarise in this section the main outcomes
or benefits that are associated with each of the factors identified in Section 8 that explain the
difference between the Reference Case and the Proposed Delivery Model.
9.2
Qualitative assessment of Proposed Delivery Model

The following section qualitatively assesses the Proposed Delivery Model against the projects
objectives set out in Chapter 2. Each project objective is reviewed in turn and a short
commentary is provided which describes how the Proposed Delivery Model seeks to achieve
the stated objective.
9.2.1
Project objective: Service delivery and care
create a patient-focussed health system that encourages innovative models of care

delivered in a major teaching hospital
deliver operational efficiency, optimising the use of people and resources, capable of
achieving health service planning targets and sustaining service levels into the future
promote evidence-based design to create an environment that enhances patient

safety, patient outcomes and clinical excellence
ensure ability to function in a post-disaster environment
enhance amenity for users of the site including consideration of car parking, retail,
co-located private hospital.
Assessment of Proposed Delivery Model

The Proposed Delivery Model achieves the Queensland Governments commitment to the
development of a 750-bed major tertiary teaching hospital. It will also offer the full range of
super-specialist clinical and support services described in the GCUH Health Service Plan. The
evidence based design principles of the Proposed Delivery Model will enable the Hospital to
offer a supportive patient/family-centred environment where patients and their families and
carers experience excellence in all aspects of health service.
The Master Plan has developed a clustering approach towards the delivery of clinical services
and support services as follows:
clustering of acute care services, sub-acute services and acute services clinical support
clustering of acute mental health inpatient services
clustering of family, women and children services
clustering of education, research and pathology
clustering of offices centrally in close proximity to clinical areas.
The design principles described earlier in Section 4.3. support this clustering approach and the
desire to minimize travel distances, provide clear way-finding and ease communication
between departments. For example, acute services and ambulatory care services are primarily
located on the first five levels of the hospital building (basement through to level 2) with direct
links to mental health, the proposed private hospital and public car parking. The remaining four
159
Queensland Health
September 2008
levels include support units and additional inpatient units. (The building layout is described
further in Section 4.4).
As discussed in Section 4.16, evidence based local and international studies suggest that the
adoption of a relatively high proportion of single-bed rooms, together with pod ward designs,
will be a key contributing factor towards enhancing patient safety (e.g. reducing the number of
patient falls) and patient outcomes (e.g. improved satisfaction levels, shorter lengths of stay)
and thereby improving operational efficiency.
The configuration of the Hospital under the Proposed Delivery Model allows sufficient space
within the site for the development of suitable amenities and support services including a 3,000
car parking facility, retail opportunities, private hospital and medical consulting suites and child
care facilities (it is noted that provision of these facilities is outside the scope of the Proposed
Delivery Model).
The proposed site and configuration promotes easy patient access and movement into and
around the facility. For example, it is proposed that:
the Rapid Transit station will be located at the front door of the hospital
the planned Hospital Street allows good access for traffic, emergency vehicles to the
hospital main entry, car park and associated functions
pedestrian access spines link the book end car parks, mental health and the wider precinct
on simple grid system providing clarity for access
core hospital facilities will be located along a right angled internal street with a walking
distance to lift nodes within 50 meters of each other.
The Proposed Delivery Model will also provide a central energy facility on-site to ensure the
Hospitals essential utilities can function in a post-disaster environment.
9.2.2
Project objective: People
Support attraction and retention of well-trained, committed and motivated staff.

Competition for skilled clinical and nursing staff is a challenge for all health service providers in
Australia and the GCUH is expected to face similar challenges, particularly following
commissioning when there is a significant increase in service activity. Queensland Healths Bed
Transition Strategy envisages a progressive ramp-up in activity over a four year period to
manage the recruitment process while meeting projected service demand.
In addition, the Proposed Delivery Model develops the Hospital to exceptional clinical, teaching
and support services standards that are expected of a modern major tertiary hospital. Given the
profile of the Hospital facilities, its clinical service offerings and designation as a leading
teaching hospital, it is more than likely to attract and retain well-trained, committed and
motivated staff.
The Hospitals proposed location within the Knowledge Precinct, the ease of access to the
facility and on-site amenities such as car-parking, child care facilities and retail outlets, are a few
examples of the many features the Proposed Delivery Model offers towards attracting
appropriately skilled staff.
160
Queensland Health
September 2008
The Hospitals close association with the Griffith University, Bond University and other higher
educational institutions, as well as the re-location of the Medical and Dental School to Griffith
University land, are further reasons the Proposed Delivery Model is likely to achieve the
projects people objective.
9.2.3
Project objective: Site access and egress
provide clear points of site access and egress ensuring the efficient movement of
public/staff, emergency and service vehicles in and around the site
maximise integration of developing public transport infrastructure to the new

Hospital.

Key design principles of the Proposed Delivery Model include ease of access from public and
private transport, and the concept of intuitive and clear wayfinding between buildings. The
Proposed Delivery Model features a series of linking spines throughout the Hospital site in order
to promote efficient travel. These vehicle and pedestrian links provide access to car parking
facilities, green spaces, associated hospital services and wider precinct neighbours including
the University, proposed Private Hospital and Child Care Centre. A series of proposed external
road upgrades by the Department of Main Roads to the network surrounding the Hospital will
provide clear points of access and egress to the site.
The Department of Main Roads and Queensland Transport are communicating with the GCUH
project team to inform the design of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit station which will service the
University and the GCUH. Construction of this station is scheduled to be completed in 2012 in
line with completion of the Hospital.
9.2.4
Project objective: Future proof and flexible
encourage flexible design and infrastructure capable of adapting to new technologies

(clinical, information and operational) and emerging trends in clinical practice,
models of care and changes in government policy, legislation and standards.

The GCUH Health Service Plan addresses the short to medium as well as long term
implications for health services and includes assessments of the most likely areas of expansion,
such as Cancer Care Services. Accordingly, the Hospitals Master Plan has a design
philosophy that considers flexibility of internal layout and an effective expansion strategy. Some
of the key design principles for flexibility and expansion include:
to ensure that the building structure, construction and provision of building services can be
easily modified to respond to change and expansion
to ensure that critical zones, including but not limited to the Emergency Department, Medical
Imaging, Operating Suite, Ambulatory Care and Cancer Care services can expand in the
future without disrupting ongoing operational activity
to provide core infrastructure in locations which will not obstruct change or expansion and
which will continue to provide back bone services and access throughout the life of the
building
to provide convenient access to building services that could require change or expansion in
the future.
161
Queensland Health
September 2008
The Proposed Delivery Model includes a spatial expansion allowance of 90,000m2 of gross floor
area to enable extensions or new buildings to be added. This additional floor space could
increase bed numbers from 750 to approximately 1,000 to cope with future demand (such an
increase would be subject to usual feasibility analysis and approvals) and would bring the total
gross floor area to 255,000m2. Adequate plant capacity will also be provided by the Proposed
Delivery Model to accommodate the changing requirements of the Hospital over a 25 year
period.
The decision by Queensland Health to increase the proportion of single-bed rooms from current
standards of 25% up to approximately 75% means the Proposed Delivery Model is well
positioned to keep pace with this emerging trends in Australia and internationally.
The use of single rooms has been debated extensively and the increased ratio of single rooms
has been selected as it delivers the following advantages:
9.2.5
improved flexibility of ward utilisation on a day to day basis
improved flexibility of ward utilisation in terms of future reconfiguration of use (future

proofing)
improved infection control
increased privacy, dignity and independence
increased space around the bed
reduced staff injuries
encouragement of therapeutic activity
reduced recovery time
reduced adverse clinical errors.
Project objective: Teaching and research
promote an active learning environment, providing appropriate facilities for teaching

and research within clinical areas, and between the GCUH and its key education and
research partners.

Under the Proposed Delivery Model, the Hospital will be located at the northern end of the
Knowledge Precinct. One of the key benefits of this location is the ability to closely integrate
teaching and research activities between the Hospital and University. The co-location of the
proposed Private Hospital with the GCUH will also complement the teaching and research
activities of the Hospital.
To address the teaching and research project objective, the Proposed Delivery Model embeds
teaching activities within the Hospital setting together with proximate teaching and research. In
particular the education areas will include the following:
162
Queensland Health
September 2008
240 seat lecture theatre
two 120-150 seat lecture theatres
one conference room, two seminar rooms and four tutorial rooms
OH&S Training and Staff Development facilities
Computer Learning Centre
Clinical Training Service including Clinical Skills Laboratory and training rooms.
A spatial allowance has been made for hospital-based research, where all dry research
undertaken by the various Clinical Departments is to be conducted. The teaching and research
spaces at the hospital will provide capacity to build relationships not only with Griffith University
but with Bond University and other higher educational institutions.
To ensure the integration between the new Hospital and Griffith University continues, the parties
have agreed that the existing Medical and Dental school will be relocated to University land. A
footbridge over Parklands Drive will achieve connectivity with the GCUH (this aerial link is not
part of the Proposed Delivery Model scope).
9.2.6
Project objective: Business continuity
achieve a successful relocation to the new Hospital with no interruption to the

ongoing delivery of services.

The Proposed Delivery Model is expected to meet the opening date for the Hospital of
December 2012. This on-time delivery will facilitate a smooth transition from the hospital
services at Southport and existing Interim Demand Management Strategies, as well as assisting
in implementation of the Transition Plans without unexpected delay. Queensland Health is in the
process of developing a detailed transition plan for the Hospital, however current indications are
that a ramp up approach will be adopted to introduce services in line with service demand and
workforce availability. The Proposed Delivery Model is planned to be fully operational by 2015.
The Southport facility is planned to be decommissioned following the commissioning of GCUH
in 2013.
9.2.7
procure a new major teaching hospital which delivers value for money to the State,
within budget and other parameters as agreed by the State.

The selection of a procurement option for the Proposed Delivery Model was subject to a
decision making process separate to the development of this Business Case. Through that
process it was determined that the best value for money procurement approach for the project
would be Managing Contractor GCS form of contract.
The original capital cost budget announced by the Queensland Government for the 750-bed
GCUH was $1,230 million (August 2006 dollars). A further announcement by the Government in
July 2008 revised the Gold Coast Hospital Capital Cost Budget to $1,549 million (July 2008
dollars). Applying the same escalation rates and construction works profile assumed for the
Proposed Delivery Model the Updated Government Approved Capital Cost Budget is $1,846.54
million (nominal dollars).
163
Queensland Health
September 2008
The cost planning analysis for the Proposed Delivery Model results in a capital cost of
$2,108.30 million in nominal dollars. This project cost exceeds the original budget by $240
million. As discussed, in Section 8, the Announced Capital Budget does not provide sufficient
information to permit meaningful comparison with the Proposed Delivery Model. Consequently,
a Reference Case has been established which delivers essentially the same level and mix of
service outputs as the Proposed Delivery Model but for the same capital cost as the Announced
Capital Budget. The main differences between the Reference Case and the Proposed Delivery
Model have been discussed in section 8.
The sections emphasise that the Reference Case is not a viable delivery solution because it
fails to achieve certain statutory standards and does not reflect essential requirements for the
GCUH, such as FF&E levels appropriate for the super-specialty services at the hospital. In
addition, it is not a robust and reliable costing because it contains an inadequate provision for
project risks. The risk adjustment for the Proposed Delivery Model has been based on detailed
identification and valuation of project risks as described in Section 6 and Appendix C of this
report and is considered appropriate for this project taking into account the current early stage in
the procurement process and consequent uncertainty about significant cost items.
If the Queensland Government approves the estimated capital cost for the Proposed Delivery
Model, then Queensland Health would have a sustainable basis to progress the project to
deliver the full range of services required by the Health Services Plan, recognising that further
design changes after Queensland Government endorsement of the estimate should be
managed within the overall raw construction cost.
The Proposed Delivery Model seeks overall ESD performance in compliance with non
accredited 4 Star rating consistent with industry benchmarking. In addition to Green Star rating,
several benchmarks and targets will be used for individual ESD topics. The ESD targets
identified by the working group are based on Queensland Healths Sustainability Guidelines and
the benchmarks set out in the Green Star Healthcare Pilot scheme. These documents have
formed the basis of a Green Plan which identifies specific ESD initiatives and targets for the
Hospital. Targeted ESD areas include energy efficiency, water efficiency, thermal comfort, PVC
reduction and waste minimisation.
maximise benefits of collocation opportunities with university, private hospital and

other services.

The hospital will be located within the Knowledge Precinct to enable it to integrate its teaching
and research functions with those of the Griffith University. In addition, the GCUH site includes
an area of 14,000m2 which has been set aside for a future private hospital development.
Discussions are underway with private hospital proponents and a strategy is being developed to
consider the appropriate timing of the private capacity and its relationship with the GCUH.
9.2.8
Project objective: Stakeholder relationships
encourage a collaborative constructive relationship between the new Hospital and

stakeholders including education and research partners, local community, and
communities of interest
minimise impact and disruption to the surrounding community during construction
the new Hospital is part of a network of services including district-wide service.
164
Queensland Health
September 2008

A Relationship Agreement has been negotiated between the Griffith and Bond Universities
and the GCHSD agreeing to a process for the development of shared services between the
parties on the GCUH site and across the District. In addition, detailed discussions have been
held with Griffith University relating to the Master Planning of the GCUH to ensure synergy and
connectivity is established between the two facilities in the delivery of teaching and research
programs.
The Gold Coast City Council (GCCC) has been involved in the Precinct Master Planning
coordinated through the Department of Infrastructure. In addition, the GCCC is represented on
the Projects Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
This committee includes community
representatives and has been established to advise the District and Project Team on proposed
services as well as design matters such as accessibility and way finding. It is allied to a range
of other strategies that are being pursued by the District to engage health consumers under the
Helping Consumers Connect Plan and to ensure opportunities for community participation in
facility planning.
The GCUH will form part of an integrated network of services within the GCHSD, encompassing
Robina Hospital, Robina Health Precinct, and a variety of Community Based Services primarily
at Palm Beach, Bundall and Helensvale, as well as a number of outreach clinics; with Carrara
Health Service providing subacute care. Within this network, the GCUH will provide higher-level
support services such as intensive care, trauma management and neonatal care. For these
services the role of the facility will be to support the State-wide availability of capacity and act as
an integrated part of a network in peak periods of stress.
165
Queensland Health
September 2008
10
Public interest
This chapter of the Business Case presents the public interest assessments for the project. It
addresses the following topics:
10.1
environmental, planning, cultural heritage and native title
employee, employment and skills issues
stakeholder considerations
communication strategy
accountability and transparency.
Planning, environment, cultural heritage and native title

Proposed Precinct and Site
The wider precinct is essentially bounded by the extent of Griffith University land to the south,
Olsen Avenue to the west, sporting clubs, private development and open space to the North,
and Musgrave Hill Primary to the East. In total the precinct is approximately 130 hectares which
consists of approximately 58 hectares north of Parklands Drive, 26 hectares between Parklands
Drive and Smith Street and 46 hectares south of Smith Street.
The site is located within a large parcel of land under the ownerships of the Department of
Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading and Churches of Christ in Queensland.
The site for the Gold Coast University Hospital consists of four separate lots or part there of:
10.1.1
Lot 458 on WD6223 (part) is currently owned by the Department of Tourism, Racing and
Fair Trading and contains showgrounds, a dog track and a harness track.
Lot 497 on WD6012 is currently leased by the Salvation Army for a drug and alcohol
rehabilitation centre.
Lot 188 on WD6012 (part) is held in trust by the Gold Coast City Council for use as a
cemetery.
Lot 496 on WD6012 is currently owned and occupied by the Churches of Christ
Queensland.
Planning Issues
Ministerial Designation
In accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), a Ministerial
designation of land at Southport to facilitate the construction and operation of the proposed
Gold Coast University Hospital has been implemented (approved by the Health Minister on
August 1 2008). The Ministerial Designation will facilitate the future development and growth of
the site as the Gold Coasts regional health precinct, primarily through the delivery of the Gold
Coast University Hospital. The effect of the designation is that the development of the site for
the designated community infrastructure and service will be exempt from the local governments
166
Queensland Health
September 2008
planning scheme. However, the requirements of all State and Federal legislation must be met
and therefore consideration was given to the provisions of the local planning scheme.
The present designation is only over the land required for the proposed hospital. Project
Services Town Planning Unit prepared an Initial Assessment Report on behalf of Queensland
Health to provide information in the assessment of the Ministerial Designation for community
infrastructure, Gold Coast University Hospital. Gold Coast City Council on line planning scheme
information indicates that Lots 188, 496, and 497 are all listed within the planning scheme as
community purposes. Lot 458 is predominantly zoned as private open space, with a small
area zoned as community purposes.
The IPA prescribes the way in which Ministerial Designations can be undertaken. The
Integrated Planning and other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (IPOLA Act) makes changes to
the IPA and in particular, procedures for designation of land for community infrastructure. The
IPA, Section 2.6.7 prescribes that a Minister, before designating land for community
infrastructure, must be satisfied that for development, the subject of the proposed designation:
adequate environmental assessment has been carried out
in carrying out environmental assessment under paragraph (a), there was adequate public
consultation
adequate account has been taken of issues raised during the public consultation.
In terms of development under the IPA the designation will be undertaken in accordance with
Section 2.6 and Schedule 5 of the Act, the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998, and the
Guidelines About Environmental Assessment and Public Consultation Procedures for
Designating Land for Community Infrastructure.
The Ministerial Designation, under the IPA Section 2.6.1 for the purpose of Community
Infrastructure, of the Gold Coast University Hospital site at Southport includes:
(a) aeronautical facilities;
(d) community and cultural facilities, including child-care facilities, community centres, meeting
halls, galleries and libraries;
(g) emergency services facilities;
(f)
educational facilities;
(h) hospitals and associated institutions; and

(r)
storage and works depots and the like including administrative facilities associated with the
provision or maintenance of the community infrastructure mentioned above.
It is intended that the community purposes undertaken at the site will be provided through:
facilities for the provision of medical care and/or treatment of sick or injured persons
facilities for scientific, forensic and medical research and testing services
educational facilities for training of persons engaged or to be engaged in the delivery of

those services, with libraries, and similar facilities to encompass training requirements
administrative, storage and maintenance facilities as necessary to support the delivery of

those purposes
167
Queensland Health
September 2008
social and public support functions including car parking, conference facilities and
commercial activities and alliances that are in support of the community infrastructure.
Steps taken in completing the Ministerial Designation

The six steps for the Ministerial Designation process included:
Step 1:
Initial Assessment Report (prepared by Project Services). A Preliminary

Environmental Review Report has also been completed.
Step 2:
Initial Consultation carried out in early 2007. A Communication Strategy for the
project was developed in October 2007, further details on the communication
strategy is provided in Section 10.4.
Step 3:
Finalisation of Initial Assessment Report March 2008
Step 4:
Public Notification and Second Consultation - public notification and consultation

occurred in late March to late April 2008.
Step 5:
Preparation of the Final Report for Minister May 2008.
Step 6:
Ministers Consideration of the Final Report - final endorsement August 2008
Other planning issues that were considered include:
The proximity of the site to the State controlled road (Olsen Avenue) may also require
development applications to be referred to Main Roads.
Environment related State legislation which may need to be sought through the Integrated
Development Assessment System including:
clearing of native vegetation
environmentally relevant activities associated with the operations of the facility (e.g.
crude oil or petroleum storage and fuel burning associated with emergency generators,
on site water or waste water treatment, heliport).
It is also recommended that formal town planning advice is obtained to confirm development
approval requirements.
Works Regulation
Previously, the project had been at risk of delay due to a number of planning, land tenure and
vegetation clearance constraints. After reviewing all options, including legislative and planning
options, it was proposed that a regulation, or series of regulations, made under s.109 of the
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act) be made, directing
the Coordinator-General to undertake works to facilitate the project (Works Regulation).
Legal advice was obtained from Mark Hinson SC about the interaction between the undertaking
of works under the SDPWO Act and IPA. Mr Hinson concluded that IPA did not apply to the
exercise of the Coordinator-Generals powers and functions under the SDPWO Act. Mr Hinson
also noted that, to the extent another person exercises powers under the SDPWO Act not as
the agent of the Coordinator-General (such as a local body undertaking works directed to be
undertaken under s.100 of the SDPWO Act), IPA would continue to apply.
168
Queensland Health
September 2008
There are sound legal grounds based on the advice of Mr Hinson SC that the use of s.109
Regulations directing the Coordinator-General to undertake the GCUH project mean that
approvals that would otherwise be required under IPA for the project, are not required.
10.1.2
Environmental Issues
Existing Site Hydrology and Flooding
Gold Coast City Councils flood mapping indicates that the site is not vulnerable to flooding,
however the site is listed as being susceptible to stormwater issues. This issue is likely to be
exacerbated by the clearing of remnant vegetation. The site is located within the catchments of
Loders and Biggera Creeks, which contain a significant diversity of protected flora and fauna
species.
The impact of stormwater quantity and quality on surrounding ecosystems must be closely
managed and considered in project designs. Site development should consider the location of
this waterway and ensure sediment loss from the site is appropriately managed. Liaison with the
local authority is required to establish the nature of existing stormwater drainage issues to
ensure these are appropriately considered in project designs. It is recommended that a
stormwater management plan is prepared for the development. Due care will be required during
design of any new buildings to ensure the development area has adequate freeboard from the
flow path and surface flows are adequately drained away from the building platform. Standard
best practice controls are to be implemented during construction to minimise potential impacts
on stormwater quality.
Topography and Geotechnical Characteristics
The site generally slopes towards the north-east, where a large detention basin designed to
capture overland flow resides within the harness racing track. The sites topography is not
expected to cause any significant issues with the proposed hospitals design and ultimate
construction.
The site geology consists of clay soils overlying extensively weathered bedrock. Areas of
shallow topsoil overlying bedrock towards the northern boundary of the site have been
identified.
The site elevations are generally greater than 10mAHD hence it is considered unlikely that acid
sulphate soils are present on the site. Nevertheless, if excavations extend below 5mAHD in
depth, consideration of potential presence of acid sulphate soils is required. The geotechnical
investigations carried out to date have not indicated any possibility of acid sulphate soils.
It is recommended that consideration of dispersivity of site soils is established during further
(stage 3) site geotechnical investigations to ensure appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures are implemented during construction and operation of the facility to protect nearby
sensitive stormwater receptors.
Existing Vegetation and Habitats
Councils on-line mapping shows that no specific vegetation protection orders exist for the site.
However, Council does provide protected vegetation status to all vegetation on freehold land
with a girth of 40 centimetres or more at a height of 1.3 metres. On-line mapping also indicates
that the western side of Lot 188 is affected by significant remnants within the Conservation
Strategy overlay and the eastern side of Lot 458 appears to be affected by the bushland
169
Queensland Health
September 2008
mosaics designation within Councils Conservation Strategy. Both allotments are mapped as
containing existing 1994 remnant vegetation (and other natural systems). Potential difficulties
associated with these issues are to be avoided by the use of works regulations under s.109 of
the SDPWO Act as explained above.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters report
identifies 38 threatened species and 44 migratory species whose habitats occur within five
kilometres of the site.
The site is not within a restricted fire ant area as defined by Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries mapping.
The site is not located within a Koala habitat, conservation or living area under the Nature
Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 (Koala
Plan).
Site Contamination and Waste Management
The sites are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agencys Environmental Management
Register or Contaminated Land Register. Coffey Environments PL was engaged by Bovis Lend
Lease to conduct a hazardous building materials audit of various buildings within the defined
GCUH boundary. The aim of the audit was to identify, as far as practicable, the location and
condition of hazardous building materials (asbestos containing material and synthetic mineral
fibre products and potential for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) capacitors, lead based paints
and ozone depleting substances (ODS)), and provide recommendations regarding their
management during the proposed demolition work.
Coffey Environments conducted its inspections on June 16 and 17, 2008 and a subsequent
report with clearly identified procedures will be included in the documentation package for an
Early Works tender.
Disposal of demolition and construction wastes to landfill should be minimised through waste
prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling programs. It is recommended that the successful
contractor be required to produce a Waste Management Plan as part of the Construction
Environmental Management Plan to ensure this issue is given due consideration.
Air and Acoustic Quality
There are no residential properties located immediately adjacent to the site. Some residences
are located within 500 metres to the north, west and south of the proposed site. Consideration
of potential amenity impacts, including nuisance from increased traffic, noise and lighting, on
these nearby residences must be considered and managed during the design, construction and
operational phases of the facility. Additional consideration should be given to the access and
egress routes taken by emergency vehicles, including helicopter flight paths. Potential noise and
air quality impacts on the site users from road traffic and other site activities should also be
considered during design of the facility.
10.1.3

The properties are not listed on the Queensland Heritage Register or the National Heritage
Register databases, however a Memorial Tree is noted on the site survey within Lot 496. There
are no listings for the properties on the Department of Natural Resources and Waters
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage database or register.
170
Queensland Health
September 2008
Queensland health in conjunction with Crown Law is currently negotiating a Cultural Heritage
Management Plan, pursuant to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003. Actions required to
address Aboriginal Cultural Heritage will differ across the sites depending on the previous level
of disturbance.
The majority of the site could be considered as Category 4 (Areas previously subject to
Significant Ground Disturbance) under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2003 Duty of Care
Guidelines. In these circumstances subject to measures set out in paragraph 5.6. In some
cases, despite an area having been previously subject to Significant Ground Disturbance,
certain features of the area may have residual Cultural Heritage significance.
The remainder of the site (part of Lot 188 WD10612) could be considered as category 5
(Activities causing additional surface disturbance) under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2003 Duty
of Care Guidelines. In these circumstances subject to the measures set out in 5.13 5.16 of
the guidelines it is necessary that the activity should not proceed without Cultural Heritage
assessment.
Both of these categories will be dealt with via means of a survey and other requirements as
determined by an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan. A draft Cultural Heritage
Management Plan prepared by Crown Law was released on the 27th June for review.
Native Title
With respect to Lot 458 on WD6223, Lot 496 on WD6012 and Lot 497 on WD6012 native title is
considered to be extinguished via either a valid freehold or leasehold Previous Exclusions
Possession Act. However, given Lot 188 on WD6012 is a reserve, there is no basis to
extinguish native title over this allotment either via Previous Exclusive Possession Act or a valid
public work. Queensland Health has confirmed this with the Director, Native Title Policy and
Legislation Services within the DNRW. The area of land affected by Native Title will require the
Acquisition of Native Title rights by the State. Queensland Health has applied to The
Department of Natural Resources and Water on 5 June 2008 to commence this process.
10.2
Employee, employment and skills issues

The Value for Money Guidance Material requires an assessment of any likely significant
employee, employment and skills issues that might require attention during the project delivery.
This section contains provides further information on:
10.2.1
the current GCHSD workforce and project workforce
employment and workforce issues
employment issues associated with the construction of the facility.
Workforce profile
The GCHSD has 4,104 staff (3,393 FTE) which equates to 17.9% of the Southern Area Health
Service (SAHS) workforce population, as at September 2007.
171
Queensland Health
September 2008
The table below illustrates the Headcount and FTE comparisons for the September 2006 and
2007 quarters. The percentage increase in staff is significantly greater at 17.7% pa compared
with that of SAHS of 12.3%.
Table 10.1 Headcount and FTE comparisons for the September 2006 and 2007 quarters
Sep-06
Headcount
Sept-07
FTE
Headcount
FTE Increase 06-07

FTE
FTE
Gold Coast
3,542
2,882.43
4,104
3,392.98
510.55
17.7%
SASH Total
20,729
16,844.74
23,008
18,914.58
2069.84
12.3%
Source: Queensland Health, MOHRI Reports - June 2006 & 2007
Age Profile
The average age of workers in the health industry is rising, resulting in a range of issues
associated with an ageing workforce and the limited availability of new recruits. Currently, in the
GCHSD, approximately 32% of the permanently appointed workforce are aged 50 years and
over as illustrated in the following figure
Figure 10.1 Staff Age Profile
Staff Age Profile (GCHSD Vs SAHS)
65 and Over
55 - 59
45 - 49
Gold Coas t
35 - 39
Southern Area Health

Service
25 - 29
19 and les s
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
(Source: MOHRI Report September 2007)
Retirement Replacement
Currently staff eligible for retirement is 6.23%. In 2012 staff eligible for retirement will more than
double to 14.07% which equates to approximately 577 staff.
Employment Status
172
Queensland Health
September 2008
The GCHSD workforce is made up of 75.51% permanent staff. ABS figures (2001) indicate that
only 50.8% of female nursing workers worked full-time while the other 49.2% worked parttime19. GCHSDs nursing data supports this trend towards part-time work (34%). The nursing
stream constitutes 46% of the GCHSD workforce and has a significant impact on workforce
issues associated with skill mix, continuity of care, and flexible work patterns, which will become
more important as this reduction in fulltime participation trend increases.
Workforce Growth
GCSHD has experienced quite significant growth in workforce numbers in the last 2 years. This
is related to multiple factors including increased service delivery demand, being able to recruit to
positions that have been previously vacant, and significant funding allocation from Queensland
Health since 2006.
Medical workforce has had the greatest percentage staffing increase with a 48% growth from
2005-2007 (refer table below). Allied Health has had significant growth of 29% within the same
time period and Nursing has 25%, less than the total staff percentage growth. An implication of
the increase in medical staff is the workload effect on other streams which have not had the
same percentage increase. It will be important to ensure that workforce planning is not only
related to one stream when service delivery changes or increases are identified
Table 10.2 FTEs by Stream September 2005 Vs September 2007
FTE Increase
Stream
% Increase
Sep-05
Sep-07
Sep-07
Managerial and Clerical
358
528
47.49%
Medical (Inc VMOs)
351
522
48.72%
1,488
1,868
25.54%
548
673
22.81%
13
14
7.69%
350
452
29.14%
47
54
14.89%
3,155
4,111
30.30%
Nursing
Operational
Trades & Artisans
Allied Health / Professional / Scientists
Technical
All Pay points
Source: Queensland Health, Plan Reports compiled by HR Informatics - Sept 2006 and Sept 2007
The following table provides an estimate of the likely increase in FTE by district per based on
the anticipated increase in bed numbers as contained in the draft Bed Transition Strategy
prepared in October 2007.
Table 10.3 Estimated Increase in FTE by District (per Increase in Bed Numbers)
District
Gold Coast
Year
Bed
Increase
Medical
Nursing
A/Health
Professional
Support
Staff
Total
2006-07
20
25
88
21
25
158
2007-08
41
51
180
42
51
324
2008-12
73
30
157
29
98
314
2012-13
121
150
531
125
150
956
19
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005. 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, retrieved on 01/10/07 from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/8a87ef112b5bcf8bca25703b0080ccd9!OpenDocument
173
Queensland Health
September 2008
District
Year
Bed
Increase
Medical
Nursing
A/Health
Professional
Support
Staff
Total
2013-14
59
73
259
61
73
466
2014-15
33
41
145
34
41
261
2015-16
35
43
154
36
43
276
Source: Queensland Health, Projected increase in bed numbers from the draft Bed Transition Strategy
October 2007
Note: To calculate the staffing ratios the full time equivalent (FTE) for each professional group was
divided by the number of beds to derive FTE per bed for October 2007. This ratio was then multiplied
by the increase in bed numbers per year. 2008-12 includes the Carrara Facility and Surgicentre
Initiatives.
Please note that varying staffing levels due to various models of care has not been taken into
consideration. The above numbers are a broad estimate of staffing FTEs required for the
increase in bed numbers. The total increase in staff during the period from 2006 to 2016 is
2,520 FTE which can be broken down into:
10.2.2
395 Medical Staff
1,406 Nursing Staff
329 Health Professionals
395 Support Staff.
Key Workforce and Employment Issues

The key work force issues for the proposed GCUH Project that need to be addressed as part of
the development of the project include:
Recruitment, retention and retraining: Ability to make key future appointments to clinical
services at the GCUH facility. The proposed strategies to recruit, retrain clinicians, nurses
and support staff include:
the establishment of links with the existing and emerging university health programs to
maximise consequent recruitment
plan for student clinical education within overall staffing numbers so that local
recruitment is enhanced
the establish of links with local high schools and VET sector for recruitment of support
clinical staff and support non-clinical staff..
These strategies will also need to recognise and focus on the additional workforce
requirement due to the increased number of staff members entering the retirement age or
close to retirement age.
Potential inclusion of the facility management and maintenance into Managing

Contractor Contract: Queensland Health is currently investigating the potential benefits of
including the facility management and maintenance into the contract for the Managing
Contractor. The benefits may include a more whole of life design.
174
Queensland Health
September 2008
The affected staff under this proposal primarily include the Building, Engineering and
Maintenance (BEMS) Staff and Grounds / Gardens Staff.
Of significance is the pending expiry of current enterprise agreements in August 2008 and
the negotiations surrounding EB7 which will commence shortly. Given that enterprise
agreements usually last for three years, there is potential for the EB8 bargaining period to
also be problematic.
Transmission of business provisions exist within industrial legislation to protect the
entitlements and conditions of staff employed through privatisation of a service. However,
only Queensland Government employees are entitled to access QSuper.
Strategies for managing major organisational change and contracting out are clearly
articulated in the Qld Public Health Sector Certified Agreement [No 6] 2005 [sections 4.1
and 6.2] and the Queensland Health Building Engineering and Maintenance Services
Certified Agreement (No 3) 2006 [section 7.3]. Both agreements require early consultation
with unions and detailed discussion prior to going to tender or entering into any binding legal
agreement.
Work Practice Changes: The scope of services for the new hospital and the ability to
transition staff from acute to community contexts as population health initiatives and
changes in models of care take effect will necessitate significant changes to current
workforce practices. To effectively undertake the work practice changes, the Gold Coast
Workforce Planning Committee will require buy in and input from clinician and support
services planning groups. However, clinical groups have been affected by recent changes at
the systemic level in Queensland Health and maybe reluctant to engage in further change.
Strategies to address these employment issues are being developed through a Strategic
Workforce Planning Committee including representatives of GCHSD. In addition strategies are
being developed at a corporate level to address consistent practices and processes affecting
the major Hospital developments. These strategies will include direct negotiation with Unions at
a whole of Queensland Health level to establish processes for local negotiation and
development of change management strategies.
10.2.3
Employment Issues Associated With Construction of the Facility

A project of this magnitude will offer considerable opportunities for employment, either as direct
employment during the construction phase of the project, or indirectly via the employment of
those providing goods and services as inputs to the project. It has been estimated by the
building consultant that during the construction phase of the Hospital, 2200 3000 full time
equivalents will be required over three years.
Skills development
Since 1993, a minimum of 10 per cent of the total labour hours on any Queensland Government
building or civil construction project (valued over $250,000 for building or $500,000 for civil
construction) must be undertaken by apprentices, trainees or cadets, or used for the up-skilling
of existing employees (to a maximum of 25 per cent of the deemed hours).
The Queensland Government's Building and Construction Contracts - Structured Training
Policy, known as the '10 per cent Training Policy', ensures structured training occurs within
Queensland Government building and construction contracts. This policy requires that
175
Queensland Health
September 2008
apprentices, trainees and cadets must be engaged in approved training that leads to a
nationally recognised building and construction competency or qualification.
Contractors are required to provide evidence of compliance with this policy and this information
will ultimately be considered in any review of their eligibility to tender for future government
work.
Sourcing goods and services
The Queensland Government is committed to supporting competitive local industry and to
ensuring that local industry is provided with full, fair and reasonable opportunity to tender for
work on infrastructure and resource-based projects and major procurements in Queensland.
Accordingly the Government expects that project proponents, developers and operators will:
recognise that involving local industry in projects and capital asset acquisitions provides
economic benefits to all parties and is crucial to the long-term development of a strategic
manufacturing and service capability that underpins a strong and diversified Queensland
economy
ensure that Queensland and Australian suppliers, contractors and manufacturers are given
full, fair and reasonable opportunity to tender and participate in all stages of projects and
acquisitions subject to this Policy
use Australian Standards and Codes in the formulation of specifications, tenders and the
letting of contracts (except where it is unreasonable to do so)
seek to maximise levels of goods and services, including design services, from local
companies where they are competitive with respect to cost, quality and timeliness
seek to incorporate this Policy into contracts entered into with third parties for the supply of
goods and services
encourage private sector project proponents, who are not formally subject to the provisions
of the Policy, to apply the principles espoused in the Policy to their projects on a voluntary
basis as good corporate citizens.
This approach is designed to ensure that investment decisions in key projects provide
opportunities for local industry without adverse effects on cost, quality or timeliness.
The Government requires that the proponents of any infrastructure or projects funded by the
public sector with a value greater than $5 million will be required to develop Local Industry
Participation Plans. Local Industry Participation Plans are designed to support the involvement
of local industry in purchases subject to the provisions of the Local Industry Policy. Each Plan
lists competitive local suppliers that will be invited to tender and will detail the level of local
industry participation expected in projects and the benefits that will flow to Queensland in
industry development, technology transfer, job creation and skills development.
Equal Employment Opportunity and the Anti-Discrimination Act
Queensland Health is committed to ensuring that workplace recruitment is based on Equal
Employment Opportunity and the Anti-Discrimination Act and encourage applications from all
members of the community. In addition to these principles, there are specific opportunities for
indigenous groups to be involved in the project relating to cultural heritage.
176
Queensland Health
September 2008
10.3
Stakeholder Issue Management

Several stakeholder groups will be impacted by the proposed GCUH project and the broader
precinct development. These groups and the respective project issues affecting them are
discussed in this section under the following headings:
10.3.1
health related stakeholder considerations and issues management
broader community stakeholder considerations and issues management.
Health related stakeholder consideration

The health related stakeholder considerations and issues have been categorised into the
following groups:
patients, relatives and users of the health facility
clinicians including medical, nursing and allied health staff
local community.
Consultation in relation in relation to the health related issues has been undertaken by a
number of means including Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Lean Thinking initiatives, Service
Planning Groups and Executive Service Planning Groups. The main stakeholders and their
issues are described in the following section.
Patients, relatives, users of the health facility
Overall project objectives include the development of services and a facility that are patient
focussed as well as relative and family friendly. The District has been proactive in establishing
programs to delivery on those objectives. The following provides detailed information on past,
current and planned stakeholder engagement activities.
Consultation to date
Lean thinking initiatives have been underway in GCHSD since February 2006. The process of
lean thinking focuses on what is of value to the customer across the patient journey. Reviews
of patient flow, have resulted in the identification of recommendations for improvements. The
review of patient flow has occurred across the following Departments and patient groups:
Medicine elderly breathless patient
Orthopaedics elective hip arthroplasty
Emergency Department presentation of paediatric patient
Intensive Care discharged patient
Mental Health community care of dual diagnosis patient ready for discharge.
In addition to information collected through the above flow projects a process is underway to
obtain consumer/user input of people accessing the service over the next few months into the
design of the GCUH. This process will include:
177
Queensland Health
September 2008
some patient groups will be tracked and mapped through their journey in the current facility
with particular objective of obtaining feedback from the patient themselves, their relatives
and friends and staff regarding their perceptions and expectations of what the new facility
should have and how it will best meet then needs of the community. Some initial tracking
has already occurred and the results reviewed
some patients and their relatives (or significant other) will be requested to keep a diary of
their journey, with particular reference of their experience of the physical environment. A
preliminary assessment of the tool to be used has already occurred, results reviewed and
implemented in January 2008
some client groups have been identified for focus groups and experiential mapping of a
journey through current processes for example, linguistically and culturally diverse clients
will be asked to participate in an exercise where they are asked to find Medical Imaging
while being tracked
some clients will be asked to participate in a process where other facilities are visited to
identify good design and things that that do not work.
Issues raised
A number of issues have been identified and prioritised for action. Primary issue relates to
communication across the continuum of care.
Potential issues and mitigation strategies
Issues identified through this process were included in project development through the
Schematic Design phase.
Clinicians including medical, nursing and allied health staff
The development of the Health Service Plan, Project Definition Plan and Schematic Design has
involved over 120 clinical staff through both Service Planning of which there were 39 and 14
Executive Service Planning Groups. These groups have developed models of care and
functional briefs for inclusion in the endorsed Project Definition Plan.
General practitioners
This important group of primary health care providers and stakeholders is represented on the
project Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
Non-clinical support
These staff have been included in the planning processes through membership of the Service
Planning Groups and Executive Service Planning Groups established for the project.
Staff Consultation/Information Sharing
The existence and creation of new robust information dissemination systems have been created
to highlight project progress enhanced practices making change appealing to staff20.
20
(Plsek & Wilson 2001, p.748)
178
Queensland Health
September 2008
In an effort to disseminate rich, timely information regarding upcoming opportunities and service
evolution, a number of inclusive strategies have been defined. Processes undertaken or
planned include:
staff forums
surveys
presentations at staff functions
district broadcasts.
With this in mind, strategies have been developed which will facilitate the sharing of meaningful
information that touches natural attractors or creates new ones21. Staff forums are just one of
the strategies in which to share information. Staff forums in addition to providing an opportunity
to generate staff buy in, this strategy has allowed the foundation of our services22 to have their
say.
The facilitation of sharing information staff will be accomplished through a number of
mechanisms including: media releases, public notice boards and websites, articles in
Queensland Health publications including Healthwaves and Healthmatters and other
appropriate media opportunities as they arise. It is envisaged that there will be synergy with
GCHSD Service Development initiatives which will include:
Service Development Newsletter. It is envisaged that that 1 page Service Development

publication will be produced fortnightly or monthly as appropriate and that it will be
disseminated via email through GGHSD Broadcasts. Key milestones and additional
information from this publication will then be used to populate a regular service development
feature in Healthwaves.
Healthwaves (local District newsletter) articles. A regular service development column in

this bi -monthly publication will ensure accurate and timely information to staff and
consumers alike.
To date the following activities have been undertaken:
staff surveys completed October 2007 and was planned for December 2007
presentation by District Manager at Achievement Awards December 2007
article in Healthwaves November 2007
staff gallery review of the Schematic Design progress in July 2008
district broadcasts.
Unions
Union consultation principally occurs through the District Consultative Forums (DCF). The DCF
includes Queensland Health, Mater Health Services Ltd, the health unions represented on the
21
22
(Plsek & Wilson 2001, p.748)

Strategic Plan 2007-2012
179
Queensland Health
September 2008
State Bargaining Unit, the Queensland Nurses Union and the Medical Interested Based
Bargaining. Through the DCF both Union and Management representative meet on a monthly
basis. Issues affecting the project are raised and resolved through that forum as well as
reference to the project planning groups.
A separate working committee is also being established to specifically look at the employment
issues associated with the current development of the three major health facilities in South East
Queensland (i.e. the proposed GCUH, Sunshine Coast Hospital and the Childrens Hospital).
Potential labour related issues for the GCUH Project include:
car parking policy how staff parking tariffs for the proposed GCUH car parks will be set as
discussed in the Car Park Business Case provided in Appendix D
work practice changes as outlined in Section 10.2.2
potential inclusion of the facility management and maintenance into Managing Contractor
Contract as outlined in Section 10.2.2.
Local community
The development of the GCHSD Master Plan included community consultation forums to
facilitate community input into service planning.
As part of the development of the October 2005 Gold Coast Health Service District Master Plan
community consultation on the planning in the District was undertaken to inform the
development of the document in 2005.
A series of nine public consultation meetings were held at various venues throughout the Gold
Coast, at various times and on various days of the week to optimise access to the community.
The meetings consisted of a presentation of data, demographics, and service planning
information. Clinicians and health services planners from within the District attended the
meetings and answered questions from the floor at every event.
The meetings were publicised through advertising in the local paper, community service
announcements, letter box drops and a series of media articles in local papers and on radio.
A number of publications were also produced outlining the vision for the new GCUH.
More recently, the Gold Coast Health Service District has developed the Helping Consumers
Connect Project Plan. The Helping Consumers Connect Project aims to identify, implement and
evaluate a systematic approach addressing the following core Gold Coast Health Community
Council responsibilities:
community engagement
community education about public health services on the Gold Coast
quality and safety.
180
Queensland Health
September 2008
This project will identify and deliver multiple strategies which will be actioned as part of the wider
strategic agenda provided for Health Community Councils by the Minister for Health under the
provisions of Section 28M of the Health Services Act 1991. Strategy selection has been
informed by existing best practice community engagement evidence and has capitalised on
current and/or planned consultative activities.
This plan will include opportunities for the community to participate and engage directly with the
planning processes of the new GCUH.
In addition to the above mentioned local initiatives, a comprehensive Communication Strategy
has been developed by Capital Works and Asset Management Branch. This strategy provides
the overarching strategic direction for communication relating to the development and
construction stages of the GCUH.
A Stakeholder Advisory Committee has been established for the GCUH which includes
community representatives as well as key stakeholders mentioned above. The purpose of this
Committee is to provide advice to the District and the Project Team in relation to services
proposed for the new GCUH as well as design including accessibility, way finding and other
initiatives to ensure a patient and relative friendly care environment.
The Gold Coast Health Community Council as previously mentioned is also a key stakeholder in
the development and consultation processes including community input into the design of the
new GCUH and service provided.
Griffith and Bond Universities
A Relationship Agreement has been negotiated between these organisations and the GCHSD
agreeing to a process for the development of shared services between the parties on the GCUH
site and across the District. This agreement recognises the necessary partnerships involved to
make the concept of a University Teaching Hospital a success.
Agreement has also been reached on the advertising and funding arrangements for joint
appointments between Qld Health and Griffith University which will impact on the GCUH and
developing relationships between the District and the University.
Detailed discussions have been held with Griffith University relating to the Master Planning of
the GCUH to ensure synergy and connectivity is established between the two facilities in the
delivery of teaching and research programs.
10.3.2
Broader Community Stakeholders

Consultation in relation precinct has been facilitated through the Precinct Master Planning. The
main stakeholder affected and their issues are described in the following section.
Local Council
The Gold Coast City Council (GCCC) was involved in the Precinct Master Planning coordinated
through the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. The Plan is currently being revised. In
addition, the GCCC is represented on the previously mentioned Stakeholder Advisory Group for
the project.
181
Queensland Health
September 2008
Gold Coast City Council is trustee for the current cemetery expansion land and agreed to
release the land for the development of the new hospital, based on the assurance of the State
to provide alternate cemetery land elsewhere within the city. Gold Coast City Council has also
indicated its interest in economic development opportunities, particularly knowledge industries.
Gold Coast City Council is responsible for the road network surrounding the new hospital and
the Knowledge Precinct (except Olsen Avenue and Smith Street which are managed by the
Department of Main Roads).
Church of Christ
The Church of Christ is a freehold land owner located to the south of the lawn cemetery, central
to the proposed location of the hospital. In addition to church services, they undertake a range
of activities on their premises such as child care related functions, provision of off-street parking
for Griffith University students, crisis and relationship counselling, student support services
largely for international students, theological education and youth programmes for surrounding
State Schools.
Church of Christ has agreed in principle to relocate to a portion of a site currently owned by
Griffith University on the southern side of Smith Street, Parkwood subject to a number of
conditions including the acquisition of freehold title to the area in question. In conjunction with
the preliminary works commenced following the making of State Development and Public Works
Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, the Coordinator-General has been directed
to undertake a program of works comprising all further works required to design, construct and
commission the Gold Coast University Hospital facilities. This regulation also directs the
Coordinator-General to undertake all other works and activities reasonably incidental to the
main hospital works, including measures relating to environmental management, traffic
management measures, stormwater management and, if agreement is reached between the
Coordinator-General and the Churches of Christ, reinstatement of the Churches of Christ
complex.
The Church of Christ has vacated its site to interim leased premises in the vicinity on the
expectation that an agreement with the State for suitable compensation associated with the
acquisition of the site will be achieved.
Discussions conducted with Church representatives has also indicated a preparedness for an
interim move in the short term as long as there was a reasonable exit strategy that would
enable the Church to continue to serve the community within a similar area.
An interim child care facility has been established on the Parklands Showgrounds site to ensure
continuity of this important community service. Childcare commenced at the new facility on 1
September 2008. A permanent facility will be constructed as part of the relocated Church of
Christ facility on a 2 hectare site south of Smith Street and opposite Crestwood Drive Southport,
if an agreement with the Church of Christ is finalised.
Section 135(1) of the SDPWO Act provides that the Government may enter into an Agreement
with any person that private works agreed on by them shall be undertaken by the CoordinatorGeneral on such terms and conditions as are provided in the Agreement.
Section 135(2) of the SDPWO Act provides that a regulation may authorise the CoordinatorGeneral to undertake works agreed by the Government (whether under section 135(1) or
otherwise) to be undertaken by the Coordinator-General and the Coordinator-General is thereby
182
Queensland Health
September 2008
empowered to undertake those works as authorised works subject to and in accordance with
the regulation and the material Agreement.
On 10 June 2008, the State entered into an agreement with the Churches of Christ for provision
of a temporary child care centre for the use of the Church, pending reinstatement of the Church
buildings. Pursuant to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment
Regulation (No. 3) 2008, and s.135 of the SDPWO Act, the Coordinator-General has been
directed to undertake the works necessary to deliver the temporary child care centre for the
Churches of Christ.
Salvation Army
The Salvation Army currently occupies land in trust from the State Government on the proposed
hospital site. A warehouse/distribution service for their District is operated from this site, as well
as the Fairhaven Rehabilitation Centre, offering detoxification services relating to drug and
alcohol addictions. A new warehouse facility at Molendinar has been purchased by Queensland
Health and leased to the Salvation Army for their distribution service. Negotiations are
continuing for a suitable replacement facility for the drug and rehabilitation service and it is
planned for this to occur within a timeframe that will permit the Salvation Army to continue to
provide this service with little or no disruption.
Queensland Health has no intention of incorporating the drug rehabilitation service within the
Gold Coast University Hospital. Queensland Health would continue to fund the Salvation Army
to operate this service.
The Parklands Gold Coast Trust, the Greyhound Racing Authority and the Harness
Racing Association
The Parklands Gold Coast Trust currently manages land in trust from the State Government
upon which leases have been granted to Greyhound Racing Authority and the Harness Racing
Association. The balance of this site contains the Showgrounds facilities.
The land currently utilised as a greyhound track and associated car park are within the footprint
of the Gold Coast University Hospital. An alternative venue for greyhound racing has been
identified at Slacks Creek and a proposal from the Greyhound Racing Authority to progress this
is currently under consideration.
The hospital development itself will have some impact on the harness racing facilities, requiring
relocation of stables. In the longer term, the development of the Gold Coast Hospital and
Knowledge Precinct would require relocation of the harness racing track. Options for a
combined site for thoroughbred and harness racing on the Gold Coast are being investigated.
Griffith University
The construction of the new Gold Coast University Hospital will require the relocation of the
Universitys Medical and Oral Health School currently adjacent to the existing Gold Coast
Hospital at Southport to Parkwood to ensure continued close integration of teaching activities.
Resolution has been reached between QH and Griffith University on the location of the Medical
and Oral Health School on university land that will most effectively achieve connectivity with the
Gold Coast University Hospital.
The State will provide funding for the construction of the replacement Medical and Dental
School on a like for like basis in accordance with an agreed timetable. The basis of transfer of
183
Queensland Health
September 2008
ownership of the existing Medical and Dental School from the University to the State is currently
being progressed.
Subject to the outcome of the ongoing preliminary works, it is anticipated that the project works
required to deliver the Griffith University Medical and Dental school, and other incidental
developments, will be undertaken by the Coordinator-General pursuant to a further works
regulation made under section 109 of the SDPWO Act.
Department of Main Roads
Department of Main Roads are the road network owner and manager of the two major
thoroughfares (Smith Street Motorway and Olsen Avenue) linking to the Gold Coast University
Hospital.
Department of Main Roads conducted a preliminary analysis and costing which significantly
impacted on the decision to move the Gold Coast University Hospital site from its initially
announced location south of Smith Street on Olsen Avenue to north of Smith Street on Olsen
Avenue/Parklands Drive.
Department of Main Roads identified significant road infrastructure cost savings of between
$260 - $360 million by building the hospital on the Northern Site at Parklands. The major
savings are through major interchanges that would have been required for the southern site at
Olsen Ave/Crestwood Dve and Olsen Ave/Southport-Nerang Rd either not being required or
being deferred for decades.
Funding for upgrades of road infrastructure on the northern site has been estimated to be $250
million. Road upgrades consist of:
upgrading of the existing Smith Street Connection Road/Labrador-Carrara Road (Olsen

Avenue)grade separated interchange
construction of new Smith Street Connection Road/Parklands Drive (eastern end) grade
separated interchange
construction of a signalised at grade intersection at Tonga Place at an estimated cost of

$7m
preferably (but not essential) an improved more directional left-turn off Labrador - Carrara
Road (Olsen Ave) into the western end of Parklands Drive at an estimated cost of $1m
preferably (but not essential) an improved more directional left-turn lane off Labrador Carrara Road (Olsen Ave) into Southport - Nerang Road at an estimated cost of $1m
non-signalised at grade intersection from the hospital to connect to Musgrave Avenue to

provide an additional low-usage ambulance and emergency vehicle access point to the
surrounding local road network at an estimated cost of $1m.
Department of Main Roads are currently updating and refining the road upgraded costs required
for the Gold Coast Hospital in line with developments on the master planning for the precinct
and hospital site.
Queensland Transport / Gold Coast Rapid Transit
Queensland Transport is planning the development of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project.
Queensland Transport has indicated a rapid transit station servicing Griffith University & Gold
184
Queensland Health
September 2008
Coast University Hospital is a priority for the project and will be accommodated in the final
solution. Construction of this station is included in the first stage of the Gold Coast Rapid
Transit project which is scheduled to be completed in 2012, in line with the completion of the
Gold Coast University Hospital. The Rapid Transit is integral to a whole-of-transport access
solution for the Gold Coast University Hospital.
Department of Infrastructure and Planning is coordinating all stakeholders including Queensland
Transport, Department of Main Roads, Queensland Health, Gold Coast City Council and Griffith
University to inform the design of the rapid transit station and corridor infrastructure that will
interface with the Gold Coast University Hospital.
Department of Natural Resources and Water
Department of Natural Resources and Waters role is to determine the vegetation management
issues with the Gold Coast University Hospital site. The use of works regulations under s.109 of
the SDPWO Act overcomes the Integrated Planning Act and therefore the Vegetation
Management Act implications for the project development.
Department of Infrastructure and Planning
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning are working with Queensland Health to ensure
that access to the northern site for construction of the hospital is not impeded by access issues,
in relation to holders of interests in land or transport networks around the site, or on which the
hospital is to be constructed. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning will inform the
timely and integrated delivery of major infrastructure projects in the area, namely the Gold Coast
Rapid Transit and the road network upgrades.
The acquisition of land required for the Gold Coast University Hospital but currently occupied by
the Council, the Salvation Army, the Church of Christ and the Parklands Gold Coast Trust is
required to be resolved by August 2008 in order to facilitate the implementation of a Works
Regulation under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act.
Office of Urban Management
The former Office of Urban Management facilitated a master planning exercise for the Hospital
and Knowledge precinct. The Office of Urban Managements objectives were to:
deliver a precinct framework that will provide leadership through a unifying vision for the
future development of the precinct
show how new development can be integrated with the wider area
deliver collective and integrated outcomes
ensure the efficient use of land.
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning is managing the revision of the master plan
since a number of infrastructure studies to support the hospital development have been
completed.
Department of Local Government, Sport & Recreation
The Department of Local Government, Sport & Recreation are assisting the Department of
Infrastructure and Planning in consultation with the affected lessees at Parklands; the
185
Queensland Health
September 2008
Greyhound Racing Authority and Harness Racing Association as well as the Parklands Gold
Coast Trust. In addition to this they:
ensure usable alternative sport and recreation opportunities remain, if existing facilities are
lost;
ensure green space provisions in the area are enough to support growing demand
are considering the option of building an indoor sports stadium in the Precinct that could
have synergy with Griffith University and the hospital - rehabilitation/sports science/sports
medicine
Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry (formerly Department of

State Development)
The Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industrys primary concern is to ensure
adequate allowance for knowledge-based industries are planned within the Precinct. They are
responsible for the development of the Smart Water Research Facility and the Queensland
Academy of Health and Medical Science at the Precinct. The links between these knowledgebased industries and the Gold Coast University Hospital tertiary facilities are being explored.
Other Parties
Matters likely to be of interest to nearby land owners and other parties include (but are not
limited to):
10.4
built form, height and bulk
design, including architectural and landscape treatments
intended site population
vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation
hours of operation
management of stormwater discharge
potential future implications for the ongoing and viable development of adjacent lands
impacts during construction.
Communication Strategy
The communication strategy provides the overarching strategic direction for communication
relating to the development and construction stages of the Gold Coast University Hospital. It will
provide guidance towards branding, public relations, community engagement, and stakeholder
relations activities. It is intended that the strategy provides communication support throughout
the lifetime of the project stages, including master planning, schematic design, design
development, tender, construction, practical completion and opening.
The Gold Coast Service Development team will manage communications relating to internal
staff communication, service planning and philosophy of care for the hospital, hospital
governance, human resources and change management.
The Major Hospitals Project Office will manage all project specific communications issues.
186
Queensland Health
September 2008
10.4.1
Purpose of the Communication Strategy

The purpose of the strategy is to:
10.4.2
raise awareness and understanding of how the project intends to manage and communicate
key messages to identified stakeholders and target audiences
provide the steering committee and senior management with a documented framework
detailing which communication mechanisms/tools would be most appropriate for the
identified stakeholders and target audiences
ensure the communication of issues, implementation of issues and project updates to key
stakeholders
provide a mechanism for seeking and acting on feedback to encourage the involvement of,
and assist in 'selling' the project to, the key stakeholders
identify and manage communication and reputation risk associated with the project
identify the actions required for implementation of the strategy and associated costs.
Communication objectives
Awareness
to increase awareness of the Gold Coast University Hospital project, its benefits and what it
will mean to users and their families, staff, and local community
to inform and educate audiences about the planning and development stages and
associated impacts
to promote and manage the reputation of Queensland Health.
Attitude
to generate or strengthen users, staff and the communitys personal relevance to the
messages of the campaign
to foster a sense of community pride and ownership of the new hospital.
Behaviour
10.4.2.1
to achieve active participation in engagement activities from staff, users, special interest
groups and local members of the community throughout the lifetime of the project
to attract and retain quality staff to the Gold Coast University Hospital across all professional
areas during the lead up to opening in 2012
to encourage message champions within Queensland Health and in the community

(including residents, businesses, and the private health sector) throughout the lifetime of the
project.
Key messages
The overarching campaign slogan is were building a healthier community. This message
will be supported by three key messages for the Gold Coast University Hospital:
187
Queensland Health
September 2008
Were building a new hospital
we are delivering a hospital not just for today, but one that meets the health care needs of
the community well into the future
we are allowing for future flexibility and expansion as the need for health services and the
population change and grow
it is vital that the new hospital integrates with the community and the surrounding
environment
we will use ecologically sustainable design principles
this is an exciting opportunity to create a new and innovative facility.
Were building sustainable health services
the new hospital is one element of an integrated network of health services being developed
Queensland Health is expanding health services to meet the demands of an increasing

population
we are building more health services in your local community, close to where you live
we will deliver a higher level of more complex health care services then ever before
We are changing models of care to be more patient focussed.
Were building a place to work and learn
10.4.3
the new Gold Coast University Hospital will be a teaching hospital to train the health
professionals for the future at the same time providing career and skills development
opportunities for staff
we are creating a place where staff want to work because the culture and clinical
environment values teams and all their members
new staff will be attracted to the Gold Coast University Hospital because it will be one of the
most advanced in the country.
Community Strategy Action Plan

The Communication Strategy contains a detailed Action Plan for the implementation of the
strategy over 2007 and 2008. This Action Plan primarily focuses on the development of
communication documents and channels and consultation activities.
10.5
Accountability and transparency

The GCUH Project governance structure is illustrated in the following diagram. It should be
noted this structure was endorsed in November 2007. The introduction of the Major Hospitals
Project Office on 23 June 2008 has necessitated that some streamlining changes be made
and reflected in the Governance structure. At the time this update of the Business Case was
compiled, a revised endorsed Governance structure was not available.
188
Queensland Health
September 2008
The key components of the governance structure are outlined below:
Cabinet Budget Review Committee. It is proposed that the Cabinet Budget Review
Committee will be formally updated and required to approve progress on the GCUH Project
at the following milestones:
189
Queensland Health
September 2008
10.5.1
the end of the Schematic Design (via this Business Case). Anticipated date mid
October 2008
when an acceptable GCS Offer is obtained (to approved funding and for the project to
proceed to construction). Anticipated date May 2009.
CEOs Committee. The CEOs Committee will be regularly updated on the progress of the
development of the Project and Interrelated Projects (e.g. Rapid Transit Project, Site
Acquisition, Upgrade to Surrounding Roads, etc). This committee will also if required make
decisions on the Project and the Interrelated Projects.
EMT/ Capital Works and Asset Management Committee. This committee will be regularly
updated on the development of the Project and will make necessary policy decisions for the
Project to continue development.
GCUH Government Steering Committee. This committee will closely monitor the progress
and will make decisions on the policy and project related issues to facilitate the ongoing
development of the Project.
GCUH Project Control Group. This Group undertakes more of the day to day management
of the Project Team and the development of the Project.
Communication principles
The approved Communication Strategy for the Project states that throughout all stages of the
Project development, the project communication will adhere to the following principles:
10.5.2
honest, open and two-way
timely, accurate and reflect the corporate position of the Queensland Health
targeted to the information needs of specific audiences
proactive - dont wait until there is a problem
no surprises - staff should be told about stages of the project first or simultaneously with
outside audiences. They should not be surprised by what they hear about the project from
other sources, i.e. the media
consistent themes, messages, tone and style that ensure a constant look and feel to all
communications from Queensland Health to all audiences
clear and plain English used at all times
All materials used for communication internally and externally must reflect the campaign
brand identity and be instantly recognisable as being from Queensland Health.
Public access and equity

The public access and equity principles for the Project that have been addressed through the
issues management process include:
Planning, Environmental, Cultural Heritage and Native Title issues which have been
addressed in Section 10.1
Employment issues which have been addressed in Section 10.2
Health related stakeholder consideration and issues which have been addressed in Section
10.3
190
Queensland Health
September 2008
Communication Strategy which has been addressed in 10.4
Project governance structure which has been addressed in 10.5.
191
Queensland Health
September 2008
Glossary
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AHFG Australasian Health Facility Guidelines
ATODS Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Services
BEMs Building, Engineering and Maintenance
BOOT Build Own Operate Transfer
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CBRC - Cabinet Budget Review Committee
CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis
CPA Chest Pain Assessment unit
CPI Consumer Price Index
CW&AMB Capital Works and Asset Management Branch
DDA Disability Discrimination Act
DLA Davis Langdon Associates
DMR Department of Main Roads
DNRW Department of Natural Resources and Water
DPW Department of Public Works
DRGs Diagnostic Related Groups
ED Emergency Department
ESD Environmentally Sustainable Design
FF&E Furniture, Fittings, fixtures, and Equipment
FTE Full Time Equivalents
FWC Family, Women and Children
GCCC Gold Coast City Council
GCH Gold Coast Hospital
GCHSD Gold Coast Health Service District
GCRT Gold Coast Rapid Transit
GCS Guaranteed Construction Sum
GCUH Gold Coast University Hospital
ICU Intensive Care Unit
192
Queensland Health
September 2008
ICT Information and Communication Technology

IDAS Integrated Development Assessment System
IDMS Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008-2012
IPA Integrated Planning Act
IPOLA Act Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act, 2003
IPUs Inpatient Unit
IT Information Technology
LCC Life Cycle Costs
MID Medical Imaging Department
MC Managing Contractor
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
PDP Project Definition Plan
PACS Picture Acquisition and Communication System
QH Queensland Health
Robina Gold Coast Hospital Robina Hospital
SAHS Southern Area Health Service
SEQIPP South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program
SCN Special Care Nursery
The Southport Facility Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus
VET Vocational Education and Training
VHFG Victorian Health Facility Guidelines
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
193
Queensland Health
September 2008
Raw costs inputs

7 pages
194
GOLDCOASTUNIVERSITYHOSPITAL
SDCOSTPLANREPORT
Date:
16Sep08
SUMMARY
Revision:
COSTPLANSUMMARYBYFUNCTIONALAREA
Description
1 GenericInpatientUnit
%ofValue
14%
2 Education&Research
Quantity
Units
Rate$
Amount$
19,057
4,392
83,704,442
2%
3,871
3,567
13,808,980
3 DivisionofMedicine
16%
24,437
3,876
94,718,789
4 DivisionofSurgery&CriticalCare
11%
16,032
4,280
68,618,884
5 DivisionofFamily,Women&Children
9%
14,018
3,963
55,553,755
6 DivisionofMentalHealth
3%
5,817
3,337
19,409,700
7 DivisionofCARAS
4%
7,359
3,409
25,087,199
8 DivisionofMedicalServices
4%
5,923
4,161
24,645,899
9 DivisionofPathology
4%
5,039
4,770
24,035,879
10%
16,556
3,811
63,090,611
78%
118,109
4,002
472,674,138
10 CorporateServices,Amenities&Retail
SubTotalFunctionalArea
11 TravelandEngineering
22%
46,253
2,802
129,585,101
SubtotalGrossFloorArea(GFA)
100%
164,362
3,664
602,259,239
COSTPLANSUMMARYBYBUILDING
Description
Quantity
Units
Rate$
Amount$
MainBuildingAcute
99,437
3,561
354,128,126
WestIPU
17,888
3,903
69,815,590
SouthIPU
22,805
3,680
83,922,307
gy
PathologyandEducation
,
12,315
,
3,664
,
,
45,116,226
7,176
4,289
30,774,557
MentalHealth
EngineeringOfficesandWorkshops
CentralEnergyBuilding
SubtotalGrossFloorArea(GFA)
979
3,402
3,330,694
3,762
4,033
15,171,739
164,362
3,664
602,259,239
TradePreliminaries
75,948,045
CentralPlant/EngineeringProjectSpecificsetc
127,058,334
ExternalWorks/Siteworks
43,952,164
PriorWorks(BulkEarthworks,Fencingetc)
13,428,000
ProjectSpecificAllowancesMockups/Prototypes
1,000,000
ESDInitiativesGreenStarRating
47,000,000
ActualCostofConstruction[ACS]July2008
MCFeesandoverheads
910,645,782
20%
182,129,156
DesignFeesNovated@endofSD
85,233,186
SubtotalConstructionCostIncludingFees
1,178,008,124
ProfessionalFeesuptoSDplusauditfees
55,022,532
StatutoryandAuthorityFees,(egPLSL@0.425%)
6,000,000
FF&E/ICT
168,500,000
QueenslandHealthCosts,Commissioningetc
31,000,000
PublicArtAllowance
2,000,000
SubtotalCurrentDayProjectCostJuly2008
Contingency(10%)tobeagreedwithCommercialAdviser
1,440,530,656
10%
Subtotal
SiteAquisition
52,200,000
SurroundingInfrastructure
62,600,000
MedicalSchool
62,600,000
TotalEstimatedProjectCostJuly2008
EscalationtoProjectCompletionnowbasedonreviewofMajorHospitals
144,053,066
1,584,583,722
177,400,000
1,761,983,722
19.37%
341,290,329
TobeagreedwithCommercialAdviser
TotalProjectCostDecember2012
2,103,274,050
40921 Gold Coast University Hospital

Schematic Design Cost Plan
Version : C-SD DRAFT
No.
Description
Revision: 03
FF&E / ICT
Quantity
Units
Rate $
Amount $
FF&E / ICT
GENERIC INPATIENT UNIT
1
IPU 1 - Cardiology
757,119.00
757,119.00
IPU 10- Gastro Surgery( including colorectal)
468,506.00
468,506.00
IPU 11 - Short Stay Surgical
468,506.00
468,506.00
IPU 12 - Neurosurgery
468,506.00
468,506.00
IPU 13- ENT, EYE,MF Surgical Unit
468,506.00
468,506.00
IPU 15 - Vascular Surgery
468,506.00
468,506.00
IPU 16- Cardiovascular Surgery
440,949.00
440,949.00
IPU 2 - General Medicine
423,784.00
423,784.00
IPU 3 - Infectious Diseases
413,607.00
413,607.00
10
IPU 4- Medical Assesment Unit
965,681.00
965,681.00
11
IPU 5 - Neurology
518,533.00
518,533.00
12
IPU 6 - Renal Medicine
552,256.00
552,256.00
13
IPU 7 - Respiratory Medicine
420,359.00
420,359.00
14
IPU 8 - Orthopaedic Surgery( Elective)
469,331.00
469,331.00
15
IPU 9 - Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery
468,506.00
468,506.00
16
Neurology - Ortho Rehab Inpatient Unit
503,535.00
503,535.00
17
Obstets IPU1 &2
474,435.00
474,435.00
18
Shared Areas Level 2
59,599.00
59,599.00
19
98,820.00
98,820.00
20
Shared Areas Level 4 South
79,001.00
79,001.00
21
Shared Areas Level 4 West
73,334.00
73,334.00
22
86,336.00
86,336.00
23
75,148.00
75,148.00
24
Shared Areas Lower Ground
35,751.00
35,751.00
Sub Total
9,258,614.00
EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

25
Education Unit
919,006.00
Sub Total
919,006.00
919,006.00
DIVISION OF MEDICINE
26
Acute Dialysis Unit
560,974.00
560,974.00
27
Ambulatory Day Care
3,452,705.00
3,452,705.00
28
Cancer Services - Offices
176,650.00
176,650.00
29
Cardiolgy - CCL and Clinical Measurement
6,212,607.00
6,212,607.00
30
Day Medical Unit
525,010.00
525,010.00
31
Day Oncology & Haematology OPD
1,224,925.00
1,224,925.00
32
ED - Short Stay Observation Unit
604,444.00
604,444.00
GCUH
Page No: 20
Issue Date: 28-Aug-2008

No.
Revision: 03
FF&E / ICT
Description
Quantity
Units
Rate $
Amount $
Emergency Department
4,154,462.00
4,154,462.00
Haematology Oncology Inpatient Unit
470,744.00
470,744.00
ICU - Clinical Adminsitration & Support Areas
335,927.00
335,927.00
Obstetric Ambulatory Care
726,240.00
726,240.00
Oncology IPU
467,399.00
467,399.00
Radiotherapy Unit
12,326,470.00
12,326,470.00
Renal Medicine Admin
69,160.00
69,160.00
Shared Areas Cancer IPUs
123,737.00
123,737.00
Sleep Study Unit
307,696.00
307,696.00
Sub Total
31,739,150.00
DIVISION OF SURGERY & CRITICAL CARE

10
Anaesthetics Dept & Pain Management Dept
251,764.00
251,764.00
11
184,047.00
184,047.00
12
Intensive Care Unit
5,579,454.00
5,579,454.00
13
Interventional Suite- Operating Unit
6,083,740.00
6,083,740.00
14
Interventional Suite - Admin & Support
164,630.00
164,630.00
15
Interventional Suite - Endoscopy
1,216,661.00
1,216,661.00
16
Interventional Suite - PACA and SDSU
928,416.00
928,416.00
17
Interventional Suite -DOSA, DSU Admissions
1,133,325.00
1,133,325.00
18
Inteventional Suite - MRI & Angio
3,854,315.00
3,854,315.00
19
Pain Manag'ement Unit
145,628.00
145,628.00
Sub Total
19,541,980.00
DIVISION OF FAMILY, WOMEN & CHILDREN

20
Birthing Rooms
2,037,999.00
2,037,999.00
21
FWC Office Accomodation
153,166.00
153,166.00
22
NICU
514,795.00
514,795.00
23
Paediatric Ambulatory Care & Clinical Administration
531,048.00
531,048.00
24
Paediatric IPU & 10 Day Stay
926,865.00
926,865.00
25
Shared Areas Paeds
83,751.00
83,751.00
Sub Total
4,247,624.00
DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH & ATODS

26
Mental Health IPU1, 2&3
1,587,097.00
Sub Total
1,587,097.00
1,587,097.00
DIVISION OF COMMUNITY, ALLIED HEALTH, AGED &

REHABILITATION SERVICES
27
Allied Health Ambulatory Care
651,222.00
651,222.00
28
Day of Discharge, Transit Lounge
231,022.00
231,022.00
29
Homelink Services
73,325.00
73,325.00
30
Loan Aides & Equip Pool
29,420.00
29,420.00
GCUH
Page No: 21

No.
Description
1
Revision: 03
FF&E / ICT
Quantity
Rehab Therapy Areas
Units
Rate $
Amount $
450,849.00
450,849.00
Sub Total
1,435,838.00
DIVISION OF MEDICAL SERVICES

2
Medical Imaging - Vascular Labs
115,391.00
115,391.00
Medical Imaging Dept
30,351,700.00
30,351,700.00
Pharmacy Main & Production
690,494.00
690,494.00
Sub Total
31,157,585.00
DIVISION OF PATHOLOGY
5
Mortuary
379,615.00
379,615.00
Pathology Department
4,375,809.00
4,375,809.00
Sub Total
4,755,424.00
CORPORATE SERVICES, AMENITIES & RETAIL

7
Administration
139,345.00
139,345.00
Biomedical Engineering
106,687.00
106,687.00
Central Sterilising Department
2,388,947.00
2,388,947.00
10
Clinical Coding and Decision Support
48,833.00
48,833.00
11
Clinical Information & Medical Records
213,354.00
213,354.00
12
CRU & Bed Store
39,654.00
39,654.00
13
Divisional Office Accomodation
1,594,620.00
1,594,620.00
14
ED Clinical Admin & Staff Area
183,044.00
183,044.00
15
Facilities Management & Engineering
161,136.00
161,136.00
16
Hospital Foundation & Volunteers
97,335.00
97,335.00
17
Information Technology
82,422.00
82,422.00
18
Kitchen Offices& Sup
818,322.00
818,322.00
19
Main Entry
157,905.00
157,905.00
20
Materials Management Supply Department
236,850.00
236,850.00
21
Operational Services Management
288,349.00
288,349.00
22
Pastoral Care
43,455.00
43,455.00
23
Public & Staff Dinning
223,668.00
223,668.00
24
Staff Amenities
318,756.00
318,756.00
Sub Total
7,142,682.00

25
Level 6 Hospital Travel
Item
230,000.00
230,000.00
26
Hospital Street (Main Atrium and Integration Zone)
Item
100,000.00
100,000.00
27
Level 6 Hospital Engineering
Item
135,000.00
135,000.00
Sub Total
465,000.00
SUNDRIES
28
GCUH
Contingency for Unknown Group 2 and 3 Items
20.00
Page No: 22
22,450,000.00

No.
Revision: 03
FF&E / ICT
Description
Quantity
ICT, major equipment - eg PACS, PABX, CT Scanners, MRI, and

other specialized IT system
Saving on transferred equipment from existing hospital

Sub Total
Rate $
Amount $
Item
40,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
-1
Item
6,200,000.00
-6,200,000.00
168,500,000.00
Total
GCUH
Units
Page No: 23
168,500,000.00
GOLDCOASTUNIVERSITYHOSPITAL
SDCOSTPLANREPORT
Date:
16Sep08
CASHFLOW
Date
Notes
FF&E
PublicArtwork
SiteAcquisitionNo
Escalation
Contingency
OffSite
Infrastructure
MedicalSchool
FinYearTotal
CashFlow
Total
ESCALATION
Escalateat8,7,6,6,5%ExclQHCosts,FF&E,Public
Artwork,SiteAquisition
Escalateat4%QHCosts,FF&E,Public
Artwork
0%
0.0%
0%
0%
0.0%
0%
TotalEscalation
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
October2006
0.0%
0.0%
November2006
0.0%
0.0%
December2006
0.0%
0.0%
January2007
0.0%
0.0%
February2007
0.0%
0.0%
March2007
0.0%
0.0%
April2007
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
327,494
0.0%
327,494
245,438
0.0%
245,438
0.0%
1,473,881
,
,
45,000
,
0.0%
45,000
,
20062007
September2006
May2007
June2007
327,494
245,438
572,932
July2007
y
1,473,881
,
,
45,000
,
1,518,881
,
,
1,473,881
,
,
572,932
0%
0%
1,821,376
45,000
1,866,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
45,000
0.0%
45,000
1,821,376
99,562
1,920,938
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
99,562
0.0%
99,562
October2007
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
November2007
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
December2007
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
February2008
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
March2008
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
April2008
1,821,376
145,000
1,966,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
145,000
0.0%
145,000
May2008
1,821,376
445,000
2,266,376
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
445,000
0.0%
445,000
June2008
1,821,376
3,220,438
3,929,008
8,970,822
1,821,376
0.0%
1,821,376
3,220,438
0.0%
3,220,438
July2008
1,821,376
830,600
48,270,992
50,922,968
1,821,376
0.7%
1,833,518
830,600
0.3%
833,369
14,911
August2008
1,821,376
330,600
2,151,976
1,821,376
1.3%
1,845,661
330,600
0.7%
332,804
26,489
1,821,376
330,600
2,151,976
1,821,376
2.0%
1,857,803
330,600
1.0%
333,906
39,734
2,963,476
2,732,730
330,600
6,026,805
5,696,205
2.7%
5,848,104
330,600
1.3%
335,008
156,307
4,465,113
3.3%
4,613,950
330,600
1.7%
336,110
154,347
5,665,113
4.0%
5,891,717
330,600
2.0%
337,212
233,217
5,665,113
4.7%
5,929,485
330,600
2.3%
338,314
272,086
January2008 FinalisePDP18Jan08
30,308,022
8%
4%
500,000
100,000
2,963,476
901,637
330,600
4,795,713
December2008
1,500,000
300,000
2,963,476
901,637
330,600
5,995,713
January2009
1,500,000
300,000
2,963,476
901,637
330,600
5,995,713
February2009
2,000,000
400,000
2,963,476
901,637
330,600
6,595,713
6,265,113
5.3%
6,599,252
330,600
2.7%
339,416
342,955
March2009 FinaliseDD
2,000,000
400,000
2,963,476
901,637
330,600
6,595,713
6,265,113
6.0%
6,641,019
330,600
3.0%
340,518
385,825
April2009 AgreeGCS
2,500,000
500,000
3,143,163
329,667
330,600
6,803,430
6,472,830
6.7%
6,904,352
330,600
3.3%
341,620
442,542
May2009
y
StartMainWorks
2,250,000
,
,
450,000
,
3,815,042
,
,
699,188
,
330,600
,
5,000,000
,
,
12,544,830
,
,
12,214,230
,
,
7.3%
13,109,940
,
,
330,600
,
3.7%
342,722
,
907,832
,
June2009
6,165,620
1,233,124
3,815,042
699,188
330,600
12,243,574
11,912,974
8.0%
12,866,012
330,600
4.0%
343,824
966,262
July2009
9,074,578
1,814,916
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
1,972,127
17,743,850
0.6%
18,875,386
368,000
0.3%
383,996
1,515,532
20082009
November2008 StartPriorWorks(DelayedfromendofSD)
20072008
August2007
September2007
122,824,122
17,375,850
7%
4%
11,249,939
2,249,988
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
1,000,000
2,385,623
21,767,780
21,399,780
1.2%
21,649,444
368,000
0.7%
370,453
252,117
September2009
13,224,588
2,644,918
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,287,755
23,039,490
22,671,490
1.8%
24,913,701
368,000
1.0%
386,547
2,260,758
14,182,987
2,836,597
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,451,069
24,352,884
23,984,884
2.3%
26,508,093
368,000
1.3%
387,823
2,543,033
14,409,607
2,881,921
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,569,049
24,742,807
24,374,807
2.9%
27,092,598
368,000
1.7%
389,099
2,738,890
December2009
15,344,034
3,068,807
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,700,586
10,000,000
35,995,657
35,627,657
3.5%
39,824,595
368,000
2.0%
390,374
4,219,312
January2010
16,370,636
3,274,127
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,820,492
27,347,484
26,979,484
4.1%
30,327,638
368,000
2.3%
391,650
3,371,804
February2010
17,306,464
3,461,293
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
2,930,496
28,580,483
28,212,483
4.7%
31,891,391
368,000
2.7%
392,926
3,703,834
March2010
18,165,018
3,633,004
3,815,042
699,188
368,000
3,031,874
29,712,125
29,344,125
5.3%
33,355,467
368,000
3.0%
394,202
4,037,544
April2010
18,956,239
3,791,248
671,880
369,520
368,000
2,728,411
26,885,298
26,517,298
5.8%
30,309,272
368,000
3.3%
395,477
3,819,451
27,481,814
6.4%
31,584,848
368,000
3.7%
396,753
4,131,788
28,375,257
7.0%
32,790,447
368,000
4.0%
398,029
4,445,219
0.5%
33,919,253
390,000
0.3%
423,230
4,746,442
20092010
October2009
November2009
May2010
19,687,667
3,937,533
671,880
369,520
368,000
2,815,214
27,849,814
June2010
20,365,138
4,073,028
671,880
369,520
368,000
2,895,692
28,743,257
July2010
20,993,246
4,198,649
671,880
369,520
390,000
2,972,745
29,596,040
29,206,040
316,760,930
6%
4%
21,575,644
4,315,129
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,041,883
30,364,056
29,974,056
1.0%
34,984,399
390,000
0.7%
424,636
5,044,979
22,115,249
4,423,050
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,409,749
31,379,448
30,989,448
1.5%
36,348,577
390,000
1.0%
426,042
5,395,171
October2010
22,614,392
4,522,878
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,137,216
31,705,886
31,315,886
2.0%
36,912,411
390,000
1.3%
427,448
5,633,973
November2010
23,074,922
4,614,984
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,191,460
32,312,767
31,922,767
2.5%
37,812,199
390,000
1.7%
428,854
5,928,286
December2010
23,498,282
4,699,656
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,241,082
25,000,000
15,000,000
72,870,420
72,480,420
3.0%
86,271,125
390,000
2.0%
430,260
13,830,965
20102011
August2010
September2010
January2011
23,885,559
4,777,112
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,286,178
33,380,249
32,990,249
3.5%
39,457,855
390,000
2.3%
431,667
6,509,273
February2011
24,237,524
4,847,505
671,880
369,520
390,000
3,326,812
33,843,241
33,453,241
4.0%
40,204,908
390,000
2.7%
433,073
6,794,740
March2011
24,554,658
,
,
4,910,932
,
,
671,880
,
369,520
,
390,000
,
7,326,087
,
,
4,172,639
,
,
42,395,715
,
,
34,679,628
,
,
4.5%
41,879,188
,
,
7,716,087
,
,
3.0%
8,596,091
,
,
8,079,564
,
,
April2011
24,837,159
4,967,432
671,880
369,520
390,000
7,326,087
4,204,388
42,766,465
35,050,378
5.0%
42,529,428
7,716,087
3.3%
8,623,910
8,386,873
35,374,983
5.5%
43,127,694
7,716,087
3.7%
8,651,729
8,688,353
35,652,925
6.0%
43,672,552
7,716,087
4.0%
8,679,548
8,983,088
0.5%
44,177,491
7,738,087
0.3%
8,733,310
9,287,000
9,572,277
May2011
25,084,950
5,016,990
671,880
369,520
390,000
7,326,087
4,231,643
43,091,070
June2011
25,297,671
5,059,534
671,880
369,520
390,000
7,326,087
4,254,320
43,369,012
July2011
25,474,659
5,094,932
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,274,723
43,623,801
35,885,714
467,074,371
6%
4%
August2011
25,614,921
5,122,984
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,260,185
43,777,577
36,039,490
1.0%
44,587,530
7,738,087
0.7%
8,762,324
September2011
25,717,087
5,143,417
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,599,702
44,239,693
36,501,607
1.5%
45,382,814
7,738,087
1.0%
8,791,338
9,934,459
October2011
25,779,346
5,155,869
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,270,726
43,985,429
36,247,342
2.0%
45,288,688
7,738,087
1.3%
8,820,353
10,123,611
November2011
25,799,358
5,159,872
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,267,493
44,006,210
36,268,123
2.5%
45,536,783
7,738,087
1.7%
8,849,367
10,379,940
December2011
25,774,123
5,154,825
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,257,970
20,000,000
35,000,000
98,966,405
91,228,318
3.0%
115,101,317
7,738,087
2.0%
8,878,381
25,013,293
20112012
20062007
20072008
20082009
StatutoryFees
August2009
20092010
QHCosts
October2008
20102011
ProfessionalFees ProfessionalFees
Novated
QHCost
July2006
September2008 FinaliseSD12Sep08
20112012
MCFeesand
Overheads[20%]
June2006
August2006 ProjectStart
0122013
20
BuildingCosts[ACS]
January2012
25,699,802
5,139,960
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,241,525
43,860,775
36,122,688
3.5%
45,796,660
7,738,087
2.3%
8,907,396
10,843,281
February2012
25,571,455
5,114,291
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,217,334
43,682,567
35,944,480
4.0%
45,790,875
7,738,087
2.7%
8,936,410
11,044,718
March2012
25,382,651
5,076,530
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,184,306
43,422,974
35,684,887
4.5%
45,678,730
7,738,087
3.0%
8,965,424
11,221,180
April2012
25,124,874
5,024,975
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,140,959
43,070,295
35,332,208
5.0%
45,443,679
7,738,087
3.3%
8,994,439
11,367,822
May2012
24,786,568
4,957,314
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,085,220
42,608,589
34,870,502
5.5%
45,063,410
7,738,087
3.7%
9,023,453
11,478,274
June2012
24,351,536
4,870,307
671,880
369,520
412,000
7,326,087
4,014,047
42,015,377
34,277,290
6.0%
44,506,736
7,738,087
4.0%
9,052,467
11,543,826
July2012
23,796,056
4,759,211
671,880
369,520
960,467
7,326,087
3,971,171
41,854,392
0.4%
43,767,167
8,286,554
0.3%
9,726,409
11,639,185
577,259,693
33,567,838
5%
4%
August2012
23,083,233
4,616,647
671,880
369,520
960,467
7,326,087
2,000,000
4,072,686
43,100,519
32,813,965
0.8%
42,961,763
10,286,554
0.7%
12,114,038
11,975,283
September2012
22,150,481
4,430,096
360,007
227,176
960,467
7,326,087
3,640,391
39,094,705
30,808,152
1.3%
40,502,323
8,286,554
1.0%
9,791,037
11,198,655
October2012
19,876,330
3,975,266
360,007
227,176
850,467
7,326,087
3,394,834
36,010,167
27,833,614
1.7%
36,742,393
8,176,554
1.3%
9,692,950
10,425,176
November2012
17,959,834
3,591,967
360,007
227,176
850,467
7,326,087
2,855,227
33,170,765
24,994,212
2.1%
33,129,398
8,176,554
1.7%
9,724,835
9,683,468
8,748,370
1,749,674
360,007
227,176
550,467
7,326,087
932,393
7,600,000
12,600,000
40,094,173
32,217,619
2.5%
42,878,203
7,876,554
2.0%
9,398,743
12,182,773
2,085,936
,
,
December2012 PracticalCompletion07Dec12
20
0122013
Fin
Year
Revision5
FinYearTotalCash
Flow
0
572,932
30,308,022
126,766,628
353,800,210
555,096,080
719,069,374
January2013
y
570,101
,
114,020
,
360,007
,
227,176
,
550,467
,
7,326,087
,
,
313,670
,
9,461,528
,
,
1,584,974
,
,
2.9%
2,118,006
,
,
7,876,554
,
,
2.3%
9,429,458
,
,
February2013
570,101
114,020
360,007
227,176
478,095
1,749,399
1,271,304
3.3%
1,705,726
478,095
2.7%
574,218
530,545
March2013
293,128
58,626
360,007
227,176
302,000
1,240,937
938,937
3.8%
1,264,863
302,000
3.0%
363,896
387,823
April2013
339,137
153,929
302,000
795,066
493,066
4.2%
666,888
302,000
3.3%
365,074
236,896
May2013
302,000
302,000
4.6%
302,000
3.7%
366,252
64,252
June2013 FinalAccount
310,000
310,000
247,183,651
5.0%
310,000
4.0%
377,162
67,162
317,660,804
910,645,782
182,129,156
85,233,186
55,022,532
31,000,000
6,000,000
168,500,000
2,000,000
144,053,065
52,200,000
62,600,000
62,600,000
1,761,983,721
1,761,983,721
1,508,283,721
1,820,111,236
201,500,000
230,962,814
341,290,329
2,103,274,050
TOTALCASHFLOW
Queensland Health
September 2008
Risk analysis methodology
C.1
Introduction
This appendix provides details of:
the purpose of the risk analysis undertaken for the Project
the methodology that has been followed to identify, quantify and allocate Project risks
the risk matrix that has been developed for the Project
The risk analysis considers risks during the procurement, construction and operations phases.
The risk matrix includes the expected value of each risk, dissected into the following categories:
retained risks where the State bears the consequences of the risk occurring
transferred risks where the Managing contractor bears the consequences of the risk
occurring.
Some risks are shared in that the impacts affect both the State and the Managing Contractor.
C.2
Objectives
A risk analysis and quantification has been carried out for the Proposed Delivery Model to
achieve a number of related objectives, as follows:
C.3
to calculate a risk-adjusted cost for the Government Benchmark Model which represents the
expected value of total project expenditures, including retained and transferred risks
to inform the negotiation of the Guaranteed Construction Sum and Managing Contractor
fees based on an estimate of transferred risks
to assist in development of Project contract documents through identification of Project risks

and allocation as retained or transferred based on an understanding of the risk
characteristics and, accordingly, an assessment of the party that is best placed to manage
the risks
to facilitate informed decision making by Queensland Health and the Queensland

Government by ensuring that project risks are appropriately identified and valued
to contribute to risk management by identifying risks, potential consequences and mitigation

strategies.
Risk valuation methodology

Three risk workshops and related working sessions were held with participation from
Queensland Health, Queensland Treasury, the Department of Infrastructure and project
technical advisers. The workshops were facilitated by KPMG and followed a three-stage
process for identifying, quantifying and allocating risks as summarised below:
The approach to determining the risk adjustment was a three stage process:
201
Queensland Health
September 2008
Identification of risks participants in the risk workshop identified the relevant material
risks applying to the Project by expanding and amending a preliminary list of risks prepared
by KPMG on the basis of experience from previous projects.
In identifying each risk, participants considered the appropriate risk description, expected
consequences (principally in terms of delay or cost impacts) and mitigation strategies. The
risk analysis was confined to risks affecting the GCUH project (and not inter-related
projects) and focussed on material risks during the procurement, construction and operating
periods.
The construction phase risks cover project risks that would otherwise be included in
contingencies within a conventional cost plan. Consequently, the cost plan for this project
includes the quantified risk adjustment and does not include a contingencies provision. The
operations phase risks are confined to services which are candidates for private sector
delivery under a long-term operating contract, specifically, building and plant maintenance
(including group 1 FF&FE items), grounds maintenance, utilities management (including
utilities volume risk but not price risk) and external cleaning. The scope of the risk analysis
excludes other support services and all clinical services.
Quantification of risks Workshop participants quantified each risk by assessing potential

impacts and probabilities in accordance with the following procedure. For each risk,
participants:
-
assessed the probability of the risk occurring for the project.
identified the financial drivers for each risk, if applicable. The financial driver is a project
cost component which is used to determine the value of the risk based on an assessed
percentage of the cost component. Where the risk impact is not expected to vary with
changes in a project cost component, the impact was assessed as an absolute (i.e.
fixed) dollar value.
determined the range of impact, in percentage or absolute terms, if the event does
occur. The range was spread between low, medium and high outcomes.
determined the probability of each low, medium and high risk impact occurring
(noting that in total these had to add to 100%).
KPMG took the inputs from the risk workshop and calculated the value of retained and
transferred risks using both the expected value and Monte Carlo approaches.
The expected value approach calculates a single value for the risk adjustment by
probability weighting the potential outcomes associated with each risk it is an intuitive
and simple way to calculate a risk adjustment.
Monte Carlo analysis yields a probability distribution of the risk valuation, giving an
added dimension to the risk assessment. One of the advantages of Monte Carlo
analysis is that it can be used to select a level of confidence around the expected risk
value, whereas expected value analysis is, by definition, the mean outcome of the risk
metrics specified.
Allocation of risks The third risk workshop allocated the risks into retained and
transferred categories, reflecting the likely allocation to the State and the Managing
202
Queensland Health
September 2008
Contractor, respectively, under the planned Managing Contractor form of contract. The
workshop reviewed an indicative risk allocation provided by the Department of Public Works
based on the proposed contract and considered the appropriateness of this allocation based
on the understanding of the risks developed during the workshops.
Monte Carlo analysis

The value of risk adjustment included in the total project cost was calculated using the @Risk
software. @Risk software allows probability inputs to be converted into expected outcomes
using iterative random sampling techniques. The value of risks included in the total project cost
is the mean quantified value. The cash flow profile of the nominal project cost has been
adjusted to include the mean value of these risks.
The following risk distribution curve has been generated from the @Risk software program
using input determined as part of the risk quantification exercise. The curve has been calculated
on the basis of 5,000 iterations and shows the nominal value of the total capital project cost (i.e.
the total value of capital risks plus the total raw capital project costs) for the Proposed Delivery
Model.
This curve identifies:
The mean value of nominal capital project costs ($2.108b).
The range in the nominal value of the total capital project costs, respectively due to potential
variations in the value of risk.
The graph identifies the range in nominal costs within the 5% and 95% confidence intervals.
There is a 90% certainty that when risk crystallises, the project cost will fall within this range
($1.988b to $2.250b).
Distribution for Total risk adjusted capital costs

X <=1.988b
5%
X <=2.250
95%
M ean = 2.108b
4.5
4
Values in 10^ -9
C.4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.9
2.025
2.15
2.275
2.4
$ billion
203
Queensland Health
September 2008
C.5
Risk matrix
The following risk matrix table contains further information on each of the risks analysed,
including details of:
a description of the risk
consequences if the risk eventuates
mitigation strategies for the risk
the expected value of each risk and the element either transferred or retained.
6 pages
204
DRAFT
Queensland Health
Gold Coast Hospital
Risks
Risk category
Site
Description
SITE ACCESS - Risk that some or all of the site is not

accessible as expected by the MC.
Consequence
Delay to works
commencement
Mitigation
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Preferred
allocation
Enabling works to be carefully managed.

STATE
Site
Site
Site
SITE SIZE - Risk that the size of the site is inadequate for Impact on amenity, not
the facility initially required and/ or is unable to cope with quantified.
future facility expansion (health plan: 20 ha site required to
allow for private hospital and open space).
Preparation of site master plan and acceptance by

Government. Precinct Master Plan to correlate
with hospital site Master Plan
SITE ACCESS - risk of inadequate road-way access to the Inefficient and unsafe
operation of hospital.
hospital for delivery trucks, private vehicles, emergency
Impact on constructability
vehicles, public transport
(costs).
Preparation of satisfactory Precinct Plan for

incorporation in Local Area Plan. Office of Urban
Management facilitates this process.
LAND ACQUISITION - Delays to land acquisition and

resolution of access arrangements.
Department of Infrastructure to negotiate access

to land in time to meet project schedule.
Delays to works
commencement
Justification
Nominal $
Delay to commencement of works.

Escaln per mth is $1.4b real x 8% /
12= 9.3m /mth. 1wk (L), 1mth (M),
3mths (H).
Scope (capital
phase)
INADEQUATE BUDGET - Risk that the original capital

budget was not established on a realistic basis. (DELAY)
Delays to works
commencement
STATE
STATE
Not quantified. Potential impact on

functionality/amenity and
constructibility. Latter is not likely to
be material.
Scope (capital
phase)
INADEQUATE BUDGET - Risk that the original capital

budget was not established on a realistic basis. (COST)
Costs
10
11
12
Scope (capital
phase)
Scope (capital
phase)
Scope (capital
phase)
BUDGET REALLOCATION - Risk that cost of medical

school ($50m), site acquisition ($50m) reallocated to
Project budget.
Delays and costs
Delays and costs

BUDGET REALLOCATION - Risk that car park not fully
viable on projected rates and volumes and requires either
a capital or operating subsidy from the project or QH.
SCOPE (CAPITAL) - Rick of State imposed changes to

the service outputs / technology / model of care required
for the hospital
Cost Increases
SCOPE (CAPITAL) - Risk of revised forecasts of

population, utilisation, private hospital development and
Commonwealth aged care bed licences resulting in
revised bed numbers. (Capital)
Cost Increases
Scope (capital
phase)
FUTURE PROOFING - risk that facility design does not

keep pace with future medical needs and/or population
growth
Additional costs (future)
Approvals
STATE APPROVAL - Risk of delay to CBRC approval of Delay in works

commencement
the Business Case (e.g. Concern over accuracy of total
capital or recurrent costs). (DELAY)
Scope (capital
phase)
Prepare realistic budget and obtain QH and

Treasury support.
QH will develop budget that is

consistent with funding - zero
probability.
CEO level discussions (Health, Tsy, Infrastructure,

Main Roads, Transport, Public Works. Confirm
prior in principle agreement to fund site from
project budget but then readjust budget; Govt fund
medical school.
STATE
Quantified in risk 5&6. (Even $50m

rework would substantially affect
scope.)
Assess viability through traffic study and business

case; adjust mix of basement and above ground
car parks to ensure capex can be recovered from
STATE
revenues.
Impact is potential subsidy (upfront or

ongoing tariff support) if full capital
recovery model not accepted.
Current carpark Business Case:
subsidy $14.6m.
The State can mitigate this risk to an extent by

minimising the chance of its specifications
changing and, to the extent they must change,
ensuring the design is likely to accommodate it at
minimal expense; this will involve considerable
time and effort in specifying the outputs up front
and planning likely output requirements over the STATE
term.
Quantification confined to risks that

would be funded out of project
budget (client contingency). Major
changes to service outputs are
regarded as a separate project. Refer
risk 77.
Queensland Health will examine 2006 census

results and monitor aged care licences and revisit
bed requirements.
STATE
Not quantified. Not a risk to this

project. (Potential risk to future
projects (private hospital, future
expansion, etc.)
Careful planning and design. QH is developing a

strategic approach to future proofing all its new
facilities.
Additional future proofing expenditure

could be up to $10m, eg for
communications upgrade.
STATE
14
15
16
17
18
Approvals
Approvals
Approvals
Approvals
Approvals
Approvals
3411740_1.xls
STATE APPROVAL - Risk that the planning approval (for Delay in works
e.g. Community Infrastructure Designation, Environmental, commencement
Aboriginal, Flora & Fauna and Artefacts) process is longer
than anticipated arising from delays in obtaining approvals
(government, planning or service issues) or requires
further approvals associated with the detailed design
phase. (DELAY)
STATE APPROVAL - Risk that the planning approval

(CID, Environmental, Aboriginal & artefacts) process
requires additional cost to comply (DELAY)
Delay in works
commencement
STATE APPROVAL - Risk that the planning approval

(CID, Environmental, Aboriginal & artefacts) process
requires additional cost to comply (COST)
Cost increases.
The State can ensure that approval time is

conservative in planning Project timelines. QH
normally designates a site for Ministerial approval.
QH will undertake comprehensive assessments of
planning risks including aboriginal heritage etc.
12,203,653
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
2,805,904
0,000
2,805,904
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
130,000
0,000
130,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
3,977,860
2,386,716
1,591,144
CBRC keeps QH whole for escaln to

BC approval.

conservative in planning Project timelines.
STATE
13
0,000
QH will develop budget that is

consistent with funding - zero
probability.
Prepare realistic budget and obtain QH and

Treasury support.
STATE
12,203,653
Quantified in risk 1.
STATE
Retained $
Not quantifiable. May restrict

research investment, health facilities
offered etc
STATE
Transferred $
Delay unlikely because of Works

Regulation. Any cultural heritage
impacts costed in Risk #1
STATE

STATE
See above

Costing of additional conditions $1m

(L), $1m (M), $2m (H).
STATE
Delay
MC APPROVALS - Risk that the MC is delayed in
obtaining required building approvals or certifications (Sch
8) (DELAY)
Building Consultant to develop program as part of

Proposal.
See risk #13
Cost
MC APPROVALS - Risk that the MC incurs cost in
obtaining required building approvals or certifications (Sch
8) (COST)
Delay of project works and
BUILDING CERTIFICATION - risk that Building
completion
Certification and fire assessment approvals are delayed
due to lack of resources within Project Services and Qld
Fire & Rescue Service (QFRS), respectively.
Building Consultant to develop program as part of

Proposal.
MC
Quantified in risk 18.
Liaison with Project Services and QFRS to ensure

adequate resources are available in time.
Delay of 1L, 2M, 3H mths to

completion. Costed at MC fees / mth
plus escaln (1.4b / 46 x 8/12) =
$4.5m/mth. Plus QH lease costs and
damages $500k/mth (part of retained
cost).
MC
MC
DRAFT
Risk category
19
20
Approvals
Approvals
Description
Consequence
NEGOTIATIONS - Risk that the GCS negotiations with the Delay

MC are protracted
NEGOTIATIONS - Risk that the GCS negotiations with the Delay

MC fail and retender results in higher price and redesign
costs
Mitigation
Building Consultant involvement in design

development allows long lead time and greater
confidence about build up of GCS.
Preferred
allocation
STATE
Building Consultant involvement in design

development allows long lead time and greater
confidence about build up of GCS.
STATE
21
Approvals
TENDER PROCESS - (Maintenance) Risk that the tender Delay

process is delayed due to IR issues over inclusion of
maintenance services in MC contract.
Early discussions with unions.
STATE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approvals
Approvals
CONTRACT DRAFTING - Risk that MC form of contract is Delay

not agreed to by QH (i.e. not related to MC)
APPROVALS -Risk that adjacent land use will impede

future development of hospital
Impact on amenity and

future projects
Design &
Construction
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS - risk that construction works Delay in works

access (e.g. large vehicles, cranes etc) is restricted
Design &
Construction
CAR PARK AVAILABILITTY - Risk of inadequate Car

Parking spaces during development (to cater for
construction and other on-site workers)
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
INTERFACE with CARPARK - risk of car park

development disrupting construction process (separate
BOOT contractor)
INTERFACE with CAR PARK - risk that Car Park
Business Case is not approved in time (relevant for
basement car park)
Disruption to existing
University students using
current space, IR issues,
reputation issues (will not
look attractive if not
managed appropriately)
Costs
Delay in works
commencement
Design &
Construction
INTERFACE with CAR PARK - risk that Car Park BOOT

contractor is not procured in time
Delay in works
Design &
Construction
ESCALATION - Risk that the construction cost estimates

materially change between building consultant to MC
phase date due to underlying costs (labour or materials).
Increase in costs.
ESCALATION - Risk that the construction cost estimates

materially change between MC contract and completion
due to changes in underlying costs (labour or materials).
Increase in costs.
ESCALATION - Risk that escalation is not adequately

funded by the Government
ESCALATION - Risk that the State is unable to reach
agreement with MC regarding escalation allowances
Delay and costs
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
HERITAGE - Risk that site includes graves (adjacent

cemetery)
Clean-up liability.
GEOTECHNICAL - Risk of unanticipated adverse site

conditions in relation to existing site conditions. (e.g.
geotechnical ground conditions (rock), latent conditions)
due to limited geotechnical work.
Additional construction
cost.
GEOTECHNICAL - risk of delay of suitable access for

geotech investigation or availability of results of geo tech
investigation
GEOTECHNICAL - risk of inappropriate or inadequate
brief
GEOTECHNICAL - risk that ground water conditions are
not as anticipated in the investigations
GEOTECHNICAL - risk of discovery of acid sulphate soils
Delay
Cost
Cost
Design &
Construction
cost.
GEOTECHNICAL - risk that the MC finds the geotechnical Delay
investigation to be insufficient
GEOTECHNICAL - risk of being unable to remove
Cost
material from the site
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS - risk of inappropriate geo Delay
tech testing in respect of fill material (brought on site by
MC) & compacting
ENVIRONMENTAL - Risk of unanticipated adverse
environmental conditions
cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL - risk of adverse outcomes of site
cost.
designation process including EIS after design
commenced
ENVIRONMENTAL - Risk that a suitable offset parcel
needs to be procured to make up for lost vegetation
cost.
Design &
Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL - risk of failure to comply with the

Environmental Management Plan
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
3411740_1.xls
Project Team to manage procurement and resolve

impediments through CEO's Committee.
MC
Cost and time delay.
If risk 19 occurs (prob 80%), there is

a 50% chance that the resulting
retender (ie 40% prob overall) will
result in higher costs. Even if market
response is rejected in favour of MC
offer, MC offer at this point is likely to
be higher than budget. In addition,
possible redesign cost. 0% +$1m
(L), 2% +$3m (M), 5%+$5m (H).
Maintenance option will not be

allowed to hold up project; operations
phase would be removed from
contract. No cost impact (other than
lost opportunity to improve
maintenance performance).
Small risk because of mitigation
strategies. 1mth (L), 2 mth (M), 3mth
(H).
Not quantified. Impact on

constructibility not material (see risk
3).
MC
MC
STATE
STATE
Early procurement of the project will mitigate

escalation risks
STATE
Not quantified because not

considered material.
Not quantified because not
considered material. Manage
carpark business case delay within
program, ie, plan on basis of
reasonable assumptions until
approval obtained.
Delay to commissioning costed at
Southport continuation cost of
$0.5m/mth. Zero (L), 1mth (M),
2mths (H).
-1%pa(L), 0%(M), +2%(H) change.
Costed at 1%pa x 4yrs /
(8%+8%+6%+6%) = 1/7. Escaln of
$350m x 1/7 = $50m for each 1%pa
change. Incorporates risk 30.
Incorporated in 85:15 risk
retained:transferred risk allocation,
ie, 7mths pre contract, 35mths post
contract
Budget reallocation quantified under
risk 5 & 6.
Quantified under risk 19.
See risk 36
0,000
10,446,390
13,385,736
0,000
13,385,736
0,000
0,000
0,000
1,232,606
0,000
1,232,606
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
15,000,000
12,750,000
2,250,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
4,800,000
0,000
4,800,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
See risk 36
Hazardous materials report obtained.

No material risk.
Not project risk.
Undertake a geotechnical site investigation

assessment, but the State will not provide any
warranties or indemnities in relation to the
information provided.
First geotechnical report available.

Foundation sub-structure
conservatively designed.
Not quantified - negligible risk.
STATE
Neglible - studies already underway.

STATE
STATE
Quantified in risk 39
Include in analysis of relevant reports into use of

STATE
groundwater
Allow for treatment, identify extent via geotechnical
STATE
survey
Building Consultant to provide necessary advice
STATE
during early investigations.
Include cut/fill analysis in schematic design
STATE
process
Tight specification of geo tech testing. MC to
manage compliance.
MC
Environmental survey is being undertaken
Quantified in risk 14&15
STATE
State to monitor site designation process and

advise design team of any outcomes to undertake STATE
compliance actions
STATE
MC to manage through audit and compliance
program within EMP
10,446,390
Not quantifed because not material.
Liase with authorities responsible for adjacent

works to ensure that their projects include
STATE
appropriate measures to prevent contamination of
GCUH site
State to liase with cemetery management
regarding extent of burial sites. MC to undertake
additional ground disturbance surveys prior to
early site works to minimise risk to delay
STATE
State to commission geotech in staged process.

Access to site to be requested for investigations
prior to transfer of title.
Staged geotech investigations proposed
Retained $
Not quantifed. Not considered risk to

project.
Early procurement of the project will mitigate

escalation risks
Ensure that escalation rate is set on an

appropriate basis in conjunction with Treasury.
Negotiate with MC to obtain the best outcome.
Delay of 1L, 2M, 6H mths to contract.

6mths is 3mths retender plus 3mths
negotiate. Costed at escaln pre
contract of $8.3m/mth.
Transferred $
Not quantified.
Increase / decrease in
STATE
costs. OR Scope change to
meet budget
MC can manage site activity and reduce possibility
CONTAMINATION - Risk that after contract close offsite Clean-up liability.
of offsite contamination.
MC
contamination is caused to adjacent land (damage to park
land site)
CONTAMINATION - Risk that land is listed on
Delay
State to check if land is on contaminated land
STATE
contaminated land register
register. Unlikely to be an issue.
Clean-up liability.
Investigate during early civil site works to minimise
CONTAMINATION - Risk that site is contaminated from
risk impact to program.
STATE
past uses and is not on register, includes imported fill before MC appointed
Clean-up liability.
State to commission reports on existing buildings
STATE (for
to identify asbestos and hazardous materials to be
existing building/structure, e.g. asbestos after MC
latent condition,
removed during demolition works
appointed
otherwise MC)
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Project Team to manage Business Case

development and resolve impediments through
CEO's Committee.
Nominal $
STATE
MC

Clean-up liability.
adjacent works (roads, Rapid Transport System, Energex)
Design &
Construction
QH/Project Services will ensure works programs

are coordinated.
STATE
STATE
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Early and ongoing discussions with Project

Services over contract form. Continue works via
series of small early works packages (within
overarching contract) until contract issues
resolved.
Ensure that precinct plan as enshrined in Local
Area Plan prevents inappropriate development on
adjoining sites that may jeopardise future
expansion.
Early discussion between Project Team/BC/MC
and Dept of Main Roads to ensure that significant
road works in vicinity do not impede the hospital
works.
Explore potential for early construction of car
parking, subject to demonstration of viability
through business case process and discussions
with BC.
Justification
MC
First geotechnical report available.

Acid sulphate soils not expected.
Risk removed under Works

Regulation. Issue will be addressed
on whole of govt basis (not project
risk).
Not quantified because considered
negligible as part of normal contract
management.
DRAFT
Risk category
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Description
Consequence
Mitigation
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL - Risk of discovery of endangered flora Cost and time delay.

or fauna
ENVIRONMENTAL - Risk of overland flows causing
impact on adjacent sites
cost.
Design &
Construction
SUBSURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE - The risk that new

and existing subsurface infrastructure will be damaged
during construction
SUBSURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE - The risk that
existing subsurface infrastructure will need to be repaired
or replaced.
SUBSURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE - The risk that
existing subsurface infrastructure will need to be
maintained
EARLY WORKS - The risk that early works has to be
modified because they do not integrate with final design
solution
Survey of existing underground services prior to

early works. Early consultation with authorities
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
increased cost
increased cost
increased cost
increased cost
Identify services that require to be maintained

during works during SD phase.
Delay to works
Careful review of MC designs.
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
110,000
0,000
110,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
3,401,096
2,720,877
680,219
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
741,208
741,208
0,000
STATE
MC
Thorough inspections during works phase.
Quantified in risk 62 & 63
COMPLIANCE WITH PDP/Schematic Design - Risk that

building is DEFECTIVE - not compliant with the
PDP/Schematic Designs due to design error or poor
workmanship (COST)
Additional costs to rectify

equipment is not compliant with PDP/Schematic Designs
(DELAY)
equipment is not compliant with PDP/Schematic Designs
(COSTS)
PDP/SCHEMATIC DESIGN ERROR - Risk that
PDP/Schematic Design is not sufficiently well defined
(DELAY)
Delay to completion
Under D&C risk is largely transferred to contractor.

PI Insurance held by consultants.
MC
Worst case replace significant

system eg IT, say, $10m
rectification.
Under D&C risk is largely transferred to contractor.

PI Insurance held by consultants.
MC
Thorough design review and inspections during

works phase.
STATE
Thorough design review and inspections during

works phase.
STATE
MC
Risk is low with BC involved in

process. But BC will want to
maximise design definition before
becomes MC. This is risk of
protracted negotiations - costed in
risk 17. See also risk 74 to extent
that SD deficiencies lead to
variations.
Generally minor issues with small
impact on delay: 0 mths (L), 1mth
(M), 2mths (H). Assume delay is
start of d&c therefore $8.3m/mth plus
25% of MC cost. Incorporated in risk
68.
Generally minor issues with small
impact on cost : $0.1m (L), $0.5m
(M), $1m (H). Incorporates risk 67.
STATE
Risk of not getting timely decisions.

Impact is on cost escalation. 1mth
(L), 2mths (M), 3mths (H).
Concurrent with risk #12
0,000
0,000
0,000
MC
Escalation $8.3m/mth plus 25% of

MC fees of $4m/mth because MC not
fully mobilised. 1mth (L), 2mths (M),
3mths (H). Concurrent with #71.
0,000
0,000
0,000
1,080,882
0,000
1,080,882
588,723
0,000
588,723
35,173,488
0,000
35,173,488
17,962,536
17,962,536
0,000
(0,000)
(0,000)
(0,000)
797,163
797,163
0,000
Delay (in signing contract) Comprehensive value management study, design

review and extensive consultations with end-users.
Delay in works and cost

increases.
Design review.
Design review.
All consultants have confirmed that resources are

adequate to achieve the program.
Close monitoring of process including effective

management of user group consultation and use
of consultants.
EQUIPMENT SELECTION - risk that selection of medical Delay

equipment is not done in a timely fashion and impacts on
or delays design decisions (DELAY)
Consultants need to design for alternative

equipment models.
Design &
Construction
EQUIPMENT SELECTION - risk that selection of medical Cost

equipment is not done in a timely fashion and impacts on
or delays design decisions (COST)
Consultants need to design for alternative

equipment models.
Design &
Construction
ESTIMATING - risks that the capital costs are under

estimated prior to entering into MC contract. Cost
quantified from potential differences in Business Case
stage to entering into MC contract
Reduction in scope
Design &
Construction
ESTIMATING - risks that the capital costs are under

estimated post entering into MC contract.
Additional costs
Design &
Construction
EXCHANGE RATE: Foreign exchange rate movement (equipment or materials purchased overseas).
Increased costs.
Design &
Construction
STATE
STATE
Detailed estimates will be prepared and subject to

peer review, including building consultant.
STATE
Detailed estimates will be prepared and subject to

peer review.
MC
Queensland Health could hedge some large

equipment purchases (through QTC)
SHARED
76
Design &
Construction
3411740_1.xls
INDUSTRIAL ACTION: Risks of strikes, industrial action

or civil commotion causing delay and cost to the works.
Delay in works.
Compliance with Queensland Health policies;

proactive management of issues; MC
management systems
0,000
0,000
Worst case 3mths delay to replace

significant system eg IT. Say $10m
rectification. Delay cost for MC of
$4.5m/mth and QH of $0.5m/mth.
Concurrent with #71
DETAILED DESIGN AND CONTRACT

DOCUMENTATION DELAYS - Risk that detailed design
and contract documentation time is longer than
anticipated.
0,000
0,000
Delay to completion
PDP & SCHEMATIC DOCUMENTATION DELAYS - Risk Delay in works

that PDP & Schematic Documentation time is longer than commencement
anticipated due to resourcing constraints
0,000
0,000

building is DEFECTIVE - not compliant with the
PDP/Schematic Designs due to design error or poor
workmanship (DELAY)
Additional costs
0,000
Not quantified - not much

infrastructure to be maintained.
Not quantified - negligible risk

because BC involved during
schematic design. Any design
corrections easily rectified.
DETAILED DESIGN ERROR - Risk that Detailed Design

is not sufficiently well defined (COST)
0,000
STATE
MC
68
0,000
0,000
MC
Delay to completion
0,000
0,000
Delay (in signing contract) Comprehensive value management study, design

Collaboration between State parties and Building STATE
Consultant to develop schematic design.
DETAILED DESIGN ERROR - Risk that Detailed Design

is not sufficiently well defined (DELAY)
0,000
0,000
STATE
67
0,000
Not quantified - not much

infrastructure to be replaced.
MC
Additional costs to rectify
Retained $
SHARED
Delay completion of works Thorough inspections during works phase.
Increase in cost to rectify.
Transferred $
MC
Not quantified - negligible risk

because BC involved during
schematic design. Any design
corrections easily rectified.
Not quantified. At detailed design
can change designs fairly easily.
FIT FOR PURPOSE - Risk that the detailed design is not

fit for purpose in terms of functionality. (DELAY)
FIT FOR PURPOSE - Risk that the design is not fit for
purpose in terms of functionality at practical completion.
(DELAY)
purpose in terms of functionality at practical completion.
(COST)
COMPLIANCE WITH PDP - Risk that Schematic Design is
not compliant with the PDP due to design error (DELAY)
Design &
Construction
Budget reallocation quantified under

risk 5&6.
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Nominal $
Co-ordinate SD phase and agree structured

approach to site services to minimise risk of
rework. Careful planning and design. Car parking
will not be commenced without full knowledge of
integration with project requirements and works
STATE
program.
Comprehensive value management study, design

Design &
Construction
Justification
Not quantified because considered

negligible - plan to contain flows on
site.
Not quantified - should be covered by
construction insurance.
Identify services diversion works during SD phase.
Delay (in signing contract

with MC)
Design &
Construction
STATE
SHARED
purpose in terms of functionality at schematic design
stage. (DELAY)
Design &
Construction
Preferred
allocation
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
MC
Delays costed in escalation (assume

10mths, ie 1.4b*8%/12/46*10), MC
fees. 2 wks (L), 1mth (M), 2mths
(H). User group process started,
group advising on lead times.
Cost of rework. $2m (L), 4m (M),
$5m (H)
Cost driver is total construction less

FF&E because can adapt quantities
of latter (use existing, etc), also less
land acquisition cost ($50m and
Medical School ($60m) .
Cost driver is trade costs. MC is

currently getting prices for half scope
now via competitive process.
Services plant is approx 45% of trade
cost, about 30% of that is imported.
About 75% of FF&FE of $150m is
imported. Imported content:
$1b*45%*30% + $150m*75% =
$250m. Assume exchange variation
+/-5%.
Delays costed in escalation (assume
20mths, ie 1.25b*8%/12/46*20), MC
fees. 1week (L), 1mth (M), 2mths (H)
DRAFT
Risk category
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Description
Consequence
Mitigation
Preferred
allocation
Quantified as $15m or 1% of
construction costs (L), $30m or 2%,
$45m or 3% (H). No lattitude in
budget; most changes would be
offset within budget.
INTERFACE RISK - risk that the design and construction

works do not interface effectively with any collocated
private hospital and research facilities.
EXTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE - Risk that services
(power, gas, sewer. stormwater, traffic management )
require unanticipated service upgrade. (COST)
Increase in costs.
Not quantified. Loss of amenity.
Design &
Construction
EXTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE - Risk that services

(power, gas, sewer. stormwater, traffic management )
require unanticipated service upgrade. (DELAY)
Delay to completion
Design &
Construction
EXTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE INTERFACE - risk that

external works (Main Roads, Energex, RTS, Griffith, gas,
GCCC) are not completed on time
Delay to completion
Design &
Construction
EXTERNAL WORKS - risk that project budget has to

contribute to the external works (Main Roads, Energex,
RTS, Griffith, gas, GCCC)
SITE INFRASTRUCTURE - Risk that infrastructure
services require land area at the site, in particular
ENERGEX, RTS (bus turning circle)
INTERFACE RISK - Risk that QH is obliged to accept
medical schools, private hospital, research facilities, on
main hospital site.
Costs
CONTRACTOR DEFAULT - Risk of default of MC

contractor (DELAY)
Delay to completion
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
CONTRACTOR DEFAULT - Risk of default of MC

contractor (COSTS)
CONTRACTOR DEFAULT - Risk of default of major sub

contractor
Cost increases.
Cost
Amenity
Additional costs
delay
Design &
Construction
INCLEMENT WEATHER - delays resulting from inclement Delay

weather.
Design &
Construction
CONTRACTOR DELAY - Risk that project may be

delayed as a consequence of shortage of labour (MC
Impact) (DELAY)
Delay to completion
Design &
Construction

delayed as a consequence of shortage of labour (MC
Impact) (COST)
Additional cost
Design &
Construction

delayed as a consequence of shortage of labour (QH
impact)
Additional cost and delay
Ensure that Precinct Plan provides adequate

provision for the private hospital and research
facilities.
Forward consultation with utilties and DMR to
ensure adequate planning and resourcing of
requirements.
Design &
Construction

delayed as a consequence of materials shortage and long
order times for major equipment (Group 1)
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction

delayed as a consequence of poor construction
management
CONTRACTOR DELAY - Risk that contractor delayed by
Group 2 and 3 items
OH&S - Risk that a breach of the OH&S Standards occurs Additional construction
during the construction phase.
time and cost.
PRINCIPAL/QH DELAYS - Risk that principal delays the

project due to untimely decision making
Delay to commencement
and completion
Design &
Construction
THIRD PARTY RISK - Risk of construction works

impacting on third parties
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
THIRD PARTY RISK - Risk of third parties impacting on

Cost and delay
construction works
STAGING - Risk of unanticipated delay or additional costs Cost and delay
resulting from failure to adequately manage staging
requirements
Design &
Construction
STAGING - Risk of delay due to cash-flow funding issues Cost and delay
from Treasury
Design &
Construction
Design &
Construction
SECURITY OF SITE - Risk of theft and vandalism during

construction
INSURANCE - Risk of inability to obtain insurance or
material increases in insurance premiums e.g.,
construction, third party, professional indemnity, collapse
of insurance company, WorkCover etc.
3411740_1.xls
Cost and delay
Cost and delay
Quantified under client changes.

See risk 76.
Worst case based on changes to
employee entitlements/allowances or
additional energy efficiency
requirements, say, 1% of trade costs.
STATE
STATE
Cost is potential contribution to

external works (probably not
electricity or gas) above current $9m
headworks provision, eg northern
road or sewer main augmentation.
Transferred $
Retained $
15,542,090
0,000
15,542,090
0,000
0,000
0,000
649,960
162,490
487,470
0,000
0,000
0,000
500,000
0,000
500,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
Programmer to liaise with all parties to ensure that

external works (as identified in Precinct Plan) are
STATE
coordinated. Conflicts to be resolved by
Executives supported by CEO's Committee.
Programmer to liaise with all parties to ensure that
external works (as identified in Precinct Plan) are
STATE
coordinated. Conflicts to be resolved by
Executives supported by CEO's Committee.
Forward consultation with utilties and DMR to
ensure adequate planning and resourcing of
STATE
requirements.
Ensure that Precinct Plan manages requirements
and that issues are resolved through CEO's
STATE
Committee.
Ensure that Precinct Plan allows expansion space
for possible Medical School and private hospital on
adjoining 4.5ha site (across road from main
STATE
15.5ha hospital site). Medical School currently
planned for Griffith University site.
1mth (L), 2mths (M), 3mths (H)

escalation ($8.3m/mth) and 25% of
MC onsite costs ($4m/mth).
Concurrent with #71.
Experience and Financial Capability of

Construction Contractor will be reviewed. Bonds
will be used to cover default. Progress payments
made to ensure contractor is not overpaid.
STATE
Delay (assume half way through

contract, hence escalation $3.6m/mth
plus Southport costs $0.5m/mth)
2mths (L), 4mths (M), 6mths (H)
1,043,790
0,000
1,043,790
STATE
Cost of rectifying defective work,

paying unpaid employees,
retendering etc $10m (L), $20m (M),
$50m (H)
1,909,373
0,000
1,909,373
954,686
954,686
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
10,529,355
10,529,355
0,000
800,000
0,000
800,000
2,588,261
2,070,609
517,652
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
890,378
890,378
0,000
4,826,470
0,000
4,826,470
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
Experience and Financial Capability of

Construction Contractor will be reviewed. Bonds
will be used to cover default. Progress payments
made to ensure contractor is not overpaid.
Not quantified as not considered

significant (some land may be
reallocated).
Not quantified. Impact mainly in
terms of site amenity.
Project Services to monitor appointment and

management of subcontractors, MC management
systems
MC
Cost of rectifying defective work,

paying unpaid employees,
retendering etc, acceleration penalty
$5m (L), $10m (M), $25m (H)
Additional float provided to cover excessive delays

resulting from inclement whether
MC
Not quantified. Weather is

adequately provided in builders float.
Building Consultant will conduct market soundings.

Experienced contractors engaged. Contract
MC
provisions to manage default and delay
Refer risk 92. Labour penalty is

mitigation of risk and should not
result in delay.

MC
Labour content 45% of trade costs x

cost penalty 1%(L), 5% (M), 10% (H).
Incorporates risk 91.

Delay in completion in worst case

scenario leads to additional QH lease
costs at Southport ($200k / mth) plus
other damages ($500k / mth).
Plan for long lead-times for ordering equipment

and pre-purchase materials and equipment where
necessary.
MC
95
Nominal $
Cost increases and delays The State can mitigate this risk to an extent by
CLIENT CHANGES - Risk that the client changes the
minimising the chance of its specifications
specified design of the works (minor variations) e.g. due to
changing and, to the extent they must change,
user group requirements
STATE
ensuring the design is likely to accommodate it at
least expense; this will involve considerable time
and effort in specifying the outputs up front and
CHANGES IN OPERATIONAL POLICIES - Changes in
Cost increases and delays QH/District can to some extent selectively manage
operational practices / policies at the hospital change the
implementation of changes in policies.
STATE
anticipated capital costs.
CHANGES IN LAW - Changes in Federal State and Local Cost increases and delays State can to some extent selectively manage
implementation of changes in law
Govt laws & regulations change the anticipated capital
costs.
STATE
Design &
Construction
STATE
94
Justification

Preparation of program for supply of Group 2 & 3
items; coordination with State Purchasing Board
and QH central purchasing. Involve building
consultant in planning of program
OH&S plan and procedures in place. Site

supervision by Principal and head contractor to
enforce OH&S
MC
Not quantified. MC unlikely to allow

for this risk.
Quantified in risk 100, below, in
terms of delay to commissioning.
STATE
MC
Ensure appropriate decision milestones flagged in

program. Seek approval in principle to proceed at
each milestone (on basis that formal approval
STATE
forthcoming).
Planning of access routes to mitigate impacts on
adjacent facilities. Effective stakeholder
management.
MC involved in coordinating program interface with
external works
Early engagement of BC to develop staging plan.
Staging to be developed to provide adequate float
for completion of activities. Appropriate design
which allows for staging.
Early involvement of Treasury and QH to match
funding to cash-flow requirements
Materials shortages will only be

apparent during construction after
tendering of trade packages therefore actual likely cost would
beadditional preliminaries in delays
to the MC - base on average $4.3M
per month plus (10*$0.18m)/mth
escaln (ie delay around mth 36).
1mth(L), 2mths (M), 3mths (H).
MC
MC
MC
STATE
MC responsible to provide appropriate site

MC
security.
Insurance advisers will be engaged to consider the
Material increases in
likelihood of being unable to obtain insurance
premiums priced into the
MC
bid by the MC or inability to cover.
obtain the relevant
insurance.
Main risk is that a major breach of

OH & S leads to strike action closing
down the site - cost is in delays @
$4.3M per month plus $3.6m
escalation. 1 week (L), 2 wks (M),
1mth (H).
Highly likely cause of delay before
construction commences - escalation
@ $8.3m per month plus MC @25%
(0.8m/mth). 2wks (L), 1mth (M),
2mths (H).
Not quantified. More of a
management than cost risk issue
Once existing tenants have vacated,
risk is negligible
Greenfield site, staging not an issue MC will likely stagger works to
ensure flow of tradesmen from one
building to the next
More of a management issue
keeping Treasury & QH informed of
cashflow peaks
Usual construction risk item covered under insurances
Given that MC will be a Tier One
builder, this is extremely unlikely
DRAFT
Risk category
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Commissioning
Commissioning
Commissioning
Commissioning
Commissioning
Decommissioning
of Southport
Decommissioning
of Southport
Revenue
opportunities
Description
Consequence
Mitigation
Preferred
allocation
Justification
Nominal $
CLINICAL COMMISSIONING - Risk that the clinical

Cost and delay
commissioning tests which are required for the provision of
clinical services to commence are delayed, cost more to
complete or cannot be successfully completed.
Commissioning team will be developed to manage

commissioning process.
FACILITY COMMISSIONING - Risk that the building

Delay in construction or
commissioning tests which are required to commence
completion.
operation are delayed, cost more to complete or cannot be
successfully completed.
MC to prepare commissioning plan in conjunction

with client. MC to manage through long term
subcontracts with suitability qualified and
MC
resourced sub-contractors and through formal or
informal consultation processes with the State.
Risk is delay in completing - cost

would be MC preliminaries - end of
project so reduced cost, say $1.0M
per month 2wks (L), 1mth (M), 2mths
(H)
CLINICAL EXPERTISE - risk of lack of clinical expertise to Delay

manage commissioning of equipment and services
Early advice of equipment so that QH can begin to

resource clinical expertise appropriately.
STATE
TRANSITION PLANNING - Risk that there is inadequate Delay

decanting planning and that the actual timing of decanting
is different than anticipated.
TRANSITION RESOURCING - Risk that there is
Cost
inadequate decant resourcing.
District Health Service will develop a decanting

plan and ensure that it is appropriately resourced. STATE
District Health Service will develop a decanting

plan and ensure that it is appropriately resourced. STATE
Potential overrun on relocation

budget of $12m
SCOPE of DECOMMISSIONING - risk that scope of

Delay and impact on
decommissioning and role of Southport is not well defined project budget, empty
buildings on site, decanting
risk
PDP should specify the role, if any, of the current

Gold Coast hospital (Southport). QH/District will
prepare a decommissioning plan and will need to
ensure that it is resourced appropriately.
See 106 below
SECURITY - risk that Southport empty facility is not

adequately secured or is unsafe
QH/District will prepare a decommissioning plan

and will need to ensure that it is resourced
appropriately.
REVENUE - Revenue opportunity from sale of Southport

site, or part of site
Additional costs
Additional funds for the

project
STATE
PDP should specify the role, if any, of the current

Gold Coast hospital (Southport). QH/District will
prepare a decommissioning plan and will need to
ensure that it is implemented on schedule.
Worst case could delay opening the

hospita for, say, 2 mths @ $0.5M per
month 2wks (L), 1mth (M), 2mths (H).
Concurrent with #71
STATE
STATE
Potential cost to make safe and

secure the existing facility - no cost in
current budget for any works at
Southport $100k (L), $500k (M), $1m
(H).
STATE
The following risks relate to maintenance-related services.

Their inclusion is subject to Government approval to
include maintenance in a long-term operations contract
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Scope (operations SCOPE (MAINTENANCE, FF&FE, ENERGY) - Risk of

phase)
revised forecasts of population, utilisation and
Commonwealth aged care bed licences resulting in
revised bed numbers.
Cost Increases
Scope (operations SCOPE (MAINTENANCE, FF&FE, ENERGY) - Risk of

phase)
changes to the service outputs required from the MC as
specified by Queensland Health. (Operating)
Operating Cost Increases
Scope (operations
phase)
Scope (operations
phase)
Cost Increases
SCOPE (MAINTENANCE) - Risk that additional capex

required by QH with associated maintenance impact
SCOPE (GROUP 1 FF&FE) - Risk that additional capex
required by QH for Group 1 FF&FE with associated
maintenance impact
Scope (operations SCOPE (ENERGY) - Risk that additional capex or
phase)
services required by QH with associated utilities impact
Scope (operations STATE INITIATED CHANGES - risk of state changes
phase)
impacting on service provisions
Operations
SERVICE DEMAND - Risk that demand for support
services differs from the expected level, eg. maintenance
works are higher than expected due to unanticipated
increase in clinical activity. (Volume element)
Cost Increases
Cost Increases
Additional Cost
Additional cost (wear and
tear)
Queensland Health will examine 2006 census

results and monitor aged care licences and revisit
bed requirements. Flexibility required to allow
changes in scope through the operating phase at
STATE
minimal cost.
Not quantified. Retained risk outside

project scope.
State requires a robust output specification for the

operating phase. Flexibility required to allow
STATE
changes in scope through the operating phase at
minimal cost.
STATE
operating phase.
operating phase.
STATE

project scope.

project scope.
project scope.

operating phase.
STATE

project scope.
State must have robust change management

procedures
Capacity of facility is limited. Finishes and
equipment selected to minimise impact of
increased use.

project scope.
project scope.
STATE
STATE
120
ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that building and plant

Operations
(building and plant maintenance costs are underestimated
maintenance)
Cost increases.
Robust output specification; sound costings,

checked against QH benchmarks.
MC
121
122
123
124
125
Operations (
FF&FE
maintenance)
ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that Group 1 FF&FE

maintenance costs are underestimated
Operations
(grounds
maintenance)
ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that grounds maintenance

costs are underestimated
Cost

MC
Cost

Operations (utilities ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that utilities management costs Cost
management)
are underestimated

Operations
ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that external cleaning costs are Cost
(external cleaning) underestimated

Operations
Insurance advisor will be engaged to provide

estimates on insurance costs
ESTIMATING RISK - Risk that costs in relation to

insurances are underestimated
Cost increases.
MC
Operations
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - Risk of energy & water

consumption increasing beyond expectations
Cost increases
MC
ESD strategies. Sound estimates checked against

QH benchmarks.
MC
127
128
129
130
131
132
Operations
ESCALATION - Risk that relevant support staff cost

estimates materially change over forecasts for the
operating period
Operations
ESCALATION - Risk that Goods and Services and
Management Costs materially change to forecasts over
the operating period
ESCALATION - Risk that building and plant maintenance
Operations
(building and plant costs materially change to forecasts over the operating
period
maintenance)
Operations (
FF&FE
maintenance)
Operations
(grounds
maintenance)
ESCALATION - Risk that Group 1 FF&FE maintenance

costs materially change to forecasts over the operating
period
ESCALATION - Risk that grounds maintenance costs
materially change to forecasts over the operating period
Operations (utilities ESCALATION - Risk that utilities maintenance costs

management)
materially change to forecasts over the operating period
3411740_1.xls
Cost increases
Cost increases
Cost increases
Health Award rates are determined by State

awards
Cost increases
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
4,200,000
0,000
4,200,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
490,000
0,000
490,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
110,750,000
110,750,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
1,270,330
1,270,330
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
3,718,479
3,718,479
0,000
450,000
0,000
450,000
24,016,158
24,016,158
0,000
Quantified under relevant service,

below.
0,000
0,000
0,000
MC
Quantified under relevant service,

below.
0,000
0,000
0,000
4,200,000
4,200,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
37,500
37,500
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
CPI adjustments made to service costs
Ensure appropriate provision for escalation under

the contract.

the contract.
MC
the contract.
MC
Cost increases
Significant potential for error given

prelminary nature of estimates: 0%
(L), 10% (M), 20% (H). 6wks*6 staff
p.a. =$0.1m x 20yrs = $2m
(L), 10% (M), 20% (H). Property
insurance $4/m2 x 160000 = $0.6m x
20 yrs = $12m
(L), 10% (M), 20% (H). $40/m x
160000m2 = $7.9m x 20yrs = $158m
Retained $
MC
MC
Cost increases

prelminary nature of estimates: 0% x
20yrs (L), 10% (M), 20% (H). Cost of
$0.250m (4 gardeners)
Quantified in risk #126
MC
STATE
126

preliminary nature of estimates: 0%
of total LCC of $30m x 20yrs (L),
10% (M), 20% (H). ($21.4m capex
replacement + 160,000m2 * $55/m2
= $8.8m + profit = $9.6m = $31m
(minus insurance $0.6m). Total
nominal value over 20 years of
routine and lifecycle is $886m.
Transferred $

the contract.
MC
Potential that actual escalation is

0.25% above or below the indexed
service payment -0.25% (L), 0% (M),
+0.25% (H). See wksheet "risk #
127ff escalation workings"
Quantified in risk # 129

DRAFT
Risk category
133
Description
Operations
ESCALATION - Risk that external cleaning costs
(external cleaning) materially change to forecasts over the operating period
Consequence
Cost increases
Mitigation
Preferred
allocation

the contract.
MC
134
Operations
135
Operations
136
137
Operations
Commissioning
138
Operations
139
Operations
140
Operations
141
Operations
142
Operations
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
158
Operations
159
Operations
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
Operations
Operations
Operations
IR
Community
Community
Commissioning
Scope (capital
phase)
Site
ESCALATION - Risk of energy & water prices increasing Cost increases

beyond expectations
CAR PARK DEMAND -Risk of under or over estimation of Cost increases, traffic
number of car park spaces required for staff
disruption

STATE
the contract.
Traffic studies to obtain best estimate of demand.
CAR PARK DEMAND -Risk of under or over estimation of Cost increases, traffic
number of car park spaces required for visitors
disruption
Traffic studies to obtain best estimate of demand.
MOBILISATION (Maintenance and related support

services) - Risk that the costs and timetable associated
with the mobilisation of staff and management to new
hospital exceed the budgeted level.
Delay and cost
MC will develop a mobilisation plan and will need

to ensure that it is appropriately resourced.
LATENT DEFECTS risk of latent defect occurring which

is outside the scope of warranty provisions
INSURANCE - Risk of events (such as vandalism,
malicious damage, terrorism) may not be fully covered by
insurance
CONTAMINATION - Risk that MC maintenance
responsibilities cause contamination on adjacent thirdparty land.
CONTAMINATION - Risk that there is undiscovered onsite
contamination
CONTAMINATION - Risk that the use of the project site
over the contract term results in a significant clean up or
rehabilitation obligation to make the site fit for future
anticipated use.
Increase in cost to rectify

Additional cost
Clean-up liability.
MC can manage site activity.
MC can manage site activity.
Increase in cost which may MC can manage site activity.

also result in a
corresponding adverse
effect on Queensland
Healths ability to deliver
the Hospitals core
services.
END OF MC CONTRACT - Risk that additional costs are Increased cost to comply Standards will be maintained through performance
incurred to bring facility up to desired standard
specifications, minimising need for significant work
at the end of the Term
FACILITIES STANDARD - The risk that new facilities are Increase in cost to provide MC will be responsible for designing the facility to
maximise performance of support services. Asset
not fully compatible with the service specification resulting support services
management unit standards are incorporated in
in additional Support Services Costs (eg due to design
the MC contract. Extended maintenance period
availability, or substituted materials)
will assist.
MC will be responsible for designing the facility to
FACILITIES STANDARD - The risk that new facilities are Increase cost to provide
maximise performance of support services.
not fully compatible with the service specification resulting Clinical Services
Clinical service standards to be incorporated in the
in additional Clinical Costs
MC contract.
FACILITIES STANDARD - The risk that facilities manager Increase in cost to provide MC in conjunction facility manager will be
support services
responsible for designing the facility to maximise
defaults on completion because of dispute over facility
performance of support services
standard
FACILITIES STANDARD - Risk that the facility does not
meet users expectations.
Increased cost to satisfy

users
TECHNOLOGICAL OBSOLESENCE - MAINTENANCE Risk of the building and plant not keeping pace, from a
technological perspective, with service requirements.
Increase in costs.
TECHNOLOGICAL OBSOLESENCE - FF&FE Risk of the

Group 1 FF&FE not keeping pace, from a technological
perspective, with service requirements.
TECHNOLOGICAL OBSOLESENCE - UTILITIES - Risk of
the utilities plant not keeping pace, from a technological
perspective, with service requirements.
PERFORMANCE (Maintenance) - Risk of failure of
building and plant maintenance service to achieve
specification standards
Increase in costs.
PERFORMANCE (Utilities) Risk of failure of utilities

service to achieve consumptions estimates

and/or performance
penalties.
and/or performance
penalties.
and/or performance
penalties.
and/or performance
penalties.
Increase in costs
PERFORMANCE (FFF&E) Risk of failure of FF&E

maintenance services to achieve specification standards
PERFORMANCE (external cleaning ) Risk of failure of
external cleaning services to achieve specification
standards
PERFORMANCE (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) Risk of
failure of the management services to achieve
specification standard
SPECIFICATION - Risk that specification standards (for
building maintenance, grounds maintenance, utilities etc)
are inadequate
CHANGE MANAGEMENT - Risk of additional costs
associated with support services change management
CHANGES IN LAW - Changes in Federal / State laws

change the anticipated operating costs.
CHANGES IN POLICIES - Changes in operational
practices / policies at the hospital change the anticipated
operating costs.
CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP: The risk that a change in
ownership or control of the MC results in a weakening in
its financial standing or support or other detriment to the
project.
EXCHANGE RATE: Foreign exchange rate movement (equipment or materials purchased overseas).
MC
STATE
Clean-up liability.
Increase in costs.

and/or performance
penalties.
Adverse cost
consequences in order to
achieve ongoing service
outcomes and costs
Cost increases
Cost increases
Cost and time delay.
Increased costs.
INDUSTRIAL ACTION: Risks of strikes, industrial action

or civil commotion causing delay and cost to the services
Increased costs /
diminution of service
INDUSTRIAL ACTION: (as result of procurement

process) Risks of strikes, industrial action or civil
commotion causing change of scope, exclusion of
maintenance services
COMMUNITY PROTEST: Risk of adverse reaction and
protest from local community to the Project prior to the
operational phase.
COMMUNITY PROTEST: Risk of adverse reaction and
protest from local community to the Project during the
operational phase.
EXTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Risk of delay in
commissioning Energex zone substation leading to delay
in commissioning hospital.
INADEQUATE BUDGET - MEDICAL SCHOOL: Risk that
escalation of Medical School capital costs will be included
in budget and not reimbursed.
INADEQUATE BUDGET - SITE ACQUISITION: Risk that
additional items related to site acquisition will cause total
cost to exceed budget. E.g. requests for transfer of
certain land to QH at $0 cost not agreed to.
Potential loss of whole of

life optimisation
Additional cost.
Delay and cost.
MC
Extended mobilisation period costed

at $1m annual labour /12mths =
$85k/mth. 1mth (L), 2mths (M), 3
mths (H)
$2m (L), $10m (M), $50m (H)
project scope.
Not quantified. Not likely due to

significant cut and fill site works.
Small risk of spills, etc. $0.1m (L),
$0.25m (M), $1m (H)
MC
MC
Not quantified. Included in

estimation error risk # 120
MC
STATE
STATE
MC
FM specification needs to anticipate upgrade

requirements
STATE
MC

project scope.
Either State takes over leading to

potential loss of LCC benefits
(amenity issue) or retender. Risk
costed on retender of $500k.
project scope.
Specification will require upgrade of
control systems and associated
software. $1m (L), $2.5m (M), $5m
(H)
Quantified in risk #148 above

project scope.
Quantified in estimation error risk
#120
91,438
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
41,667
41,667
0,000
3,190,714
3,190,714
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
68,000
68,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
259,984
259,984
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
50,000
0,000
50,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
2,650,000
2,650,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000

#125
0,000
0,000
0,000
MC

#120
0,000
0,000
0,000
MC

#124
0,000
0,000
0,000
MC

#120
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
575,000
575,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
2,025,000
2,025,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
122,500
0,000
122,500
7,500,000
0,000
7,500,000
3,000,000
0,000
3,000,000
STATE

project scope.
Not quantified. Not material.

MC
Minor transferred risk. $0.5m (L),
$1m (M), $2m (H)
project scope.
Established contract provisions giving State

approval rights.

project scope.
Compliance with Queensland Health policies;

proactive management of issues; local and HO
expertise with IR issues
QH needs to engage with HR/IR to change work
practices
91,438
MC
QH/District can to some extent selectively manage

MC
QH/District can to some extent selectively manage
STATE
Attempt to align equipment purchases with

favourable exchange rates.
STATE
MC
MC
Assume 50% of LCC expenditure of

$30m x 20 yrs is plant ie $300m.
Assume 30% imported = $90m. -5%
(L), 0% M, 20% (H)
Not quantified. Indeterminate impact
on abatements
See risk #21
STATE
MC
Extensive community consultation will be carried

out during the planning process.
MC
Forward consultation with Energex. Programmer

to ensure all external works are coordinated.
STATE
Not quantified. Not material (minor

extension of mobilisation costs.)
CEO level discussions (Health, Treasury) to

confirm source of funding (Govt).
STATE
Early discussions to resolve significant items that

may require funding. QH has written to Treasury
STATE
Costed as $700K/month for 0 months

(L), 1 month (M), 1.5 months (H)
Estimated $15m escalation cost
($75m-$60m), 50% chance.
Between $0 and $30m overrun. Eg
cemetery worth $20m mkt value.
332,778,378
3411740_1.xls
Retained $
Small risk of rectification. $1m (L),

$2m (M), $5m (H)

requirements
Delay in works/increase in Extensive community consultation will be carried

cost
out during the planning process.
Increased costs.

project scope.
project scope.
Transferred $
Specifications will be output based. Extensive user

consultation undertaken. Use of standard facility STATE
guidelines
requirements
MC
Systems and processes will be put in place by the

MC to mitigate risk. Services Specification aligned
with current and achievable outcomes. Periodic
condition survey and client monitoring.
with current and achievable outcomes
Use proven specifications for long-term contracts
(precedents). Apply Asset Management Branch
standards. Ability to review contract at certain
stages during its life.
Planning and resourcing of mobilisation activities
to minimise change management risks by
providing ample time for processes to occur.
Nominal $

project scope.
MC
Recourse to contractor through defects liability

period
Security procedures, robust design
Justification
204,860,287
127,918,091
Queensland Health
September 2008
C.6
Risk quantification reconciliation with previous Business Case

The following table summarises the adjustments made in this business case to the risk
valuations in the February 2008 business case.
Risk
Rationale for revision of risk

valuation
1 - Site is not
accessible
Risk previously treated as concurrent

with a risk that has been removed
following review
0.00
12.20
12.20
5 - Inadequate
capital funding
Capital expenditure will match available

funding
28.74
0.00
(28.74)
9 - State imposed
scope changes

funding
5.21
0.00
(5.21)
30 - Escalation
provision
inadequate
Construction cost escalation risks now

treated concurrently. Revised
methodology (best case 1%p.a. below
most likely index; worst case 2%p.a.
above index)
35.79
0.00
(35.79)
39 - Adverse
ground conditions
Conservative assumption pending

second round geotechnical report
0.00
4.80
4.80
43 - Discovery of
acid sulphate soils
First round geotechnical report

indicated absence of acid sulphate soils
5.76
0.00
(5.76)
71 - Equipment
selection delayed
(delay)
Mitigation implemented (user group

advising on lead times)
12.20
1.08
(11.12)
72 - Equipment
selection delayed
(cost)
Mitigation implemented (user group

advising on lead times)
3.22
0.59
(2.63)
73 - Estimation
error prior to MC
contract
Improved understanding of engineering

services scope; alignment with Building
Consultant prices which are being
obtained through a competitive process
58.39
35.17
(23.21)
74 - Estimation
error post MC
contract
Improved understanding of engineering

services scope; alignment with Building
Consultant prices which are being
obtained through a competitive process
21.62
17.96
(3.66)
77 - Client minor
variations
Limited funding will require that most

changes are offset by savings
30.17
15.54
(14.63)
91 - Shortage of
labour (delay)
Building Consultant will engage subcontractors early in process
5.94
0.00
(5.94)
92 - Shortage of
labour (cost)
Building Consultant will engage subcontractors early in process
33.79
10.53
(23.26)
6 - Redesign due
to inadequate
capital budget

funding
5.11
0.00
(5.11)
February
Business
Case $M
Updated
Business
Case $M
Adjustment
$M
211
Queensland Health
September 2008
Risk
Rationale for revision of risk

valuation
49 - Procurement
of lost vegetation
offset parcel
Works Regulation process avoids risk
3.10
0.00
(3.10)
109 - Inadequate
funding of
transition (decant)
program
New risk reflecting uncertainty about

transition resource requirement and
funding
0.00
4.20
4.20
167 - Unfunded
escalation in
Medical School
costs
New risk associated with inclusion of

medical budget
0.00
7.50
7.50
168 - Unfunded
site acquisition
costs
New risk associated with inclusion of

site acquisition budget
0.00
3.00
3.00
Other risk adjustments

Total
February
Business
Case $M
Updated
Business
Case $M
Adjustment
$M
(3.73)
(140.19)
212
Queensland Health
September 2008
Gold Coast Hospital Car Park Report

61 pages
213
ABCD
Queensland Health

Procurement of Car Parking
KPMG Corporate Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd

December 2007
This report contains 61 pages
GCUH_ car park business case_FINAL 041207
2007 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent
member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG.
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Document review and approval

Revision history
Version
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Author
Sabine Schleicher
Sabine Schleicher
Sabine Schleicher
Sabine Schleicher
Date
29 October 2007
9 November 2007
30 November 2007
20 December 2007
Comments
Sent to Queensland Health
Sent to Queensland Health
Incorporates feed-back from business case
working group
This document has been reviewed by

Reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
Date reviewed
30 October
30 November
Paul Foxlee
Paul Foxlee
This document has been approved by

Subject matter experts
Name
1
2
3
4
5
Don Glynn
Signature
Date reviewed
03 December 2007
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Contents
1
Executive Summary
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7.1
1.7.2
1.7.3
1.7.4
1.8
Introduction
Forecast demand
Car parking configurations and delivery timing
Procurement methodology
Bridging finance required for provision of underground car park
Financial analysis
Staff tariff
Patients and visitors tariff
Parking bay turnover
Results of preliminary analysis
Conclusion
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
8
Introduction
10
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Background
Queensland Health objectives
Purpose of this report
The structure of this report
10
10
11
11
Car parking demand and usage levels
12
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Methodology
Usage level and car parking requirement
Two demand scenarios
Risks in respect of long-term demand for car parking
12
12
14
14
Car parking options
16
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Configuration A
Configuration B
Configuration C
Delivery timing
16
17
17
17
19
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Objectives
Procurement options
Preferred procurement methodology
Bridging Finance Required for Provision of Underground Car Park
Concession term and payment by Queensland Health
19
19
22
23
24
25
Financial analysis
27
ii
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.6
Options analysed
Capital cost estimates
Operating cost estimates
Revenue assumptions
Tariff structure
Patients and visitors
Financing structure
Car Park B (basement)
Car Park A and C
Financing assumptions
Other modelling assumptions
28
30
33
34
34
36
37
38
38
38
38
39
40
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6.1
7.6.2
7.6.3
Summary
Procurement process
Procurement timetable
Early delivery option
Information required for tender process
Market sounding process
Process
Participants
Key findings
43
44
44
45
46
46
46
47
47
Disclaimer
49
Market sounding process files notes
50
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
International Parking Group

Ariadne
Westpac
Macquarie
50
51
52
53
Fact sheet for market sounding process
54
Capital and operating cost estimates
57
iii
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Executive Summary
1.1
Introduction
Queensland Health has commenced the development of the 750 bed Gold Coast
University Hospital (GCUH or the Project) to be constructed and operational by
December 2012 using a traditional procurement process. Queensland Health intends to run
a separate procurement process for the selection of an operator/consortium to design,
construct, finance, operate and maintain the car park facilities required for the GCUH.
1.2
Forecast demand
As part of the current Master Planning process, GCUH Engineering, a joint venture
between Sinclair Knight Merz, Connell Wagner and S2F, has undertaken preliminary
analysis of car parking demand. The analysis indicates a total demand of 2,750 bays,
made up of 2,300 staff bays and 450 visitor bays. This estimate was confirmed as being
consistent with private sector expectations through the preliminary market sounding
process. All options based on an earlier demand scenario of 3,000 spaces (incorporating
900 visitor bays), have therefore been disregarded.
The analysis in this Business Case assumes that there is a demand for car parking over the
economic life of the facilities. However, there could be circumstances arising where this
may not be the case. The potential risk of decline of private car usage may provide reason
to conservatively size the car parking facilities, based on a lower percentage of private car
usage, e.g. 70% instead of 80% of staff travel to the hospital. This would reduce the
demand for staff car parking by 200 bays.
We consider it unlikely that demand for car parking would disappear entirely. Even if
demand for car parking arising from the GCUH reduced the risk is somewhat mitigated by
the fact that the hospital is part of a larger growing health precinct which could make up
for some decline in demand at GCUH.
It is also important to note that the assessment of car parking demand excludes any
additional car park space requirements in the precinct which may arise from either
collocation with Griffith University or the potential development of a private hospital on
the site.
1.3
Car parking configurations and delivery timing

As part of the Master Planning process, two alternative car parking configurations, both
incorporating free standing car parking (Car Park A and C) and underground car parking
(Car Park B), have been investigated. The underground car park is intended to be used for
staff and specialist car parking only. While coming at a cost premium, it is considered as
the desired way of providing secure car parking which is particularly important for night
shift nurses.
1
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
In addition, a car parking configuration excluding underground car parking has been
analysed in order to determine the premium associated with the provision of underground
car parking.
In terms of the delivery timing of the car parking facilities, Queensland Health is currently
investigating three options:
All car parks delivered and operational by 1 July 2012.
Early commissioning of one free standing multi-deck car park delivered and
operational by 1 July 2010 or earlier, with the remainder of car parking bays being
operational by 1 July 2012.
Late commissioning where one car park is delivered and operational by 1 July 2013,
with the remainder of car parking bays being operational by 1 July 2012.
The underground Car Park B is assumed to be completed by December 2009, but not
operational until 1 July 2012.
1.4
To assist in the analysis and selection of the preferred procurement methodology, KPMG
prepared a presentation on procurement options available to Queensland Health and
facilitated a workshop which analysed the advantages and disadvantages associated with
the identified procurement options. The preferred methodology is a combination between
traditional and Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) style procurement.
The Managing Contractor (MC) would be responsible for designing and constructing any
underground car parking spaces to avoid the interface risk with the main hospital structure
above, whereas the stand-alone multi-deck car parks would be delivered through a BOOT.
Queensland Health would run a competitive tender process to select the BOOT partner.
The BOOT partner would also be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all car
parking spaces allowing for optimisation of operating costs across all car parks.
Typically, for a project such as this, we recommend to run a two stage procurement
process comprising a:
Expression of Interest Process and followed by
Selective Request for Proposals.
Dependent on the number of interested parties and level of competition, we suggest

selecting three parties which would then be invited to participate in the Request for
Proposal Process. The Managing Contractor may wish to participate in the process which
may offer synergies with delivery of the hospital structure, especially in the early delivery
options. The procurement process would need to be commenced by December 2009, in
the absence of an early commissioning scenario.
2
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
1.5
Queensland Healths indicative commercial arrangements for the car park facilities are as
follows:
Concession Term: 25 years from commercial operation date.
Payment from Queensland Health to the private operator/consortium at the end of the
concession period (Residual Value Payment).
Staff car parking rates to be agreed between Queensland Health and the private
operator/consortium and linked to CPI indexation post commercial operation date.
A minimum of 2,100 car parks allocated for staff usage.
The economic life of car parking facilities is generally accepted to be 40 years. With a
concession term of 25 years, there is still significant value available post the initial
concession term from the ongoing operation of the car park. KPMG proposes to combine
the 25 year concession period with a payment for the residual value of the car parks to the
private car park operator/consortium at the end of the concession term.
The residual value payment will allow the car park operator/consortium to structure its
financing arrangements with a balloon payment upon termination which results in an
overall reduction of financing costs of the project.
It is envisaged that Queensland Health would retender the car parking facilities at the of
the concession period, with the proceeds of the upfront concession payment for the second
concession term likely to exceed the residual value payment to the existing car park
operator/consortium. This arrangement is considered to represent better Value for
Money for Queensland Health than offering an extended initial concession period.
We note, however, there remains a residual risk to Queensland Health that if there was a
significant decrease in demand for car parking, the concession fee for the second
concession term could be less than the residual value payment Queensland Health has to
make.
1.6
Bridging finance required for provision of underground car park

Should Queensland Health decide to include an underground car park, the Managing
Contractor would construct the underground car park. Queensland Health would need to
provide temporary funding, until the upfront concession payment would be received from
private operator/consortium.
The capital outlay for the underground car park is estimated to be $26 million for a 600
bay underground car park. The costs would be incurred over the financial years 2009 and
2010.
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Staff car parking tariffs would be negotiated at a level, such that the private
operator/organisation can afford to make an upfront concession payment to off-set the
construction cost incurred by Queensland Health for the underground car park. However,
there is a risk that Queensland Health will not be able to fully recoup the capital
expenditure associated with the underground car park.
1.7
Financial analysis
KPMG has developed a financial model from the perspective of a private sector BOOT
operator/consortium. The financial model includes consideration of financing and tax,
and is based upon achieving a target return on equity.
Capital and operating costs for car parks vary significantly based on whether car parking
can be provided in a free standing above ground structure, or whether car parking is
provided underground. This cost differential is primarily driven by costs associated with
excavation and ventilation requirements.
Davis Langdon Australia (DLA) has provided indicative capital cost estimates for each of
the options, including an allowance for professional fees, contingency and car parking
equipment. The total cost (including non construction costs) was derived in September
2007 dollars and then adjusted to allow for cost escalation between now and completion of
construction.
David Langdon has also provided indicative operating cost estimates in 2007 dollars for
the financial analysis. Car Parks A and C are assumed to be fully naturally ventilated,
where as Car Park B requires full ventilation.
1.7.1
Staff tariff
Current car parking rates applicable for staff working at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and
Princess Alexandra Hospital are around $60 a fortnight or $6 a day. The tariffs were
contractually agreed with the owner/operator of both car parks for the duration of the lease
agreement and are linked to CPI.
Construction costs have significantly increased in recent years and are forecast to continue
to increase significantly. For example, the certified construction cost for the recently
completed car park at the Princess Alexandra Hospital was around $26,500,000 million or
$18,888 per car1. This compares to $34,557 per car, (under Option 12) as constructed, or
$26,582 in September 2007 Dollars before allowing for escalation, which is greater than a
40% increase excluding anticipated cost escalation. Including the effect of escalation, the
construction cost is over 80% higher than the recently completed car park at the Princess
Alexandra Hospital.
1
2
Information provided by Michelle Walter, Queensland Health

Car park options are defined in Section 0
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
We understand that Queensland Health is in the process of developing a policy in relation

to car parking development and tariffs applicable to staff. The draft policy considers
linking the tariffs for new car park facilities to the rates applicable at the Royal Brisbane
Hospital. Such a policy would mean that future large scale car park facilities are unlikely
to be able to be developed at no net cost to Queensland Health.
As part of our financial modelling, we have estimated tariffs levels required for staff and
visitors to ensure that the car parking facility can be delivered at no net cost Queensland
Health. We have escalated staff and visitor tariffs at the same rate to maintain relativity
between the two tariffs.
This will result in higher tariffs for staff working at the GCUH in comparison to the RBH
or PA. The level of increase required depends on the configuration, split between staff
and visitor bays, timing of delivery, concession term and level of residual value payment
by Queensland Health (if any) at the end of the concession term.
1.7.2
Patients and visitors tariff
Similarly to the arrangements applicable for the operation of the car parks at the RBH and
PA, the private operator is assumed to be free to set tariffs applicable to patient and
visitors at market rates.
In line with increases in construction costs over recent years and the anticipated continued
construction cost increases, car parking tariffs will also have to increase significantly if a
cost neutral position to Queensland is to be achieved.
GCUH Engineering has estimated the average parking duration for patients and visitors is
1 hour 40 minutes with about 10 per cent of patients and visitors requiring parking in
excess of 4 hours. Based on this usage profile the average car parking ticket using tariffs
applicable at hospitals in Brisbane is estimated to be around $8.65 (in $2007).
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
1.7.3
In order to calculate annual revenue for staff and visitor car parking, we have derived an
average daily car park turnover rates as follows:
Staff
Patients & visitors
Parking bay turnover peak weekday

(Number of times the bay is used during the
day
1.1 to 1.23
2.44
7 day average5
0.88-0.96
1.92
Source: GCUH Engineering, Technical Note 6, dated 3 October 2007, KPMG analysis
1.7.4
The financial analysis has been completed for ten alternative options (i.e. different size,
configurations, residual value and delivery date). A more detailed description of the
options is provided in Section 6.1. The analysis calculates the tariff required to be paid by
staff and visitors to ensure that the car park facilities achieve the private
operator/consortium target rate of return. For the preliminary analysis, we have used a
post tax return of equity of 13% as a target. The results in 2007 Dollars are as follows:
Assuming late night parking is separate from day parking

GCUH engineering does not have data on parking profile changes by day of week
5
Peak turn-over multiplied by average demand. Late night parking assumed to have same turnover as day
parking.
4
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Financial analysis of car park options

Option
10
Configuratio
n
Total Bays
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
Staff bays
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
Underground
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
600
600
Early delivery
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
35%
35%
35%
35%
Total capital
cost $m
103.7
98.2
112.3
105.7
94.5
88.9
94.5
95.5
88.7
96.0
Cost of
basement car
park
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
15.5
15.2
15.2
26.0
26.0
$7.37
$7.37
$7.91
$7.91
$8.80
$8.80
$7.72
$7.76
$7.26
$7.72
22.8%
22.8
%
31.8%
31.8%
46.7%
46.7%
28.7%
29.4%
21.0%
28.7
%
17.4
18.6
23.8
25.1
28.1
29.1
18.0
18.2
13.3
17.4
Term
Residual
value
Late
Results
Required
staff tariff
($2007)
Increase to
RBH/PA (%)
Gap if staff
tariff $6 ($m)
Source: KPMG analysis
Option 9, consisting of two stand-alone multi-deck car parks with no provision for
underground car parking, is the most competitive option, but does offer less amenity than
the Options including underground car parking.
Option 7 is the next competitive option. There appears to be a loss of economies of scale
when reducing underground car park to 300. Option 8 comes at a slight cost disadvantage
of $0.50 per day in required staff tariff, but provides higher amenity through providing
significantly higher number of car parking bays under the hospital building.
We consider a 25 year concession term, combined with a residual value payment of 35%
of the construction cost, provides a better outcome for Queensland Health than a 25 year
concession term with no residual value as this reduces the tariff required to be paid by
staff by more than a $1 from $8.80 to $7.72 (in 2007 Dollars).
We have also modelled the potential concession payment available to Queensland Health
from a retendering process in year 25 for a further 15 years. This modelling indicates that
a private operator/consortium should be able to afford to pay in excess of $95 million
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
concession payment (in 2038 Dollars). This far exceeds the residual value payment of
$33.1 million6.
We therefore propose to run with a 25 year concession term with a pre-agreed residual
value. This approach is consistent with the principle that the car park facilities are to be
delivered at no net cost to the State.
Preliminary discussion with the Managing Contractor indicated no significant interest in
being able to access car parking facilities during the construction period. The required
price of $7.75 to $7.90 per day is at the upper end of the range the Managing Contractor
believes construction workers would be prepared to pay. Market feed-back indicated that
the private operator/consortium felt that the early delivery of a car park facility would
complicate the deal and they would also require a revenue guarantee for the period prior to
hospital commissioning, estimated to be around $4 million over 24 months.
In addition, the early commissioning scenarios would require an immediate
commencement of the procurement process for the car park to be delivered. There are still
significant uncertainties in respect of the overall level of demand for car parking on the
site as the size and timing of a potential collocated private hospital on site is still to be
determined. We therefore suggest not to pursue the early commissioning scenarios any
further.
1.8
Conclusion
Based on our input assumptions, the car parks facilities cannot be delivered at zero cost to
Queensland Heath without car parking tariffs applicable to staff and visitors being
increased by between 20% and 30%. This will result in tariffs for staff to be in the range
of $7.20 to $7.80 per day (depending on the option selected) in $2007 escalating at CPI as
compared to $6.
Option 9, excluding underground car parking, is the current preferred option by
Queensland Health, subject to a consultation process to be undertaken with representatives
of the workforce. An IR working group has been established and is expected to consult
with the workforce on this and other issues in March 2008.
The premium in daily tariff required to be paid by staff to have access to 600 underground
car parks versus none is around an additional $0.50 7 per day.
Should Queensland Health decide to impose the tariffs applicable at the RBH and PA,
Queensland Health is unlikely to recover the full construction of underground car park
through the upfront concession payment.
The funding gap, should Queensland Health choose to maintain tariffs at parity with the
PA and RBH ($6 per day), is estimated to be around $13.3 million if no underground car
6
The preliminary financial analysis is based on a nominal residual value payment of 35% of the total
construction cost. This could be increased to up to 50% which would reduce required tariff level.
7
This assumes that visitor rates get adjusted pro-rata.
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
parking is provided under Option 9 or increasing to $18.2 million under Option 8, which
provides for 600 underground car parks.
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Introduction
2.1
Background
The Queensland Government committed during the 2006 State election to build a new 750
bed hospital adjacent to the Griffith University Gold Coast campus to service the Gold
Coast Region. The Project known as the Gold Coast University Hospital is to be
constructed and operational by December 2012. The Project will replace the existing
Gold Coast hospital located at Southport.
The preferred site for the Project is on land north of Parklands Drive adjacent to the
Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, at Parklands. The existing Griffith University
medical school is intended to be relocated from its current location in High Street,
Southport to the precinct.
The hospital project is being developed using a traditional procurement process
(Managing Contractor) for the health related facilities which is currently underway. The
car parking facilities required for the Project are subject to a separate procurement
process. The car parking facilities are proposed to be delivered under a Build Own
Operate Transfer (BOOT) model, which is similar to the procurement process used for the
car parks at the Royal Brisbane (RBH) and Princess Alexandra Hospitals (PA).
GCUH Engineering, a joint venture between Sinclair Knight Merz, Connell Wagner and
S2F, has been retained as technical consultants to the Project. As part of the current
Master Planning process, GCUH Engineering has undertaken preliminary analysis of car
parking demand, indicating a total demand of 2,750 bays for the Project. This assessment
of car parking spaces excludes any additional car park space requirements in the precinct
which may arise from either collocation with Griffith University or the potential
development of a private hospital on the site. This Business Case examines the financial
viability of car parking facilities designed for between 3,000 and 2,750 bays.
2.2
Queensland Health objectives

In accordance with Queensland Healths policy in respect of provision of car parking at
hospital sites, Queensland Health intends to outsource the development and operation of
the car park to a private sector operator/consortium, similar to its current arrangements at
the RBH and PA.
To achieve a value for money outcome, Queensland Health intends to run a tender process
for the selection of an operator/consortium to design, construct, finance, operate and
maintain the car parking facilities required for the Project.
Queensland Health seeks to achieve a cost neutral outcome (i.e. the development and ongoing operation of car parking does not require any funding by Queensland Health).
10
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
2.3
Purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to summarise the proposed procurement methodology and
process for the car parking facilities and to analyse the financial viability of the proposed
car parking options for the Project.
The financial analysis will assist Queensland Health to select a preferred car parking
option and assess any budgetary implications, positive as well as negative, which may
arise from the car parking procurement process for the overall Project Budget.
This report is prepared using preliminary demand analysis prepared by GCUH
Engineering and capital and operating cost estimates prepared by Davis Langdon
Australia (DLA) and incorporates the market input received as part of the market testing
process.
We have accepted the information provided at face value and have not attempted to test its
veracity. Whilst we believe the statements made in this report are accurate, KPMG
Corporate Finance, KPMG, its affiliated companies and their respective officers and
employees give no warranty of accuracy or reliability.
2.4
The structure of this report

The analysis and findings within our report are contained within the following sections:
Section 3 summarises the assessment of car parking and assumed usage levels;
Section 4 details the car parking options assessed as part of this report;
Section 5 details the preferred procurement methodology and high level commercial
principles;
Section 6 summarises the options underlying the financial analysis;
Section 7 contains the results of the financial analysis; and
Section 8 details procurement timetable and considerations in respect of the tender

process.
11
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Car parking demand and usage levels
3.1
Methodology
GCUH Engineering, a joint venture between Sinclair Knight Merz, Connell Wagner and
S2F, has undertaken preliminary analysis of car parking demand, primarily using car
parking usage information available for the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane and
as a secondary data source two tertiary hospitals in Perth.
According to GCUH Engineering peak car parking demand typically occurs on Tuesdays
and Wednesdays, with an average weekly demand of 80% of this peak demand. GCUH
Engineering has estimated required car parking bays for peak demand, using anticipated
usage pattern on these peak demand days.
GCUH Engineering provided relative volumes of traffic to derive a proxy for average
demand. This average demand figure has then been used to derive weekly average
turnover figures which are used to calculate the expected annual revenues.
3.2
Usage level and car parking requirement

GCUH Engineering has estimated required car parking bays for the peak days, using the
following key assumptions:
Criteria
Staff
Patients & visitors
80%
70%
Ratio of maximum use (bays/ bed)
3.0 to 3.1
0.6

(Number of times the bay is used during the day)
1.1 to 1.28
2.49
Car driver mode share
Source: GCUH Engineering, Technical Note 6, dated 3 October 2007
This results in a total car parking requirement of 2,750 bays for staff, patients and visitors
on peak days as follows:
8
9

12
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Bays
Total bays required for 750 bed hospital (secure/ non
secure)
Fully secure bays for evening and night shift staff
(separate, secure access, not accessible to public)
Staff
Patients & visitors
2,300
450
300
(included in
above total)
Please note that this analysis excludes any additional car park space requirements in the
precinct which may arise from either collocation with Griffith University or the potential
development of a private hospital on the site.
Queensland Health also provided the following alternative demand scenario for inclusion
in the financial analysis:
A total of 3,000 bays

-
70% or 2,100 allocated to staff; and
900 visitor bays.
This scenario would likely require some rationing of the number of car parks made
available for staff or a decrease in private car travel to the hospital from 80% to 70%,
according to discussion with GCUH Engineering. We note that accessibility to public
transport after hours is limited which caps the ability to increase public transport usage by
hospital staff. However, this is subject to final hours of operation of the Rapid Transit
system.
The car parking analysis is obviously very sensitive in respect of the assumed mode share
which is driven by a number of factors including car parking tariffs. From discussion with
GCUH Engineering, we understand that GCUH Engineering proposes to undertake travel
surveys at the existing Gold Coast Hospital to firm up these assumptions. The date for the
travel survey has not been determined as yet. The results will be reflected in the final
scope for the car park facilities.
To calculate annual expected revenues, it is necessary to derive average weekly usage
figures. GCUH Engineering has provided estimated demand profile for a typical week,
based on relative volumes of traffic to and from a major tertiary hospital, as summarised
in the following table:
13
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Day of the week
Estimated demand volume (as % of

peak demand)
Monday
95%
Tuesday
100%
Wednesday
100%
Thursday
99%
Friday
88%
Saturday
42%
Sunday
36%
Average
80%
GCUH Engineering advised that traffic volume ratios represent a reasonable proxy for
parking demand. The average demand of 80% has been used to calculate average
turnover figures.
3.3
Two demand scenarios

The following table summarises the two demand scenarios analysed as part of the business
case:
Scenario
Staff
Patients & visitors
Total
2,300
450
2,750
(of which 300
underground)
2,100
900
3,000
(of which 600
underground)
GCUH Engineering
Queensland Health
Source: GCUH Engineering and Queensland Health
3.4
Risks in respect of long-term demand for car parking

The analysis in this business case assumes that there is a demand for car parking over the
economic life of the facilities, (i.e. 40 years). However, there could be circumstances
arising where there is significantly less demand for car parking. This could be caused by:
continued increase in petrol prices;
mandatory public transport usage; and/or
significant increase in alternative transport means (e.g public transport, motor cycles,
and bicycles).
Governments across Australia continue to invest in road infrastructure and there is

currently no indication that private car usage is declining. However, the potential risk of
14
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
decline of private car usage may provide a reason to conservatively size the car parking
facilities, based on lower percentage of private car usage, (e.g. assume 70% instead of
80%).
This reduces the demand for staff car parking by 200 bays. Alternatively, Queensland
Health could consider a whole of life concession agreement, where the patronage risk is
transferred to the private sector for the economic life of the asset.
Queensland Health may also wish to investigate design solutions which allow conversion
of the facilities for alternative use, (e.g. offices). This flexibility is likely to come at a cost
premium which needs to be evaluated against the likelihood of the risk of decreased
demand for car parking actually emerging.
We consider it unlikely that over the time period being assessed car parking facilities will
cease to be required. Demand for car parking arising from the GCUH could reduce;
however, the hospital is part of a larger health precinct. Should private car travel reduce,
additional facilities in the precinct can be serviced by the car park facilities at the GCUH
and would delay the need for additional car parking facilities.
15
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Car parking options

As part of the Master Planning process, two alternative car parking configurations, both
incorporating free standing and underground car parking, have been investigated. The
underground car park is intended to be used for staff car parking. While coming at a cost
premium, it is considered as the desired way of providing secure car parking which is
particularly important for night shift nurses.
In addition, a car parking configuration excluding underground car parking has been
analysed in order to determine the premium associated with the provision of underground
car parking.
4.1
Configuration A
Under the configuration A, car parking would be delivered through three separate car
parking facilities under the two demand scenarios as follows:
Queensland
Health
GCUH
Engineering
1,200
1,225
600
300
Car Park C - an above ground multi-storey car park

facility to be built as a free standing car parking structure
at the Eastern boundary of the site.
1,200
1,225
Total car parking bays
3,000
2,750
Car parking allocated to staff
2,100
2,300
Car Park
Car Park A - an above ground multi-storey car park
facility to be built as a free standing car parking structure
at the Western boundary of the site.
Car Park B - a car park facility to be incorporated into
the basement of one of the main hospital building to be
built by the Managing Contractor.
Source: GCUH Engineering and Queensland Health
Car Park B, which is proposed to be developed under one of the main hospital buildings,
is intended to be operated in conjunction with car parks A and C by the successful
organisation / consortium.
16
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
4.2
Configuration B
Under the configuration B, car parking would be delivered through two separate car
parking facilities as follows:
Queensland
Health
GCUH
Engineering
Car Park A - an above ground multi-storey car park facility

to be built as a free standing car parking structure at the
Western boundary of the site.
1,500
N/a
Car Park B - a car park facility to be incorporated into the

basement of one of the main hospital building to be built by
the Managing Contractor.
1,500
N/a
3,000
2,100
Car Park
Car Park B, which is proposed to be developed under one of the main hospital buildings,
is intended to be operated in conjunction with Car Park A by the successful organisation /
consortium.
4.3
Configuration C
Under the configuration C, car parking would be delivered through two separate above car
Queensland
Health
GCUH
Engineering
Car Park A - an above ground multi-storey car park facility

Western boundary of the site.
N/a
1,375
Car Park C - an above ground multi-storey car park facility

Eastern boundary of the site.
Na/
1,375
Car Park
2,750
2,300
4.4
Delivery timing
investigating three options:
the three car park structures delivered and operational by 1 July 2012;
early commissioning of Car Park A delivered and operational by 1 July 2010, with the
remainder of car parking bays being operational by 1 July 2012; and
17
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
late commissioning of Car Park C delivered and operational by 1 July 2013, with the
remainder of car parking bays being operational by 1 July 2012.
The underground Car Park B is assumed to commence construction in July 2008 and be
completed by December 2009, but not operational until 1 July 2012 to coincide with the
completion of the hospital facilities.
18
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
5.1
Objectives
In discussion with Queensland Health it was established that the car parking facilities and
procurement method will need to achieve the following objectives:
5.2
car park development and operation to be self-funding (i.e. car park to be delivered at
no cost or risk to Queensland Health);
deliver value for money;
avoid, if possible, interface risk that may arise having one builder for the hospital
structure and another for below ground (basement) car park (i.e. preference for
Managing Contractor to build basement car park); and
timing of procurement to:

-
align below car park with hospital construction;
align above ground spaces with completion of hospital, but early deliver option to
be investigated.
Procurement options
To assist in the analysis and selection of preferred procurement methodology, KPMG
prepared a presentation on procurement options available to Queensland Health. The
presentation identified four procurement options as follows:
Private sector BOOT10 (all spaces).
Managing Contractor Construction (all spaces) with private sector operation (all
spaces).
Managing Contractor BOOT (basement car park) with private sector BOOT (above
ground car parks).
Managing Contractor (basement car park only) with private sector design, construct
(above ground spaces) and private sector operation, maintenance (all spaces).
The workshop analysed the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the
options and the selection of the preferred methodology. In the following sections, we
provide a summary of each of the options as well as its advantages and disadvantages.
10
Build Own Operate Transfer which generally encapsulates design, construction, operation, maintenance and
ownership of the facility followed by transfer of ownership at the end of the contract period.
19
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Option 1 Private sector BOOT (all spaces)

Description
Advantages
Private sector consortium designs,

constructs, maintains and operates
the car parks (above & below ground)
Transfer of design, construction and maintenance

risks
Transfer of car park demand risk
Consortium finances the construction

cost in return for access to car park
revenues for concession term
Low-cost builder used for all car parks.
Competition either over up-front

payment/subsidy or entry charges (up
to escalated cap).
Potential for Interface risk different contractors

engaged to build basement car park and aboveground hospital structure
Time table risk co-ordinations of two different

contractors may impact construction time-tables
Project potentially extends over GCUH

construction program consequent impact on
provision for cost escalation.
Disadvantages
Source: Car park procurement methodology workshop 18 October 2007
Option 2 Managing Contractor Construction(all spaces) and Private Sector Operation (all
spaces)
Description
Advantages
MC designs and constructs the car

parks (basement & above ground
spaces)
Avoids interface risk of using different contractors

to build basement car park and associated aboveground hospital structure
Either MC or Private Sector

consortium maintains the car parks
(all spaces)
Transfer to design, construction and maintenance

risks
Private sector consortium collects

and retains parking fees
Disadvantages
Private sector consortium purchases

car park concession with private
finance for fixed term

payment or entry charges (up to
escalated cap).
Fee components of D&C cost not procured on a

competitive basis (MC engaged for all works)
Managing Contractor cost premium relative to

typical car park builder (2nd Tier)
Project potentially extends over GCUH

construction program consequent impact on
provision for cost escalation.
20
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Option 3 MC BOOT (basement) and Private Sector BOOT (above ground)

Description
Advantages
MC consortium designs, constructs,

finances, operates and maintains the
basement car park

to build basement car park and above-ground
hospital structure
Private Sector consortium designs,

constructs, finances, operates and
maintains the car parks that are
physically separate from new
buildings (above ground spaces)

risks
Design and construction of above-ground car parks

procured on a wholly competitive basis
Procurement of aboveground spaces can be

deferred until required (manages cost escalation).
MC consortium operates the

basement car park and collects and
retains parking fees. MC
competitively sources finance and
car park operator
Private sector consortium operates
above-ground car parks and collects
and retains parking fees
escalated cap).
Disadvantages
Two-tender process costly and lengthy process
More complex than Option 1 as MC has to enter

into separate BOOT contract
Overhead costs likely to be higher due to two

separate operators (each one will build-in buffers
into estimates)
MC cost premium for basement car park relative to

typical car park builder.
21
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Option 4 MC construction (basement only) and Private Sector construction (above ground)
and Private Sector Operation (all spaces)
Description
Advantages
Managing Contractor designs and

constructs the basement car parks
Private Sector Contractor designs

and constructs the car parks that are
physically separate from new
buildings (above ground spaces)

to build basement car park and above-ground
hospital structure

risks
Design and construction of above-ground car parks

procured on a wholly competitive basis
Procurement of aboveground car park can be

deferred until required (manages cost escalation).
Private sector consortium maintains

the car parks and collects and
retains parking fees (all spaces)
Private sector consortium finances

its design and construction costs and
an upfront payment for a concession
to operate the car parks built by the
Managing Contractor

escalated cap).
Disadvantages
MC cost premium for basement car park relative to

typical car park builder.
Maintenance for underground car park will need to

be clearly delineated between MC (e.g. for
structural maintenance) and private sector (e.g. fit
out).
5.3
Preferred procurement methodology

As part of the workshop, the four procurement options were evaluated in respect of their
suitability to achieve the above objectives, in particular:
the ability to avoid interface risk;
the ability to deliver a no cost solution to Queensland Health; and
the ability to deliver a Value for Money solution for Queensland Health. For the
purposes of this analysis, Value for Money indicates whether the option involves a
competitive process, attracts lower-cost builders (2nd tier) and avoids higher operating
costs associated with more than one operator.
The rating of the group of each option against these criteria is summarised in the
following table:
22
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Description
Avoids
interface risk
Self funding
VFM
99
99
Private sector BOOT (all spaces)

Design, construct, operate and maintain
MC Construction (all spaces)

Private sector operation (all spaces)
99
MC BOOT (basement)
Private sector BOOT (above ground)
99
99
MC construction (basement only),

Private sector design, construct (above
ground spaces)
99
99
99
Private sector operation, maintenance (all

spaces)
Option 1 was considered unsuitable given the interface risk arising from the Managing
Contractor having to build the hospital structure on top of the underground car park
constructed by a different party. Allocation of liability in the event of defects/structural
faults was considered difficult in this option.
Option 2 was considered undesirable, as car parks are generally constructed by 2nd tier
firms, who have proven in the past to be more price competitive than large construction
companies. This price effect is likely to be exacerbated by the lack of competition and
was considered unlikely to result in Value for Money outcome. Option 2 was therefore
discarded.
Under Option 3 the car parks would be operated by two different operators which were
considered to result in higher ongoing operating costs and a reduced likelihood a Value for
Money outcome.
Option 4 avoids the interface risk associated with Option 1 and allows for competition for
the delivery of the above ground car parking spaces, which is considered important to
achieve a Value for Money outcome. The private sector operator/consortium would be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of all car parking spaces allowing for
optimisation of operating costs across all car parks. Option 4 was therefore selected as
being the preferred procurement methodology.
5.4
Bridging Finance Required for Provision of Underground Car

Park
To avoid interface risk in the delivery of the underground car park, the preferred procuring
methodology for the underground car park is for the Managing Contractor to be
responsible for the construction and on-going structural maintenance.
The underground car park is assumed to commence construction in July 2008 and be
completed by December 2009, but not operational until 1 July 2012 to coincide with the
completion of the hospital facilities.
23
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Queensland Health would pay the Managing Contractor for the construction of the
underground car park in the first instance as part of regular progress payments.
The capital outlay for the underground car park is estimated to be $26 million for a 600
bay underground car park. The costs would be incurred over the financial years 2009 and
2010.
As part of the procurement process for the freestanding multi-deck car parks, the operation
of the underground car park will be included. The private sector operator/organisation
will be asked to tender an upfront concession fee for the right to operate and retain the
revenues for the underground car park, as well as the rights to the development and
operation of the freestanding multi-deck car parks.
Staff car parking tariffs would be negotiated at a level such that the private
operator/organisation can afford to make an upfront concession payment to off-set the
construction cost incurred by Queensland Health for the underground car park. However,
there is a risk that Queensland Health will not be able to fully recoup the capital
expenditure associated with the underground car park.
Should Queensland Health decide to proceed with a car parking configuration including
an underground car park and wishes to minimise interface risk with the main hospital
structure, Queensland Health would need to engage the Managing Contractor to construct
the underground car park and provide temporary funding, until the upfront concession
payment would be received from private operator/consortium.
5.5
Queensland Healths indicative commercial arrangements for the car park facilities are as
follows:
Queensland Health will undertake a competitive process for the selection of the
operator/consortium for the car park facilities.
For Car Parks A and C the operator/consortium will be responsible to design,

construct, finance, operate and maintain the car parks under a BOOT style transaction.
Where the car park revenues exceed costs then an upfront payment to Queensland
Health for the right to operate the car parks over the concession period is also
envisaged. The design of the car park facilities will be in accordance with the
Queensland Health Site Master Plan.
The Private Sector will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of Car Park
B and will be required to make an upfront payment to Queensland Health for the right
to operate the car park facility over the concession term.
The Concession Term will be 25, years commencing from the commercial operation
date.
24
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
5.6
The Concession period will be shortened, if commercial operation of the car parking
facilities is delayed for reasons other than force majeure, or delays caused by
Queensland Health or the Managing Contractor).
Queensland Health will have step-in rights for certain pre-agreed events (e.g.
insolvency).
The Concession period for car park (basement) extended, if the private
operator/consortium cannot commence operation at the agreed commercial operation
date.
Queensland Health will make a payment to the private operator/consortium at the end
of the concession period. This payment will be agreed as part of lease/concession
agreement.
Queensland Health will seek to negotiate a revenue share model or super profit clause
for any revenue above an agreed base line.
Staff car parking rates are to be agreed between Queensland Health and private sector
and linked to CPI indexation post the commercial operation date.
A minimum of 2,100 car parks will be allocated for staff usage.
All car parks will have 24 hour operation.
Concession term and payment by Queensland Health

The economic life of car parking facilities is generally accepted to be 40 years. With a
concession term of 25 years, there is still significant value available post the initial
concession term from the ongoing operation of the car park.
Typically, Queensland Health has offered a 25 year concession period with no residual
value payment at the end of the concession period from Queensland Health to the private
car park operator/consortium. Queensland Health becomes the owner of the facilities after
the concession period and is free to run another tender process for the operation of the
facilities. The QH tender process for the second concession term could be structured such
that the car park operator/consortium makes an upfront concession payment or ongoing
annual rental payment, linked to turnover.
For the private sector proponent the 25 year concession period creates a need to amortise
the cost of the car park over the term of the concession period. The private sector
proponent will disregard the residual economic value post the concession period.
KPMG proposes to introduce a payment for the residual value of the car parks to the
private car park operator/consortium by Queensland Health at the end of the first
concession period.
25
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
The residual value payment will allow the car park operator/consortium to structure its
financing arrangements with a balloon payment upon termination which results in an
overall reduction of financing costs of the project.
It is envisaged that Queensland Health would retender the car parking facilities at the of
the concession period, with the proceeds of the upfront concession payment for the second
concession term (e.g. 15 years) likely to exceed the termination payment to the existing
car park operator/consortium.
This arrangement is consistent with the principle that the car park be delivered at no net
cost to the State. This arrangement is considered to represent better Value for Money
for Queensland Health than offering an extended initial concession period.
We note, however, there remains a residual risk to Queensland Health that if there was a
significant decrease in demand for car parking, the concession fee for the second
concession term could be less than the residual value payment Queensland Health has to
make.
26
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Financial analysis
KPMG has developed a financial model from the perspective of a private sector Build
Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) operator/consortium. The financial model includes
consideration of financing and tax, and is based upon achieving a target return on equity
over the life of the BOOT.
In this section, we summarise the key assumptions made in the financial analysis of the
four options, as well as comment on the financial viability of the options.
27
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Options analysed
We have assessed the financial viability of the following options:
Option
Description
Queensland Health demand (3,000 bays)
Concession term: 25 year no residual value
Configuration B
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
All car parks to be delivered by July 2012

Configuration A (as under Option 1 above)
Car Park A (West) delivered by July 2010
Car Park A - an above ground multistorey car park facility with 1,500 bays
Car Park B - an underground car park facility with 1,500 bay
Configuration B (as under Option 3 above)
GCUH demand (2,750 bays)
Option 5
Option 6
Option 7
Configuration A
Car Park B - an underground car park facility with 600 secure bays
Car Park C - an above ground multistorey car park facility with 1,200 bays

Configuration A
Configuration A
28
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Option
Description
Configuration A
Car Park B an underground car park facility with 300 secure bays
Concession term: 25 year, 35% residual value
Option 8
Option 9
Option 10
Configuration A
Configuration CA
Configuration A
Car Park C (East) delivered by July 2013
Source: KPMG analysis, Davis Langdon Australia, GCUH Engineering
The key differences between the options are summarised in the following table:
Option
Configuration
10
Total Bays
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
Staff bays
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
Underground
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
600
600
Early delivery
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
35%
35%
35%
35%
Term
Residual
value
Late
29
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
6.1
Capital cost estimates

Capital and operating costs for car parks vary significantly based on whether car parking
can be provided in a free standing above ground structure, or whether car parking is
provided underground. This cost differential is primarily driven by costs associated with
excavation and ventilation requirements.
Davis Langdon Australia (DLA) has provided indicative cost estimates for each of the
options, including allowance for professional fees, contingency and car parking
equipment. The total cost including non-construction costs was derived in September
2007 dollars and then adjusted to allow for cost escalation between now and completion of
construction. For the purposes of the indicative cost estimate, the base cost was escalated
to the mid point of construction (late 2011 or 4 years). The compound escalation over the
next 4 years accounts for 31% (8%, 8%, 6% and 6%). The detailed cost estimates
provided by DLA are included as Appendix A.
The capital cost assumptions in nominal dollars are as follows:
30
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Description
Areas
(m2)
Unit
Total ($)
Cost per
car ($)
Comments
Option 1
Car Park A West
1,200 spaces
34,272
m2
39,966,825
33,306
Car park max. 5m deep
Car Park B under

hospital 600 spaces
18,600
m2
26,225,963
43,710
Car Park C East 1,200 spaces
34,272
m2
37,479,590
31,233
Minimum earthworks
Totals
87,144
m2
103,672,378
34,557
Option 2 (Car Park A delivered early)

Car Park A West
1,200 spaces
34,272
m2
34,525,188
28,771
Car Park B under

hospital 600 spaces
18,600
m2
26,225,963
43,710
34,272
m2
37,479,590
31,233
Minimum earthworks
Totals
87,144
m2
98,230,741
32,744
Car Park A West

1,500 spaces
42,840
m2
48,663,465
32,442
Car Park B under

hospital 1,500 spaces
46,500
m2
63,637,540
42,425
Totals
89,340
m2
112,301,004
37,434
Option 3

Car Park A West
1,500 spaces
42,840
m2
42,037,747
28,025
Car Park B under

hospital 1,500 spaces
46,500
m2
63,637,540
42,425
Totals
89,340
m2
105,675,287
35,225
Car Park A West

1,225 spaces
34,986
m2
40,723,707
33,244
Car Park B under

hospital 300 spaces
9,300
m2
15,522,187
51,741
34,986
m2
38,236,472
31,213
Minimum earthworks
Totals
79,272
m2
94,482,366
34,357
Options 5 & 7

Car Park A West
1,225 spaces
34,986
m2
35,179,018
28,718
Car Park B under

hospital 300 spaces
9,300
m2
15,522,187
51,741
34,986
m2
38,236,472
31,213
Minimum earthworks
Totals
79,272
m2
88,937,647
32,341
31
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Description
Areas
(m2)
Unit
Total ($)
Cost per
car ($)
Comments
Option 8 (retain secure 600 spaces)

Car Park A West
1,075 spaces
n/a
35,737,130
33,244
Based on Option 5 (pro

rata adjusted)
Car Park B under

hospital 600 spaces
n/a
26,225,963
43,710
As per Option 1
n/a
33,554,455
31,213

rata adjusted)
95,517,548
34,734
Totals
Option 9 (no underground car spaces)
Car Park A West
1,375 spaces
n/a
45,795,750
33,306

rata adjusted)
n/a
42,945,375
31,233

rata adjusted)
88,741,125
32,269
Totals
Option 10 (Car Park C delivered late)
Car Park A West
1,075 spaces
n/a
35,737,130
33,244

rata adjusted)
Car Park B under

hospital 600 spaces
n/a
26,225,963
43,710
As per Option 1
n/a
34,896,134
32,461

rata adjusted) and
allowed for additional
escalation of 4%
96,859,227
35,221
Totals
Source: DLA, GCUH Car park indicative cost options 11 October and
32
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
6.2
Operating cost estimates

David Langdon has also provided indicative operating cost estimates in 2007 dollars for
the financial analysis as follows:
Description
Annual
maintenance
cost incl.
insurance &
cash collection
($)
Average
annual
replacement
cost ($)
Annual
energy cost
($)
Staffing
costs ($)
Totals per
annum($)
Options 1 & 2 & 8 & 10

Car Park A West
150,000
72,000
48,000
270,000
Car Park B under hospital
100,000
72,000
48,000
220,000
Car Park C East
150,000
72,000
48,000
270,000
Staffing whole site (2 staff

FT plus admin)
200,000
Totals Options 1 & 2 & 8

& 10
200,000
960,000
Options 3 & 4
Car Park A West
160,000
96,000
60,000
316,000
200,000
96,000
120,000
416,000

FT plus admin)
200,000
Totals Options 3 & 4
200,000
932,000
Options 5 & 6 & 7 2750

spaces
Car Park A West
Car Park C East
153,000
72,000
49,000
274,000
75,000
60,000
24,000
159,000
153,000
72,000
49,000
274,000

FT plus admin)
200,000
Totals Options 5 & 6 & 7
200,000
907,000
Option 9 2750 spaces (no

underground)
Car Park A West
160,000
96,000
60,000
316,000
Car Park C East
160,000
96,000
60,000
316,000

FT plus admin)
200,000
Totals Option 9
200,000
832,000
Source: DLA, GCUH car park - Indicative Running Cost Options, Rev A and Rev B, 2007 Dollars, Option 7, 8, 9, 10 KPMG
Car Parks A and C are assumed to be fully naturally ventilated, where as Car Park B
requires full ventilation.
33
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
6.3
Revenue assumptions
In respect of the revenue, we have made the following modelling assumptions:
The hospital has 750 beds and is operational by December 2012, with commissioning
taken place from July 2012.
The staff to visitor and patient ratio is fixed over the term.
There is full utilisation from the second year of commercial operation.
There is average utilisation of 60% during first 12 months of commercial operation.
For the early commissioning options, Car Park A is delivered and operational by July
2010 with the remaining car parking bays operational from July 2012. For late
commissioning options, all car parks are operational from July 2012.
In the early commissioning options, Car Park A is assumed to earn revenue which will
be primarily derived from construction workers through an arrangement with the
Managing Contractor. The rate has been set that the early commissioning scenarios
come at no net cost to Queensland Health.
6.3.1
6.3.1.1
Tariff structure
Staff
Current car parking rates applicable for staff working at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and
Princess Alexandra Hospital are around $60 a fortnight or $6 a day. The tariffs were
contractually agreed with the owner/operator of both car parks for the duration of the lease
agreement and are linked to CPI.
Construction costs have significantly increased in recent years and are forecast to continue
to increase significantly above inflation, with forecast capital costs increases of 6% to 8%
over the next four years.
To ensure that the proposed car parking facilities to be provided in conjunction with the
Project are financially viable on a stand-alone basis, it is necessary to set the initial car
parking tariffs applicable for staff at levels commensurate with the significantly increased
construction cost.
For example, the certified construction cost for the recently completed car park at the
Princess Alexandra Hospital was around $26,500,000 million or $18,888 per car11. This
compares to $34,557 per car, under Option 1, or $26,582 before allowing for escalation,
which is greater than a 40% increase before allowing for escalation. Including the effect
11
Information provided by Michelle Walter, Queensland Health
34
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
of escalation the construction cost of the new car parks is expected to be over 80% higher
than the cost of the recently completed car park at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.
In line with increases in construction costs over recent years and the anticipated continued
construction cost increases, car parking tariffs will also have to increase significantly if a
cost neutral position to Queensland Health is to be achieved.
We understand that Queensland Health is in the process of developing a policy in relation
to car parking development and tariffs applicable to staff. The draft policy considers
linking the tariffs to the rates applicable at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Such a policy
would mean that the car park facilities are unlikely be developed at no net cost to
Queensland Health.
As part of our financial modelling, we have estimated tariffs levels required for staff and
visitors to ensure that the car parking facility can be delivered at no net cost Queensland
Health. We have escalated staff and visitor tariffs at the same rate to maintain relativity
between the two tariffs.
This will result in higher tariffs for staff working at the GCUH in comparison to the RBH
or PA. The level of increase required depends on the configuration, split between staff
and visitor bays, timing of delivery, concession term and level of residual value payment
by Queensland Health (if any) at the end of the concession term.
Should this not be acceptable to Queensland Health, we have identified the following
options to address this issue:
6.3.1.2
introduction of a car parking equalisation fund with Queensland Health setting

uniform tariffs for all staff car parking at major hospitals in South East Queensland
and taking on the role of redistributing the revenue to the respective car park
operators;
Gold Coast district to provide a rebate on staff car parking cost incurred; or
Queensland Health only partly recovering the cost for the development of the
underground car park from the private operator/consortium.
Way of charging for car parking

We have had discussions with GCUH Engineering in respect of tariff structure and the
way staff actually pay for car park usage. GCUH Engineering is a strong advocate of
levying commercial car parking rates to achieve economic-efficient choices.
GCUH Engineering is not a supporter of paying for car parking through pay-roll
deductions as it does not encourage car pooling and alternative means of transport, e.g.
cycling even on a sporadic basis. GCUH Engineering favours a pay as go regime to
encourage greater use of alternative means of transport.
35
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
6.3.2
Patients and visitors
Consistent with the arrangements applicable for the operation of the car parks at the RBH
and PA, the private operator is assumed to be free to set tariffs applicable to patient and
visitors at market rates.
The benchmark rates, are based on current the car parking tariffs applicable for patients
and visitors at Brisbane hospital sites.
Hospital
Operator
First Half Hour
Following Half Hours
Maximum
Wesley
Hospital Security
(Internal)
$4.00
$2.00
$14.00
Prince Charles
Metro
$2.30
$2.30
$11.00
Holy Spirit
Metro
$2.30
$2.30
$11.00
St Andrews
Secure Parking
$5.00
Approx. $2.00
$15.50
Royal Brisbane
IPG
$3.10
$3.10
$15.00
$3.50
$2.50
$15.00
Proposed GCUH
Note: 2007 dollars. Rates do not include an allowance for escalation.
Source: Queensland Health, KPMG research
Given the staged tariff structure, it is important to know the distribution of length of stay
in order to determine the average price paid by each visitor.
GCUH Engineering has estimated the average parking duration for patients and visitors as
1 hour 40 minutes with about 10 per cent of patients and visitors requiring parking in
excess of 4 hours as illustrated in the following graph.
Applying this usage profile the average car parking ticket is $8.65 (in $2007). Reducing
the rate applicable to the first half hour and the following half hour by $0.50 each reduces
the average ticket price to $7.34 (in $2007). The financial model uses the average ticket
price of $8.65 (which is 44% higher than the daily staff rate of $6.00), before adjusting
visitor and staff tariffs on a pro-rata basis to achieve the operators target rate of return.
36
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
GCUH - estimated percentage parking duration for patients and visitors

40%
34%
35%
Percentage total parked vehicles
30%
25%
19%
20%
15%
15%
15%
10%
7%
5%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
5-6 hrs
6-7 hrs
7-8 hrs
8-9 hrs
9-10 hrs
10-11 hrs
>11 hrs
0%
<30 mins 30 mins 1 hrs
1-2 hrs
2-3 hrs
3-4 hrs
4-5 hrs
6.3.3
In order to calculate annual revenue for staff and visitor car parking, we need to derive an
average daily turnover.
GCUH Engineering have provided the peak weekday turnover rates only (observed on
Tuesday and Wednesday). We have assumed the same turnover rates for late night
parking. No information in respect of the parking profile by day of week is available.
These rates have then been converted into average 7 day turnover rates using the average
weekly parking demand. This approach has been confirmed with GCUH Engineering.
The average daily turnover rates are shown in the following table:
37
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007

(Number of times the bay is used during the
day
7 day average14
Staff
Patients & visitors
1.1 to 1.212
2.413
0.88-0.96
1.92
Source: GCUH Engineering, Technical Note 6, dated 3 October 2007, KPMG analysis
6.4
Financing structure
To model the profitability of the various car parking options, KPMG has made a number
of assumptions in respect of the financing structure that a private operator/consortium may
adopt for the development and operation of the car parking facilities.
6.4.1
Car Park B (basement)
Car Park B (basement) is assumed to be designed and constructed by the Managing

Contractor, with Queensland Health initially paying for the construction of the car park
through progress payments. On the commercial operation date for the Car Park B, the car
park operator is assumed to make an upfront concession payment for the right to operate
and collect the revenues for the concession term.
For modelling purposes, this upfront concession payment is assumed to be equal to the
construction cost for Car Park B. No allowance for interest during construction has been
made in respect of Car Park B.
In practice, the concession payment will be the result of the tender process.
6.4.2
Car Park A and C
The private car park operator/consortium is responsible for the design and construction of
Car Parks A and C. It is assumed that the construction is to 100% financed with a
construction facility. Interest during construction is capitalised during the construction
period. The construction facility, including capitalised interest during construction and
the concession payment for Car Park B will be refinanced with term debt and equity upon
commercial operation.
6.4.3
Financing assumptions
We have made the following assumptions in respect of the financing structure from
commercial operation onwards:
gearing ratio (debt / debt+equity) of 65%;
12

14
Peak turnover multiplied by average demand
13
38
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
for no residual value scenarios:

-
Amortising tranche only (amortising over concession term);
for residual value scenarios:

-
Amortising tranche (amortising over concession term);
Bullet tranche: sized to match residual value (interest only);
Terminal value payable by Queensland Health at the end of the term equal to 35%
of total project cost. Terminal value will be used to repay bullet tranche.
risk free rate of 6.25% per annum;
construction debt margin of 1.5%;
term debt margin of 1.25%;
target IRR on equity investment post tax for private sector participant of 13%;
economic life of the car parking facilities 40 years; and
retender in year 25 for further 15 years.
The residual value payment has been set with reference to the total project cost. The
residual value has been set not to exceed the depreciated book value of the asset. The
market value is anticipated to exceed this residual value payment.
6.5
Other modelling assumptions

In addition, we have made the following modelling assumptions:
CPI rate of 2.5% per annum.
Operating cost to escalate at 4% per annum post commissioning.
Corporate tax rate of 30%.
Underground Car Park B treated as an acquisition.
BOOT operator will be able to claim depreciation on the underground car park.
Revenues do not trigger revenue share level with Queensland Health.
39
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007

We have estimated the tariff required to be paid by staff and visitors to ensure that the car
park facilities achieve the private operator/consortium target rate of return. For the
preliminary analysis, we have used a post tax return of equity of 13% as a target. The
results in 2007 dollars are as follows:
Option
10
Configuration
Total Bays
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
2,750
Staff bays
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
Underground
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
600
600
Early delivery
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
35%
35%
35%
35%
Total capital
cost $m
103.7
98.2
112.3
105.7
94.5
88.9
94.5
95.5
88.7
96.0
Cost of
basement car
park
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
15.5
15.2
15.2
26.0
26.0
$7.37
$7.37
$7.91
$7.91
$8.80
$8.80
$7.72
$7.76
$7.26
$7.72
22.8%
22.8%
31.8%
31.8%
46.7%
46.7%
28.7%
29.4%
21.0%
28.7%
17.4
18.6
23.8
25.1
28.1
29.1
18.0
18.2
13.3
17.4
Term
Residual
value
Late
Results
Required
staff tariff
($2007)
Increase to
RBH/PA (%)
Gap if staff
tariff $6 ($m)
Option 1-4: Car parking size

Feedback received from the market testing process as well as confirmation by GCUH
indicates that the patronage risk associated with 900 visitor car parks is unlikely to be
underwritten by private sector tenderers. This means Options 1 to 4 are potentially not
viable. Options 5 -10 are based on 450 visitor car parking bays, consistent with the advice
received from GCUH Engineering and market feedback.
Option 2, 4 and 6 - Early commissioning scenarios

For the early commissioning scenarios, we have assumed 6 day operation with an average
80% occupancy level and one entry per bay per day. Based on these assumptions, we
have determined the tariff which would need to be charged during the early
commissioning period to make the advancement of the car park cost neutral to Queensland
Health.
40
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
The required tariff varies between $7.75 to $7.90 in 2007 dollars escalating at CPI. This
translates into revenue in the order of $4 million under Options 4 and 6.
Market feedback by potential car park operator/consortiums indicated that this revenue
risk would need to be underwritten by either Queensland Health or the Managing
Contractor. Preliminary discussions with the Managing Contractor indicated no
significant interest in being able to access car parking facilities during the construction
period. The required price is at the upper end of the range that the Managing Contractor
believes construction workers are prepared to pay.
In addition, the early commissioning scenarios would require an immediate
commencement of the procurement process. There are still significant uncertainties in
respect of the overall level of demand for car parking such as the size and timing of a
collocated private hospital on site. We therefore suggest not pursuing the early
commissioning scenarios any further.
Option 5 and 7 - Concession term versus residual value payment

Option 5 is based on 25 year concession term with no residual value, whereas Option 7 is
based on 25 year concession term with a residual value of 35% of the total project cost.
This reduces the tariff required to be paid by staff by more than a $1 from $8.80 to $7.72.
We have also modelled the potential concession payment available to Queensland Health
from a retendering process in year 25 for a further 15 years. This modelling indicates that
a private operator/consortium should be able to afford to pay a concession payment in
excess of $95 million (in 2038 dollars). This far exceeds the residual value payment of
$33.1 million.
We therefore propose to run with a 25 year concession term with a pre-agreed residual
value. This approach is consistent with the principle of that the car park be delivered at no
net cost to the State. This arrangement is considered to represent better Value for
Money for Queensland Health than offering an extended initial concession period.
Option 8 - 600 versus 300 underground car parking bays

Option 8 was modelled to understand the additional cost of maintaining secure
underground car parking bays at 600 in comparison to Option 7, which only allows for
300 underground car parking bays.
Having 600 instead of only 300 underground car parking only adds $0.04 to the required
daily car park tariff. Given this small increase in tariff, Option 8 is preferred over Option
7.
41
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Option 9 No underground car parking

Option 9 was modelled to understand the additional cost of providing underground car
parking in comparison to simply providing two free standing multi-deck car parks. Option
9 needs to be compared to Option 8.
Eliminating underground car parking reduces the required tariff by $0.50 from $7.76 to
$7.26.
However, we note Option 9 comes with decreased amenity for staff. We also understand
from discussion with Queensland Health that it is more difficult to provide secure car
parking in multi-deck car parks.
Option 10 Delay commissioning of second multi deck car park by 12 months

Option 10 needs to be compared with Option 8. Under Option 10, it is assumed that Car
Park C is commissioned 12 months later, (i.e. by July 2013 instead of 2012). This may fit
with the ramp up of services at the GCUH. However, this reduces the tariff only
marginally. It is recommended to discuss staging further with the interested parties during
the procurement process, once the ramp up profile of hospital services and demand for car
parking is better defined.
Tariff implications
Based on our input assumptions, the private operator would not find investment in the car
parks viable without lifting car parking tariffs applicable to both staff and visitors between
20% and 30% in the residual payment scenarios (Option 8 and 9).
Should Queensland Health decide to impose the tariffs applicable at the RBH and PA,
Queensland Health is unlikely to recover the full construction of underground car park
through the upfront concession payment.
In order to reduce the tariff required to be paid by staff and visitors to achieve the private
operators expected return on investment, we have investigated several changes to the
modelling assumptions. We have analysed the impact of the proposed changes based on
Option 8. The identified options are as follows:
42
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Proposed options
Impact of Option
Increase residual value payment from 35% to 50%
Staff tariff reduces from $7.76 to

$7.33 and Visitor and Patient tariff
from $11.19 to $10.56.
Reduce staff car parks to 2,100 (and total car parks

to 2,550)

from $11.19 to $11.00.
Reduce staff car parks to 2,100 (and total car parks

to 2,550) combined with 50% residual value

from $11.19 to $10.39.
7.1
Summary
Option 9, which consist of two stand-alone multi-deck car parks with no provision for
underground car parking, is the most competitive option, but does offer fewer amenities
than the Options including underground car parking.
Disregarding Options 1 4 given there appears no appetite for 900 visitor bays; Option 7
is the next most competitive option.
There appears to be a loss of economies of scale when reducing underground car park to
300. Options 8 and 10 only come at a slight cost disadvantage in comparison to Option 7,
but provide higher amenity through providing significantly higher number of car parking
bays under the hospital building.
It is worth considering the effect of increasing public transport usage and increasing petrol
prices on the percentage of staff travelling by private car. A reduction of private car usage
from 80% to 70% decreases the demand for staff car parks from 2,300 to 2,100.
It also worth investigating how to best match the ramp up profile of the hospital with the
provision of car parking. Potentially the development of the second stand-alone car park
could be completed 12 months after commissioning of the hospital, (i.e. July 2013).
We consider a 25 year concession term, combined with a residual value payment of 35%
of the construction cost, provides a better Value for Money outcome for Queensland
Health than a 25 year concession term with no residual value.
Preliminary discussion with the Managing Contractor indicated no significant interest in
being able to access car parking facilities during the construction period. Early
commissioning scenarios would require an immediate commencement of the procurement
process. However there are still significant uncertainties in respect of the overall level of
demand for car parking such as the size and timing of a collocated private hospital on site.
We therefore suggest that the early commissioning scenarios not be progressed any
further.
43
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
7.2
Procurement process
Typically, for a project such as this, we would recommend to a two stage procurement
process comprising:
an Expression of Interest Process, followed by
Selective Request for Proposals.
Dependent on the number of interested parties and level of competition, we suggest

selecting three parties which would be invited to the Request for Proposal Process. The
Managing Contractor may wish to participate in the process which may offer synergies
with delivery of the hospital structure, especially in the early delivery options.
7.3
Procurement timetable
We have prepared an indicative procurement timetable based on a two stage tender
process to ensure all car parks are delivered and operational by 1 December 2012. The
timetable and suggested procurement phases as well as key tasks are summarised in the
following table:
Phase
Tasks
1. Preparation
Finalise Queensland Health requirements (car parking 8 weeks

bays, expansion potential, delivery timing)
Develop/refine commercial framework
Collect/review supporting technical reports (e.g. traffic

study, hospital and precinct master plan, concept
design)
Prepare Request for Proposal documentation including

draft agreement for lease
Draft RFP with the view to get broad market response

and comprehensive range of options
EOI publicly announced
Registration of interested parties, briefing
Meeting with interested parties
Interested parties lodge EOI
Evaluation of EOI responses
Prepare report recommending shortlist
Approval process (shortlist and issue of RFP)
Continue preparation of RFP documents
Allow interested parties 8 weeks to respond
Prepare evaluation tool
Prepare and conduct bidder workshops (technical and
2. Expression of
Interest
3. Evaluation of
Expression of
Interests
4.0
RFP
Duration
Start date
December 2009
3 weeks
February 2010
4 weeks
Late February 2010
10 weeks
Late March 2010
44
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Phase
Tasks
Duration
Start date
6 weeks
Mid June 2010
6 weeks
Early August 2010
commercial)
5. RFT evaluation and

short listing
6. Finalisation and
awarding of contract
Provide commercial advice as required
Tenderers lodge Proposals
Analyse Proposals for value for money and risk

allocation
Clarify offers
Negotiate with short-listed tenderers
Prepare evaluation report for RFP
Approval of Preferred Bidder
Approval to negotiate with preferred tenderer(s)
Finalise negotiations
Finance due diligence
Award contract
Settlement
Total lead time prior to construction period

7. Construction period
36 weeks
Allow 3 month for construction lead time and 18 months 21 months September 2010
construction time15
Construction completed ~mid 2012
Commercial operation date
December 2012
Source: KPMG
7.4
Early delivery option

We understand that Queensland Health will continue to investigate the merits of early
delivery of Car Park A.
This issue has been tested as part of the market sounding process. The participants felt
that the patronage/revenue risk for the interim period (prior to commissioning of the Gold
Coast University Hospital) would need to be underwritten by Queensland Health or the
Managing Contractor. Under Option 6, these revenues are around $5.5 million. The early
delivery option is also more complex from a financing perspective as it would require two
tranches of debt.
However, should the Managing Contractor favour early delivery of Car Park A and
Queensland Health is able to reach a suitable commercial arrangement with the Managing
Contractor for usage of the car park during the construction phase, early delivery may
prove a viable strategy.
15
As advised by DLA
45
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
We would envisage that the tender process would encapsulate the provision of all above
ground car parking facilities, with staggered commissioning dates.
In this event, the procurement process would need to be advanced by around 24 months,
bringing the commencement date to December 2007. This may be difficult to achieve as
CBRC approval for the hospital development is considered a perquisite to commence the
procurement process for the car parking facilities. CBRC approval is currently scheduled
for March 2008.
However, commencing the procurement process early next year means that negotiations in
respect of collocation of a private hospital are unlikely to be completed. It is desirable to
have one operator for the whole site and the collocation of a private hospital will influence
optimal size and design of car parking facilities.
7.5
Information required for tender process

Interested parties are likely to require a significant level of information on issues
potentially impacting on patronage figures of the car parks, including the following:
7.6
site plan, integration with Rapid Transit System;
detailed traffic study;
site and precinct Master Plan;
conceptual design for car parking facilities; and
details of proposed contractual documentation and Queensland Healths commercial

objectives
Market sounding process

7.6.1
Process
To firm up modelling assumptions and gather market feedback on the proposed car
parking facilities to be developed in conjunction with the Gold Coast University Hospital,
KPMG undertook a selected market sounding process with four participants. The
participants in the market sounding process were provided with the fact sheet (provided in
Appendix C) prior to the discussion. The participants were selected as being either
investors and/or car parking operators in car parking operations.
46
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
7.6.2
Participants
The list of participants for the Gold Coast University Hospital car park Market Sounding
is as follows:
1.
Westpac Institutional Bank

Robert Opiat
Director, Principal Group
Westpac Institutional Bank
Phone: 02 8253 3954
Email: ropiat@westpac.com.au
2.

John Beare
Phone: 02 9080 8393
Email: john_bear@jfinfrastructure.com.au
3.
Ariadne Australia Limited
4.
Jo-Anne Chin
Heather Browne
Manager General Property
Development Manager
Phone: 07 3220 1111
07 3220 1111
Email: jchin@ariadne.com.au
hbrowne@ariadne.com.au
Macquarie Bank
7.6.3
Mick Lilly
Blair Townsend
Executive Director
Associate Director
Phone: 02 9237-3333
02 9237 3333
Email: mlilly@macquarie.com.au
btownsend@macquarie.com.au
Key findings
The market sounding discussion was structured around a series of questions to gain insight
on how private operator/consortium would approach the project, in particular:
Alternative delivery mechanisms.
Funding strategy.
Risk allocation.
47
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Car parking demand/patronage risk.
Early delivery.
Key findings are summarised in the following table:

Question
Comments
Visitor bay numbers of 900 generally considered too high
Perceive Greenfield site risk (i.e. hospital not commissioned on

time)
Gearing levels of 60-65%
Equity rates of return 13%-15%
Generally no concern about concession term of 20 years in

conjunction with residual value payment, but generally prefer longer
term
Expansion risk, need protection against new operator coming in on

the site
Pre-agree formula for extension pricing
Early delivery
Early delivery only viable if patronage/revenue risk borne by

Queensland Health
Other
Confirmed assumption that car parks are generally delivered by 2nd

tier construction companies which typically offer a cost advantage.
Car parking demand
Funding strategy
Concession term /
residual value
Future hospital/car park

expansion
Source: KPMG
48
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Disclaimer
Reliance
The statements and opinions in this report are given in good faith but, in the preparation of
this report, KPMG Corporate Finance has relied upon information provided from a
number of sources including representatives from GCUH Engineering, DLA and
Queensland Health.
Any findings, outcomes or recommendations are based upon our reasonable professional
judgement and opinions based on the information on the proposed project that is available
at this preliminary scoping stage of the projects assessment and other publicly available
information of which we are aware. Should the project elements, external factors and
assumptions on which the findings change then the recommendations, findings contained
in this report may not be achievable. Accordingly, we do not confirm, underwrite or
guarantee that the outcomes referred in this report will be achieved.
This report has been prepared for Queensland Health and accordingly no warranty is given
to third parties which may seek to utilise the information contained in this report.
49
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Market sounding process files notes
A.1

#
6a
6b
Question
Comments
Interested to participate in proposed structure
Comfortable with MC being responsible for development of underground car

park and ongoing associated building maintenance, would like input into
design
Will require careful delineation of responsibilities in respect of maintenance

during concession term
Fire services to be maintained by hospital
20 years considered as the minimum length for concession period as funded

by superfunds who require long-term yield
In respect of Car Park B, would prefer annual rental payment over capital
contribution
No objection to residual value concept/defined repurchase
Have no strategic relationship with a builder
Believe that second tier builders are more competitive
Would assemble specific consortium for the opportunity
Would be part of asset portfolio not a special purpose vehicle, but treated as
stand-alone asset for purposes of tender
IPG is traditionally financed
65% debt
Expansion risk, need protection against new operator coming in on the site,
cited PA structure as an example
Protection against late delivery, change in bed mix, but accept wind down risk
Believes that current staff rate at PA is probably the maximum staff is

prepared to pay before change of transport mode considered
Rates significantly lower in Sydney (e. $3 a day)
Expect around 40% of revenue generated from staff
Visitor bay numbers are considered too high
Visitor turn over 2.5-3 times a day
Ramp period of 12 months
Would require evidence that hospital will be delivered
Likely to require lease back to Government/MC for the period between early
commissioning and commercial operation of hospital
Would use 2 debt tranches to cater for staged development
Interest in project
Delivery mechanisms
Funding strategy
Risk allocation
Staff/visitor tariff policy
Car parking demand
Early delivery
50
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
A.2
Question
Timely delivery
Other issues
Comments
Comfortable with concession period to commence when hospital

commissioned, i.e. would lead to shortening of concession period in the event
of late delivery
None
Ariadne
#
Question
Interest in project
Delivery mechanisms
Funding strategy
Comments
Interested to participate in proposed structure
Questioned timetable, likelihood of proceeding
Favour a 20+20 model
Believe that a shorter concession term will make it difficult to be cost neutral to
Queensland Health
Believes it is very important to clearly define project requirements, e.g.

expansion potential, security requirements etc.
60% debt
Perceive greater risk as Greenfield site
Return requirement of 12.5% - 15%
Generally invest own equity
Would seek Queensland Health to carry the following risks:
Risk allocation
6a
Car parking demand
6b
Early delivery
Timely delivery
Other issues
Cultural heritage
Managing Contractor inability to deliver hospital
Environmental
Community objections
Early closure of hospital
No specific comments
Number car parking bays considered too high.
Suggested staging of Car Park A and Car Park C to minimise demand risk,
with second car park built post ramp phase
Depends on revenue potential in the interim period

commissioned, i.e. would lead to shortening of concession period in the event
of late delivery
Expansion at future stage
Suggest trigger points for both sides and pre-agreed formula for pricing of
51
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Question
Comments
expansion
Information requirements for tender process:
A.3
Staff to bed ratios
Security requirements for staff parking
Information of Queensland Health tariff policy for staff
Would require confirmation that Queensland Health would not provide free or
subsidised public transport to staff within the first 15 years
Westpac
#
Question
Interest in project
Delivery mechanisms
Funding strategy
Comments
Considered the project potentially too small for Westpac to be interested
Asked if there was a requirement for a Big Name car park operator to be
included in the consortium or could Westpac develop its own car park
management business (given the skills required to manage a car park are
relatively simple). If they could provide there own operations management
then they would be more interested.

Funding structure to be similar to a social infrastructure PPP with a high

level of debt funding.

4
Continued operation of the hospital some restriction on competitor on the

site
Environmental
Clear rules are required to be set in the tender documents.
Number car parking bays considered too high.
Suggested staging of Car Park A and Car Park C to minimise demand risk,
with second car park built post ramp phase
Depends on revenue potential in the interim period would require revenue

to be underwritten

commissioned, (i.e. would lead to shortening of concession period in the
event of late delivery)
Risk allocation
6a
Car parking demand
6b
Early delivery
Timely delivery
52
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
A.4
Macquarie
#
Question
Comments
Very interested in proposed structure and any other car parks that
Queensland Health might be interested in developing.
Comfortable with MC being responsible for development of underground car

park and ongoing associated building maintenance, would like input into
design.
Will require careful delineation of responsibilities in respect of maintenance

during concession term.
All building services to be maintained by hospital.
Has some concern over an upfront payment (given Cross City Motorway).
However, understood Queensland Healths requirement for zero cost. They
suggested that some qualitative or quantitative factors be included in the
evaluation to protect consumers.

Not answered
Interest in project
Delivery mechanisms
Funding strategy
That the hospital is delivered on time
Continued operation of the hospital some restriction on competitor on the

site (private hospital only being allowed to have the same ratio of beds to
spaces as the QH operator)
Environmental
Risk allocation
All so wants the State to transfer

5
Require certainty in relation to policy for both staff and visitors.
Suggested that a maximum tariff for visitors be applied to protect consumers.
6a
Car parking demand
Did not have a feel in the meeting about the number of spaces would require
further work for Macquarie to be able
6b
Early delivery
Could be provided but would require revenue to be underwritten in the early

years.
Timely delivery
Believed Liquidated Damages as the best method of managing late delivery
Public transport need to know more information about rapid transit project
when preparing bid
Precinct need to know more information about rapid transit project when
preparing bid
Other issues
53
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Fact sheet for market sounding process

Introduction
Queensland Health has commenced the development of a new 750-bed hospital to service
the Gold Coast Region. The Project known as the Gold Coast University Hospital is to be
constructed and operational by December 2012. The proposed site for the Gold Coast
University Hospital is on land north of Parklands Drive adjacent to the Griffith University
Gold Coast Campus, at Parklands.
The Project is being developed using a traditional procurement process which is currently
underway. At the completion of schematic design Queensland Health will consider
whether to enter into a 2-stage Managing Contractor contract. However, Queensland
Health intends to run a separate procurement process for the selection of an
operator/consortium to design, construct, finance, operate and maintain three car park
facilities required for the Project.
KPMG is the commercial adviser for the Project and has been requested to undertake a
market sounding process for the car park procurement process. The purpose of this
document is to assist the market sounding process by providing background information
for the Project.
Car parking space requirements
Queensland Health has undertaken a preliminary car parking demand study for the Gold
Coast University Hospital and the current assessment of car parking requirement for the
Project is as follows:
Staff bays - 2,100.
Visitor bays - 900.
This assessment of car parking spaces for the Gold Coast University Hospital excludes
any additional car park space requirements in the precinct which may arise from either
collocation with Griffith University or the potential development of a private hospital as
part of the precinct.
Master Planning
Queensland Health is currently undertaking Master Planning for the site; the Preliminary
Master Plan indicates that the car parking will be delivered through three separate car
Car Park A - an above ground multistorey car park facility with 1,200 bays to be
built as a free standing car parking structure at the Western boundary of the site.
54
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Car Park B - a car park facility with 600 secure bays to be incorporated into the
basement of the main hospital building(s) which may be built by the Managing
Contractor.
Car Park C - an above ground multistorey car park facility with 1,200 bays to be
built as a free standing car parking structure at the Eastern boundary of the site.
Car Park B, which is proposed to be developed under the main hospital building(s), is
intended to be operated in conjunction with Car Parks A and C by the successful
organisation / consortium.
investigating two options:
The three car parks structures with 3,000 parking bays delivered and operational by 1
December 2012.
Early commissioning of either Car Park A or C with 1,200 spaces delivered and
operational by 1 December 2010, with the remainder of car parking bays being
operational by 1 December 2012.
Indicative commercial arrangements

Queensland Healths primary objective in relation to the car park facilities is for it to be
built and operated at zero cost to Queensland Health. The indicative commercial
arrangements for the car park facilities have been developed around this principle and are
as follows:
Queensland Health will undertake a competitive process for the selection of the
organisation / consortium for the car park facilities.
For Car Parks A and C the operator/consortium will be responsible for the design,
construct, finance, operate and maintain under a BOOT style transaction. Where the
car park revenues exceed costs then an upfront payment to Queensland Health for the
right to operate the car parks over the concession period is also envisaged. The design
of the car park facilities will be in accordance with the Queensland Health Site Master
Plan.
The Private Sector will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of Car Park
B and will be required to make an upfront payment to Queensland Health for the right
to operate the car park facility over the concession term.
Concession Term: 25 years from commercial operation date.
Staff car parking rates to be agreed between Queensland Health and private sector and
linked to CPI indexation post commercial operation date.
55
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
2,100 car parks allocated for staff usage.
24 hour operation.
Disclaimer
The Queensland Government and its advisers have developed this market sounding fact
sheet for use in the Gold Coast University Hospital car park facilities market sounding
process. The market sounding process is subject to the following conditions:
1. Nothing in this document is, or should be relied upon as, a promise or representation
by the Queensland Government, that this Project will subsequently proceed. This
Market Sounding exercise is not part of any procurement process for the Project.
Participants in the Market Sounding exercise should not consider that their responses
or participation will be in any way used for evaluation purposes.
2. While the information in this document has been prepared in good faith, it does not
purport to be comprehensive or to have been independently verified. Neither the
Queensland Government, nor any of its Advisers accepts any liability or responsibility
for its adequacy, accuracy or completeness, nor do they make any representation or
warranty, express or implied, with respect to the information contained in the
Document or on which the Document is based or any information which may be
provided in association with it. Any liability therefore is hereby expressly disclaimed.
3. This Document should not be considered as an investment recommendation made by
the Queensland Government, or any of its Advisers to any private sector provider.
Each person to whom this document is made available must make their own
independent assessment of the Project after making such investigation and taking such
professional advice, as they deem necessary.
4. The Queensland Government and its Advisers will treat each respondents comments
as confidential and can, if requested, record comments on an unattributable basis.
However, since the results of this Market Sounding exercise are to be used to both
gauge potential interest in the Project and help define the scope of any subsequent
procurement, no guarantee is given that respondents consideration will not be
included in subsequent documentation. Respondents should ensure that any responses
made as part of this Market Sounding exercise do not contain any intellectual property
or other information of a proprietary nature.
5. No reimbursement of costs will be paid to persons or organisations responding to the
market sounding process.
56
ABCD
Queensland Health
December 2007
Capital and operating cost estimates
57
Queensland Health
September 2008
Space allocation benchmarking

5 pages
275
Area Analysis
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
Total Gross
Functional
Area M2
Planning Units
Project Definition
Plan
20170
Total Gross
Functional
Area M2
Scheme Design
19057
Total Gross
Functional
Area % of
total gross
area
11.59%
Beds/ Treatment Places
Comparison with Australia Health Facility Guidelines
Benchmarking
Comments
SD
Places
Bed
MD Beds
Alternatives
400
Procedure/
Treatment
Places
Consult
Rooms
13
AHFG
16966
Difference
Comments
2091
TGFA
m2
18648
Difference
409
4011
3871
2.36%
1217
2654
4125
-254
24414
24437
14.87%
14
97
76
115
115
19515
4922
22887
1550
15976
16032
9.75%
40
50
39
11
13159
2873
12777
14018
8.53%
20
124
26
39
9809
4209
7336
5817
3.54%
72
5807
10
7342
5847
7359
5923
4.48%
3.60%
28
99
28
10
5791
3106
1568
2817
The Australasian Health Facility Guidelines do not

cover all departments within a tertiary hospital. A large
number of the guidelines relate to a level 4 role
delineation only. Thus it is hard to have realistic
tertiary level hospital comparisons without
benchmarking the proposed facility with other
proposed tertiary hospitals within Australia.
11499
2519
5895
-78
The differential is largely focused around revised IPU bed

configuration, 3 units of 24 beds in lieu of 4 18 bed units.
857
The differential is spread across the cluster with additional

services provided which include Orthotics, Transitional care
services, and clinical education and training areas.
780
The differential is largely due to the inclusion of satellite imaging

services with Emergency and Ambulatory care areas, and the
inclusion of equipment such as a PET etc,.
6502
5143
4612
5039
3.07%
1622
3417
6360
-1321
10
18305
16556
10.07%
3306
13250
16318
238
74
97
750
316
188
80298
37811
111753
6356
118109
Travel
Level 6 Hospital = 16%
20390
18580
Plant
23820
27673
165000
164362
The differential is largely due to the Anesthetics department being

located within this area cluster but in other benchmark facilities it
forms part of clinicalgadministration.
y
g
y
& Children's ambulatory care being part of this cluster and
inclusion of clinical education & training and allied health areas
specific to FWC and includes area previously located within other
1656
120790
The opportunity and ability to have an integrated education,

library, simulation training and research facilities with Griffith
university enables improved area efficiency
This total area has changed as it contains functions and ares that
were originally in other planning units, such as Generic Inpatient
Units and Corporate Services.
14376
Total
The majority of the difference, that is 923m2 of the difference can

be attributed to shared education & training areas, integrated
inpatient multipurpose allied health areas, distressed relative
areas and centralised waiting and reception areas.
The differential is largely around the reduction of research facilities

for pathology and the fact that other benchmark projects serve
larger regions and provide large district and regional services.
In alignment with current tertiary projects
Unenclosed Covered Areas

Gross Area
Total Gross Area
AREA ALLOWANCE
Cyclotron
500
To be considered/advised
Archive Store
Child Care Centre
Hydrotherapy Pool
398
Hyperbaric Unit
Medihotel
Total
3435001_1.xls
Retail Allowance - Not within hospital
5000
Carparking Allowance
90000
95000
19/09/2008
1 of 5.
AREA ANALYSIS
Planning Units
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
Total
Gross
Functional
Location
Area M2
PDP
20170
Total GFA
M2
Schematic Difference
Design
(Briefed)
20208
SD Places
38
MD Beds MD Beds Procedure/

Bed
(PDP = 24 (SD = 24 & Treatment
Alternative
beds)
28 beds)
Places
388
400
Consult
Rooms
AHFG
Difference
13
16966
2139
Notes
Benchmarking
TGFA
18648
m2 Difference m2
Comments
1560
MEDICAL INPATIENT BEDS (EXCLUDING CANCER X 56 BEDS)
IPU 1
IPU 2
IPU 3
IPU 4
IPU 5
Inpatient Unit - Cardiology
Inpatient Unit - General Medical
Inpatient Unit - Infectious Disease
Inpatient Unit - Medical Assessment Unit
Inpatient Unit - Neurology
L4W
L5W
MCB 5N
LLGW
L5S
1178
1048
1148
1295
1076
1156
1103
1214
1138
1224
-22
24
55
24
66
24
-157
28
148
24
24
1036
24
920
24
28
972
28
1052
1052
52
In a review of Inpatient facilities at the NEW RNSH, Liverpool Hospital,

Fiona Stanley Hospital and the NEW RCH the area for an inpatient
unit varied from as low as 907 to 1326m2 for a 24 bed IPU. The
average General IPU is thus 1036m2 which is 120m2 less than
GCUH. This IPU will generally be larger due to the nature of the
service, corconary care requiring additional physical requirements to
support the unit. It should also be noted that the percentage of single
rooms is as low as 30% in some instances and may not reflect the
GCUH bed configuration and model of care.
1052
51

unit varied from as low as 878 to 1301m2 for a 24 bed IPU. The
average IPU is thus 1052m2 which is only 51m2 less than GCUH. It
should also be noted that the percentage of single rooms is as low as
46% in some instances.
242
100% single bedrooms.Bed room size increase is about 1.5m2 per

bedroom and increase in functional area is only 47m2 of the functional
area, Increase is mainly a reflection of the model of care with three staff
bases and associated clean and dirty utility rooms. Largest area increase is
in circulation, 62m2, Corridors for improved observation and work
practices.
1134
80
This area has higher level of single bedrooms compared to the NEW
RNSH, Liverpool Hospital, NEW RCH.
86

practices.
1134
172
64% Single Bedrooms. Bed room size increase is about 1.5m2 per
practices.
1192
32
This area includes Class N room x 1 and Chest Pain Evaluation

Rooms x 10. Includes RAPID REVIEW/PROCEDURAL AREA. Colocated with Emergency Department. Mix of single/mulibed rooms only
1192
75
This area is slightly smaller than the benchmarks from the New RNSH
Liverpool Hospital and Fiona Stanley Hospital.
1052
51
This area is slightly larger than the benchmarks because it includes

Class N isolation rooms x 2 & Store for Renal Fluids.
91

unit varied from as low as 878 to 1301m2 for a 24 bed IPU and 950 to
1290 . The average IPU is thus 1052m2 which is only 159m2 less than
GCUH. It should also be noted that the percentage of single rooms is
as low as 46% in some instances.
120
75% single bedrooms. Includes Conary Care Beds and Post Angio
procedures beds. Bed room size increase is only 17m2 of the functional
in circulation-Corridors for improved observation and work practices.
183
75% single bedrooms.Bed room size increase is about 1.5m2 per bedroom
and increase in functional area is only 1m2 of the functional area, Increase
is mainly a reflection of the model of care with three staff bases and
associated clean and dirty utility rooms. Largest area increase is in
circulation, 49m2, Corridors for improved observation and work practices.
1104
IPU 6
Inpatient Unit - Renal Medicine
L3S
1111
1267
156
24
28
1052
215
IPU 7
Inpatient Unit - Respiratory Medical
L5W
1048
1103
55
24
24
920
183
75% single bedrooms. Increase is mainly a reflection of the model of care
with three staff bases and associated clean and dirty utility rooms. Largest
area increase is in circulation, 100m2, Corridors for improved observation
and work practices.
159
159
1120
91
159
1120
91

159
1120
91
The area is slightly larger because it also includes a larger equipment

store.
1120
91
The area is slightly larger because it also includes a larger equipment

store.
1120
91
SURGICAL INPATIENT BEDS
IPU 8
IPU 9
IPU 10
IPU 11
Inpatient Unit - Orthopaedic Surgery (Elective)
Inpatient Unit - Orthopaedic/Trauma Surgery
Inpatient Unit - Gastrointestinal Surgery (includes

Colo-rectal)
Inpatient Unit - Short-stay Surgical
L6S
L6S
L2S
L2S
1058
1058
1094
1048
1211
1211
1211
1211
153
24
153
24
117
24
163
24
28
1052
28
1052
28
1052
28
1052
IPU 12
Inpatient Unit - Neurosurgery
L4S
1048
1211
163
24
28
1052
159
IPU 13
Inpatient Unit - ENT/Eye/MF/Plastics
L4S
163
-1048
28
1052
159
Inpatient Unit - Uro/Gynae/Breast
1211
0
24
IPU 14
1048
1048
and increase in functional area is only 11m2 of the functional area,
Increase is mainly a reflection of the model of care with three staff bases
and associated clean and dirty utility rooms. Largest area increase is in
The Stomal Therapy Consult area is included in this IPU, an additional
24m2.
24
159
-920
IPU 15
Inpatient Unit - Vascular Surgery
L3S
1048
1211
163
24
28
1052
1120
1120
91

75

IPU 16
Inpatient Unit - Cardiothoracic Surgery
L4W
1048
1103
55
24
24
920
1028
SHARED AREAS PER LEVEL
Level Lower Ground
LLGW
125
155
30
106
49
Model of Care, with mainly the inclusion of multipurpose allied health room.
320
-165
62
Model of Care with the inclusion of larger teaching and education areas for
the tertiary facility, clinical education & tutorial rooms and multi-purpose
/distressed relatives rooms
320
-62
176
the tertiary facility, clinical education & tutorial rooms and multi-purpose
/distressed relatives rooms
320
71
320
318
320
184
f
Level 2
Level 3
MCB 3
492
521
391
-234
-130
196
215
Level 4
CSB4
635
638
384
254
Level 5
MCB 5
347
504
157
562
-58
the tertiary facility, clinical education & tutorial rooms and multipurpose/distressed relatives rooms

Education
Education Administration
Library
Clinical Placement Unit & Student Amenities
Medical Illustration/Photograpy & Reprographics.
Clinical Photography
MCB 6
648
477
-171
4011
2075
1116
418
3871
2109
414
418
140
34
-702
0
283
195
-88
119
119
Research
3435001_1.xls
215
262
1217
2654
1217
2654
320
157
4125
-254
4125
-254
This area also includes Social Work Offices

The shared areas vary from each tertiary hospital based on varying
configurations and to reflect the model of care. On some projects the
education and training areas are centralized rather then integrated
across the facility.
education and training areas are centralised rather then integrated
The education area is in alignment with other planned tertiary hospitals

such as the New RNSH, NEW RCH and Fiona Stanley Hospital, It is
slightly below the others due to the ability to sharing areas with Griffith
University (3358m2, 4548m2 and 4471m2).
616
Shared Areas
258
Level 6
2
MCB 2
24414
23416
-998
Wet Research provided by University & Separate funding.

14
97
68
76
115
115
19515
19/09/2008
1163
22887
-43
2 of 5.
AREA ANALYSIS
Planning Units
1
3.1
20170
20208
38
280
17
293
293
Sleep Studies
MCB 5
Renal Medicine (Clinical Admin)
MCB 3
263
Included in
Medical
Offices
CSB 3
942
729
-213
MCB L1
P& E B L2
648
252
610
252
-38
0
Infection Control (Offices)
3.2
Ambulatory Services & OPD
3.3
Comprehensive Cancer Service
Inpatient Unit - Cancer

Shared areas - Inpatient Units
Day Oncology/Haematology
OPD
Shared areas Day Oncology/OPD + Palliative care

Outreach Services
3.4
Total GFA
M2
Design
(Briefed)
SD Places

Bed
Alternative
beds)
28 beds)
Places
388
400
MCB L1
L1S
L1S
L1S
LGS
LGS
6452
1025
1049
468
832
905
6072
Consult
Rooms
AHFG
Difference
13
16966
2139
18648
1560
280
385
-105
800
222
708
314
601
Small increase largely around the provision of larger procedure/treatment

rooms to enable greater flexibility of use and in alignment with the service
plan and model of care.
701
-91
This area is smaller than a benchmark based on the new RNSH,

Liverpool Hospital and Fiona Stanley Hospital
5043
1029
The differences are mainly around the number of consult/examination

rooms that are not clearly specified within the AHFG's. Allowances have
been made for bariatric patients and thus facilities. The development of
generic pods of 8 consult/exam rooms within clusters of two pods sharing
support areas. The development of clinical measurement areas specific to
a number of the clinical functions and thus not covered by the AHFG's. The
inclusion of a pathology collection area, oral/dental services, satellite
radiology,
5808
264
This area includes 80 C/R, including -ve Pressure room x 1, Treatment

Rooms x 10, Plaster Rooms x 2 and Clinical Measurement as listed
and Nurse Practitioners. In terms of benchmarking the area is slightly
higher but it is differcult to determine the what is included in each
facility.
72
and increase in functional area is only 46m2 of the functional area, larger
for specialised rooms for immuno-comprised/bone marrow transplant
patients. Increase is mainly a reflection of the model of care with three staf
practices.
1288
-154
This area is only slightly larger than the benchmark and has higher
percentage of single rooms than the New RNSH and Liverpool
Hospital projects. It also includes +ve pressure rooms x 4
90
practices.
1288
-136
-175
-27
Hospital projects. It also includes Lead-lined rooms x 2, -ve pressure
rooms x 2 & Palliative Care Beds x 6
1134
1152
355
813
961
16
14
-380
13
109
24
103
-113
24
-19
LGS
799
716
-83
LLLGS
2816
2171
-645
Clinical Administration
LLGS
692
673
-19
MCB 4N
1687
1709
22
80
28
1062
28
1062
29
754
56
Radiotherapy
30
Cardiology
Diagnostics, including Clinical Measurement & Stress
Testing
11
18
855
59
106
585
131
1667
-1667
585
88
1323
386
3.5
Sexual Assault Unit
MCB LG
Short-stay Observation Unit

3425
78
ACIEM
Day of Discharge/Transit Lounge
442
933
498
892
56
-41
479
533
54
MCB 5N
383
148
-235
15976
15997
21
Anaesthetic & Pain Mgt Offices
MCB 3N
1362
1043
-319
Pain Management OPD
MCB G
236
329
93
MCB 4S
85
85
4.3
Intensive Care
IV Infusion Therapy Service
ICU/HDU
Angiography
Endoscopy
Intraoperative MRI
MCB 4
MCB 2
MCB 2N
MCB 2S
MCB 2N
Perioperative services
Operating Suite
Post-anaesthetic Care Unit
Same Day Accommodation
DOSA & Day Surgery Admissions
Change Room
Preadmission clinic, Bookings Centre, Referral
Centre
4.5
CSD
4.6
Ambulatory Care
Vascular - Vascular Laboratory / Clinical Admin
Offices
4.7
5.1
practices.
practices.
The inclusion of Patient Education, internet and Complimentary Therapies
area and support areas which is not covered by the AHFG's but in
alignment with Comprehensive cancer care services and the model of
care.
There is no AHFG for Radiation Oncology.
The inclusion of Patient Education, internet and Complimentary Therapies
area and support areas which is not covered by the AHFG's but in
alignment with Comprehensive cancer care services and the model of
care.
988
988
800
-84
2382
-211
Shared Support areas for day Oncology and Cancer ambulatory care.
The area is only slightly larger than the benchmark and area has
Linacs x 2, Brachytherapy x 1 ( 3 Bunkers)
673
Shared Support areas for day Oncology and Cancer ambulatory care.
The largest difference is circulation, additional 63m2, with largest functiona

area difference being due to the absence of a AHFG for specific areas
within tertiary level cardiology services, particularly around procedural
areas such as cardiac catheter suites and TOE procedure rooms and the
associated support areas.
1622
87
This area is in alignment with other planned tertiary hospitals in

Australia. It includes ECHO, Stress ECHOs, TOE, Holter monitoring,
Exercise Stress Testing, ECG, Pacemaker.CCL x 3 & TOE Room x 1,
RR x 12 places. Plus expansion for CCL/CT Scan x 1 of 200m2
20
3706
The area differential between is largely around the functional areas to mee
the projected demand in Emergency and not covered by the AHFG. In
alignment with the model of care and the streaming of patients the 77
place unit has increased triage areas, meeting areas, resuscitation bays
and treatment areas to meet the health service plan.
4450
365
This area is in alignment with benchmarking based on the New RNSH

Fiona Stanley and recently completed Emergency units at Liverpool
and RM hospitals.
1109
30
374
159
302
231
148
120
28
MCB 2
MCB 2
MCB 2
MCB 2
MCB 3
5075
5100
40
50
50
39
11
13159
2838
14376
1621
1246
-203
1043
194
135
250
79
This area is in alignment with other tertiary level hospitals.
84
85
tertiary level hospitals.
25
50
50
4954
146
8072
92
4087
1013
6733
1431
Additional offices in alignment with staffing profile and not covered in

AHFG..
The ICU has more bed bays then the AHFG and room size is based on 25
m2 in lieu of 20m2. There is additional support areas in alignment with the
model of care. Some areas are not covered by the AHFG, including
pathology bays, pneumatic tube stations, computer server room and
interview rooms.
Office Accom/Store areas
Generally included with Clinical administration areas
2
4
1
8343
8164
-179
The area has increases within the operating theatre sizes being 55m2 in
lieu of the 42 and 52 m2 within the AHFG. Sterile stock rooms have been
provided to improve work flows and operational efficiency, this is not
covered in the AHFG. Increased offices in accordance with current staffing
and projected staffing levels.
20
40
10
This area is in alignment with other tertiary level hospitals. Expansion

zone x 2 ORs x 500m2
Number to be confirmed. Includes Paeds Surgical Day Stay
Included in 3.2
MCB 3
MCB LG
875
917
Included in 3.2
Included in
3.2
180
42
180
575
342
120
60
The area increase is based on a number of support areas not being within
the AHFG for an large tertiary hospital CSD. Additional sorting and prep
areas, trolley areas, stores and sterile stock.
950
-33
180

Clinical Service/Business Unit (C/A)
Comments
5
20
MCB LG ncluded in 7.
Basement
Level S

Department of Anaesthetics
4.2
4.4
m2 Difference m2
LLGW
MCB LG
Others
Discharge Services
4.1
TGFA
59
3347
Child Protection Unit
3.7
Notes
Emergency Medicine
3.5
Benchmarking
Internal Medicine
Day Medical Beds
IPU 18
Total
Gross
Functional
Location
Area M2
PDP
Acute Dialysis Unit
IPU 17
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
CSB 2

Maternity Services
IPU 19
& 20 Inpatient Unit - Maternity Services
Birth Suite
L3W
L2W
3.7
179
179
12777
14018
-278
2377
2323
-54
2030
2148
118
20
3435001_1.xls
124
124
48
48
26
39
120
59
150
29
9809
2690
11499
1000
1956
367
4404
67
L2W
10
75% single bedrooms. With the room size being based on 18m2 based on
the model of care and service plan.
The increase is largely a result of the model of care with the inclusion of a
birth centre, high acuity birth rooms, and additional support areas which is
not covered by the AHFG's.
12
Birth Centre
Ante-natal Assessment Clinic
1678
19/09/2008
This area is in alignment with other tertiary level hospitals. Includes 5

Transitional Care Unit and Includes 12 D/S (2 being HDU) and 4 Birth
Centre
470
3 of 5.
AREA ANALYSIS
Planning Units
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
Total
Gross
Functional
Location
Area M2
PDP
20170
20208
38
L1W
298
Included in
5.4 Shared
Areas
-298
L3
2502
2473
-29
2299
2269
5.2
Neonatal Intensive Care
5.3
Paediatric Services
IPU 21 Inpatient - Paediatric & Day Stay
LGW
5.4
1416
SD Places

Bed
Alternative
beds)
28 beds)
Places
388
400
44
44
Consult
Rooms
AHFG
Difference
13
16966
2139
1961
512
137
-30
1433
Paediatric OPD/Allied Health
Total GFA
M2
Design
(Briefed)
10
32
32
2132
-17
20
769
647
MCB GN
Notes
The increased area is largely related to the model of care with additiona
staff stations an thus additional support areas to improve operational
efficiency.
The additional areas is focused around support areas and the provision of
clinical education, tutorial rooms, allied health rooms, volunteer room and
larger bedrooms to enable rooming in for family and carers.
The increased area is largely based on the model of care with larger area
for specilaised services that are generally not covered by the AHFG's such
as Generic services, Pathology collection, integrated waiting and staff
support areas.
Benchmarking
TGFA
m2 Difference m2
18648
1560
2182
291
326
1943
1250
Comments
This area is in alignment with other tertiary level hospitals and includes
14 NICU, SCN x 30 cots plus expansion to 48 cots
This area is slightly above other tertiary level hospitals as it
incorporates educational and allied health services for paeds and
Includes shared areas. Thus it is generally in alignment with other
tertiary hospitals who provide a networked Paediatric service.
166
In alignment with benchmark based on the number of consulting
rooms provided -Victorian area benchmarks.
FWC - OPD & Ambulatory Services

Ante-natal Clinic
Qld Genetic Counselling
10
L1W
956
921
-35
769
152
Fetal -Maternal Assessment Clinic Assessment Unit
The increased area is largely based on the model of care with larger area
for specilaised services that are generally not covered by the AHFG's such
as Generic services, Pathology collection, integrated waiting and staff
support areas.
1000
-79
Neonatology
Gynaecology/Gyn Oncology
L1W
348
333
-15
134
Early Assessment Pregnancy Clinic
199
L1W
6
Shared Areas
534
616
82
7336
5817
-1519
Adult Inpt Unit
MHU
Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs service

7
7.1
Division of CARAS
Allied Health
Allied Health Management Hub
Aids & Equipment (Loan)
7.2
Community Health
7.4
Rehabilitation, Aged and Palliative Care Services
Health Promotion Unit
MCB G
MCB G
Basement
LS
6402
934
5817
0
-585
-934
7342
1767
173
7359
1747
173
-1533
-20
0
267
261
-6
IPU 23
72
72
72
72
48
28
99
10
1253
87
-1253
24
28
24
o
28
-1759
-78
5895
-78
6502
-692
3087
-906
Area is in alignment with other mental health facilities benchmarks.

The larger area is a result of the inclusion of a ECT, Clinical
Administration, Consultation Liaison & Research
The area is only slightly less than the benchmark.
-60

practices.
1134
218
-2045
1961
-183
The area is slightly above the benchmark from other tertiary hospitals
currently planned.
170
-170
170
Generally included in allied health offices.
113
216
320
170
159
329
3106
2453
5143
416
1958
2259
3820
397
1052
300
2045
HomeLink Services
MCB LG
338
329
5847
5964
117
28
The increase is largely a result of the inclusion of education and training

rooms to reflect the model of care and which are not in the AHFG's
In alignment with Benchmark

Generally included in allied health offices.
Medical Imaging
Bone Densitometry
CT
3
1
General Rooms
Mammography
MCB LG
4092
4217
125
MRI
Nuclear Medicine
OPG
PET
Ultrasound
The area is larger because it includes medical imaging that is located

with Emergency and the Ambulatory care area.
MCB LG
406
405
Main Pharmacy
MCB LG
1085
1131
46
Production Unit
MCB LG
264
211
-53
4612
5039
-159
MID - ED Zone
9.1
5791
1352
Fluoroscopy
10
296

Locate in/near Front Entry
Transitional Care
8.2
5807
The additional area related to the provision of 4 18 bed units in lieu of 3 24

bed units.
320
5895
Included in 10.2
L5S
Inpatient Unit - Acute Rehabilitation - Ortho
Community Hospital Interface Program (CHIP)
8.1
10
-67
Not covered in the AHFG's
1879
1566
MCB 5
-313
Shared area per 48 Beds, Day/Inpt Therapy Areas
MCB 5
-18
230
212
MCB 5
-19
170
151
Palliative Care Services
Included in Comprehensive Cancer Services - 3.2
5807
The additional areas is largely focused around the provision of clinical

education and research areas within the ambulatory care areas.
400
Therapy Areas
7.5
271
2241
MCB G
1265
Inpatient Unit - Acute Rehabilitation - Neuro
345
The additional area is largely related to the increased number of consult

rooms and thus the increased support areas and circulation compared to
the AHFG..
-1
Pharmacy
Pathology
Path
Builbing
3854
-112
586
646
599
-47
18305
16236
-2069
2192
639
-1553
341
341
422
434
12
176
606
176
702
0
96
3966
Shared Areas-Due to separate Building requirements
9.2
Mortuary
10
10.1 District & Hospital Administration

District Manager
Boardroom
Diivision of Corporate Services
Planning & Development Unit
District - Management (Hotdesks)
Disaster Services/Management
Division of Medical Administration
Medico-legal
Medical appointments
Division of Nursing & Midwifery Services
Division of Teaching & Research
Nursing Support Services
Bed Management
Clinical Resources Coord.
Nursing Workforce Planning & Develop
Path
Builbing - B
1148
-17
211
1622
4049
Not covered by the AHFG's.But required to for a comprehensive cancer

care service.
1201
3652
This pathology department is a district wide service and large portions of

the department are not covered by the AHFG's
421
397
This facility includes area such as observation gallery, isolation rooms and
resource rooms which are required for cronial inquests and education.
These areas are not with the AHFG's
3306
12335
1042
89
The area is in accordance to current benchmarks
281
-70
6360
-1907
5994
-2140
The area is smaller than the benchmark as the pathology in the other
facilities are for a region/area-wide pathology service including their
research facilities.
The area is larger as it contains cronial inquest and educational areas.
366
233
16318
-82
189
The differences are mainly a result of the inclusion of the clinical education
and research areas that are not part of the AHFG's
800
-161
In alignment with New RNSH and Fiona Stanley Hospitals.This are

also incudes some of the anaesthetics and Pain Management offices.
341
This area is not covered by the AHFG's
222
119
The area is above the benmark but also conatins foundation facilities
494
-60
176
This area is slightly above above the current benchmarks but this is
primary due to how this area is recorded in the various tertiary
hospitals.In general it is in alignment with other facilities.
245
450
Off-site
MCB 6
Off-site
MCB 6
P&E + MCB
LGN
Off-site
MCB 6
Off-site
MCB 6
MCB 6
MCB 6
MCB G
MCB 6
Administration - GCUH
Medical Typists
Off-site
Fundraising & Foundation Services
MCB 6
MCB G
MCB G
Off-site
Foundation Retail
Volunteer Services
Interpreter Services
Service Improvement Unit

CULT Liaision
Patient Liaison
Off-site
Patient Safety
Quality & Risk Management
Public Relations
Community & Consumer Advisory Service
Off-site
10.2 Operational Services

Operational Services
Mail Room
Satellite Operational Services
Cleaning & Waste Management
3435001_1.xls
MCG B
434
176
90
612
VIC HFG.
19/09/2008
457
4 of 5.
AREA ANALYSIS
Planning Units
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
Total
Gross
Functional
Location
Area M2
PDP

Linen Services
Loading Dock
10.3 Hospital Co-ordination & Public Areas

Main Foyer
Operation Co-ordination Centre
Central Admissions
Revenue Services
Retail/ Coffee Shop
10.4 Pastoral Care Services
Chaplaincy
Spiritual Meditation Unit
10.5 Staff Amenities
Central Staff Amenities
Decentralised Staff Amenities
Staff Health Promotion
Gymnasium
Function Rooms
Total GFA
M2
Design
(Briefed)
20170
244
475
20208
209
475
38
-35
0
267
452
267
626
174
MCB G
MCB G
MCB G
MCB G
MCB G
1118
1118
MCB G
180
180
MCB B
MCB B
271
36
194
0
-77
-36
MCB 5
500
388
-112
CSB 6
187
175
-12
MCB 5
164
236
72
SD Places

Bed
Alternative
beds)
28 beds)
Places
388
400
Benchmarking
Consult
Rooms
AHFG
Difference
13
16966
2139
18648
1560
267
-58
450
-241
2011
1784
227
68
112
130
50
This area is slightly larger as it contains the chapel, which is some

facilities already exists.
187
-60
VIC HFG-level 4 only.
378
-184
In alignment with other tertiary hospitals and containns accessible

toilets located throughout the facility
388
540
-152
Larger than other facilities but may be due to definition of what is

included. Included staff recreational areas.
175
175
Included in the education area in other facilities.
236
This are is not covered by the AHFG's
322
-184
Part of the areais included in other sections. Generally area is within

benchmark limitations.
197
729
1110
-184
In alignment with current planned tertiary facilities.
Notes
TGFA
m2 Difference m2
This area is generally not covered by the AHFG's for retail areas, Health
promotion etc,.
Comments
Staff on-call accommodation

Senior Medical Staff
RMO Facilities
10.6 Facilities Management
Facility Management & Building Engineering &
Management
CEP
Engineering Services
926
926
PABX ,Switchboard, MATV
MCB LG & G
Security
MCB LG & G Included in 4.1 & 10.3
10.7 Food Services

Kitchen
Public/Staff Cafeteria
MCB G
MCB G
1388
1165
1388
1165
0
0
369
1019
1355
33
450
715
950
215
MCB 6
1078
926
-152
926
1237
-311
207
-207
In alignment with other planned tertiary hospitals who provide a staff

and public cafeteria areas.
In alignment with other facilities where IT is centralised for areas or
regions.
Supply is slightly below other tertiary facilities but this does not reflect
the change to distribution centres. Thus the area is in alignment with
current thinking.
10.8 District Technology Services

Patient Information Management Services
10.90 Materials Management
Supply Depart
Clinical Resource Unit - Equipment/Bed Store
MCB B
MCB B
519
345
0
0
519
345
320
199
633
-114
150
195
300
45
MCB 1N
575
575
758
-183
VIC HFG
600
-25
This area is currently under review in most tertiary hospital with the
transition to electronic medical records. The area is in alignment with
other planned facilities in australia.
MCB 1N
387
387
387
421
-34
The area is slightly less than benchmark but bascialy in alignment with
benchmarks from other tertiary Hospitals.
10.1 Clinical Information Unit

Clinical Information Unit (Medical Records)
Decision Support
Casemix
10.12 District Finance Service
Human Resource Management (District)
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
Occupational Health & Safety
MCB LG
428
398
-30
345
429
The area is slightly less than benchmark but basically in alignment with
benchmarks from New RNSH and Liverpool Hospital.
MCB G
818
818
818
799
19
In alignment with other tertiary hospital that provides these services to

the hospital and the district.
Clinical Service/Business Unit
CSB
3045
CSB 2
CSB 4
0
637
633
-3045
134
925
134
925
300
2629
Finance Services (District)

Payroll
Included in 10.1
10.13 Biomecical Technology Services

11.0 Medical Offices - Medical & Surgical Divisions

MCB 4N
CSB 5
CSB 6
Total
Travel Level 6 Hospital = 16%
Plant Level 6 Hospital = 17% / 21%
Plus Atrium (estimated)
Total Gross Area
120790
19326
23820
1064
165000
300
118109
18580
27673
164362
637
633
-2681
-746
3853
-1064
-638
74
97
750
750
316
188
2700
-71
111753
6356
AREA ALLOWANCE
8

Cyclotron
500
EXPANSION ZONES
3
10

Operating Suite
NICU
200
500
420
Total (Expansion Zones)

Travel Level 6 Hospital = 16%
Plant Level 6 Hospital = 17%
1000
2120
339
418
Total Gross Area
2877
Locations
MCB Main Clinical Building
CSB Clinical Services Building (Offices)
P & E Pathology & Education Building
W
Inpatient Builfding - West wing (FW&C Building)
Inpatient Builfding - Southt wing (Cancer Servces Building)
3435001_1.xls
19/09/2008
5 of 5.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Financial model inputs and results

21 pages
281
Queensland Health
Gold Coast Hospital
Government Benchmark Model
Inputs - Construction
Dates
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
Non-contractor construction phase
Contractor construction phase
1-Jun-07
30-Jun-07
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-Jul-07
31-Jul-07
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Aug-07
31-Aug-07
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Sep-07
30-Sep-07
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-Oct-07
31-Oct-07
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Nov-07
30-Nov-07
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-Dec-07
31-Dec-07
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Jan-08
31-Jan-08
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Feb-08
29-Feb-08
29
TRUE
FALSE
1-Mar-08
31-Mar-08
31
TRUE
FALSE
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%
0.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.68%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Dates and timing inputs

Contract Close
Base date - capital costs
Base date - operating and lifecycle costs
Net Present Cost Date
1-Jun-07
1-Jul-08
1-Jul-07
1-Jul-08
Construction commencement date for Contractor costs

Construction period
Construction completion
Operations (FM) commencement date
Operations (FM) term
Operations end
Input start of month
1-Oct-08
56 months
30-Jun-13
1-Jan-13
20 years
31-Dec-32
Months in year
Financial year month end month number
Days in year
12
6
365
Base model or Reference data
Indexation and discount rates

Note: Please insert annual rate applying during the period.
Indexation rates pre first model period
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
Non-labour operating cost (per QH)
Not in use
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2007/2008
2008/2009
Base date
Capital cost base date
Operating cost base date
Indexation rates following first model period

No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Nominal discount rate
6.50%
S curves
Column counter for s-curve
Construction
Novated Professional Fees
QH Professional Fees
QH Costs
Statutory Fees
FF&E
Public Artwork
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
080919 Final Business Case Model_App E.xls.xls
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Site acquisition
Surrounding Infrastructure
Medical School
H
I
J
8
9
10
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
100%
100%
100%
1-Jun-07
30-Jun-07
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jul-07
31-Jul-07
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Aug-07
31-Aug-07
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Sep-07
30-Sep-07
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Oct-07
31-Oct-07
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Nov-07
30-Nov-07
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Dec-07
31-Dec-07
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jan-08
1-Feb-08
1-Mar-08
31-Jan-08
29-Feb-08
31-Mar-08
31
29
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Input costs
Please enter costs as a positive and revenue as a negative in $s.
Capital costs - Contractor
Trade costs
Managing Contractor's Fees
Professional Fees - Novated to Contractor (5%)
Statutory Fees, headworks etc
FF & E
TOTAL Generic Inpatient Unit
Indexation
Sub-category
C - BPI - ConstrucConstruction costs
C - BPI - ConstrucProfessional fees
C - BPI - ConstrucStatutory Fees
G - QH & FF&E FF & E
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
80678112.5
16135622.5
5038379.72
806781.125
13002010
115660906
83,704,442
27,807,799
8,697,622
612,270
13,898,231
134,720,365
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Education & Research
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
14489897.7
2897979.54
904899.785
144898.977
3278368
21716044
13,808,980
4,587,538
1,434,874
101,008
1,379,532
21,311,932
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Medicine
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
108946918
21789383.7
6803777.72
1089469.18
45497539
184127088
94,718,789
31,466,921
9,842,109
692,836
47,644,069
184,364,725
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Surgery & Critical Care
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
72226278.4
14445255.7
4510559.37
722262.784
30567632.3
122471988
68,618,884
22,796,163
7,130,101
501,924
29,334,732
128,381,804
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Family, Women & Children
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
48385167.6
9677033.51
3021672.66
483851.676
14743961
76311686.4
55,553,755
18,455,743
5,772,520
406,357
6,376,166
86,564,540
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Mental Health & ATODS
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
24204559.4
4840911.87
1511584.21
242045.594
2850880
33649981
19,409,700
6,448,177
2,016,837
141,975
2,382,413
30,399,103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & RIndexation

Sub-category
Trade costs
Professional Fees - Novated to Contractor (5%) C - BPI - ConstrucProfessional fees
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & Rehabilitation Services
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
33009163.3
6601832.66
2061435.18
330091.633
4621405
46623927.8
25,087,199
8,334,322
2,606,779
183,505
2,155,356
38,367,160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Medical Services
1-Jun-07
30-Jun-07
30
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
Indexation
Sub-category
1-Jul-07
31-Jul-07
31
1-Aug-07
31-Aug-07
31
1-Sep-07
30-Sep-07
30
1-Oct-07
31-Oct-07
31
1-Nov-07
30-Nov-07
30
1-Dec-07
31-Dec-07
31
1-Jan-08
1-Feb-08
1-Mar-08
31-Jan-08
29-Feb-08
31-Mar-08
31
29
31
1 25512651.8
1 5102530.37
2 1593275.1
5 255126.518
6
13171368
45634951.8
24,645,899
8,187,716
2,560,924
180,277
46,771,074
82,345,890
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
19935537.6
3987107.53
1244982.13
199355.376
5198609
30565591.7
24,035,879
7,985,059
2,497,538
175,814
7,138,432
41,832,721
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Indexation
Sub-category
Trade costs
Professional Fees - Novated to Contractor (5%) C - BPI - ConstrucProfessional fees
FF & E
TOTAL Corporate Services, Amenities and Retail
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
57293942.8
11458788.6
3578029.17
572939.428
10136850
83040550
63,090,611
20,959,593
6,555,665
461,487
10,721,977
101,789,333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Engineering and Travel
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
116605836
23321167.2
7282080.12
1166058.36
25431377.7
173806519
129,585,101
43,050,002
13,465,023
947,872
698,018
187,746,016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Central Plant Etc

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Central Plant Etc
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
131605336
26321067.2
8218804.76
1316053.36
0
167461261
127,058,334
42,210,575
13,202,470
929,389
0
183,400,768
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ESD Initiatives
Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL ESD Initiatives
Indexation
Sub-category
46936973.5
9387394.69
2931232.38
469369.735
0
59724970.3
47,000,000
15,614,064
4,883,710
343,789
0
67,841,564
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
External Works
Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL External Works
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
50000000
1
10000000
2 3122519.58
5
500000
6
0
63622519.6
43,952,164
14,601,530
4,567,013
321,495
0
63,442,203
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
TOTAL Spare
Indexation
Sub-category
C - BPI - ConstrucFF & E
C - BPI - ConstrucFF & E
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Pathology
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
B - Novated Profe
E - Statutory Fees
F - FF&E
1
1
2
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
1-Jun-07
30-Jun-07
30
Total Contractor construction costs
1-Jul-07
31-Jul-07
31
1-Aug-07
31-Aug-07
31
1-Sep-07
30-Sep-07
30
1-Oct-07
31-Oct-07
31
1-Nov-07
30-Nov-07
30
1-Dec-07
31-Dec-07
31
1-Jan-08
1-Feb-08
1-Mar-08
31-Jan-08
29-Feb-08
31-Mar-08
31
29
31
1224417985
1,352,508,124
4
25000000
3 77407435.5
7
2000000
8
0
9
0
10
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
104407435
31,000,000
55,022,532
2,000,000
52,200,000
62,600,000
62,600,000
0
0
0
0
265,422,532
245,438
327,494
0
0
0
0
45,000
1,473,881
0
0
0
0
45,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
99,562
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
572,932
1,518,881
1,866,376
1,920,938
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
265,422,532
572,932
1,518,881
1,866,376
1,920,938
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,617,930,656
TRUE
572,932
1,518,881
1,866,376
1,920,938
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
1,966,376
Capital costs - Non-contractor

Non-contractor costs 1
Professional Fees (8%)
Site acquisition
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
TOTAL Non-contractor costs 1
Indexation
Sub-category
S-curve
G - QH & FF&E Commissioning / deca D - QH Costs
C - QH Profession
G - QH & FF&E Commissioning / deca G - Public Artwork
A - No indexation Commissioning / deca H - Site acquisitio
C - BPI - ConstrucCommissioning / deca I - Surrounding Inf
C - BPI - ConstrucCommissioning / deca J - Medical Schoo
A - CPI
A - Construction
A - CPI
A - Construction
A - CPI
A - Construction
A - CPI
A - Construction
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Indexation
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Indexation
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
A - CPI
Total Non-contractor construction costs
Total construction costs (Contractor and Non-contractor)
Sub-category
Sub-category
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
S-curve
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
A - Construction
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ensland Health
d Coast Hospital
ernment Benchmark Model
uts - Construction
es
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
1-Apr-08
30-Apr-08
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-May-08
31-May-08
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Jun-08
30-Jun-08
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-Jul-08
31-Jul-08
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Aug-08
31-Aug-08
31
TRUE
FALSE
1-Sep-08
30-Sep-08
30
TRUE
FALSE
1-Oct-08
31-Oct-08
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Nov-08
30-Nov-08
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Dec-08
31-Dec-08
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jan-09
31-Jan-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Feb-09
28-Feb-09
28
TRUE
TRUE
1-Mar-09
31-Mar-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Apr-09
30-Apr-09
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-May-09
31-May-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jun-09
30-Jun-09
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jul-09
31-Jul-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Aug-09
31-Aug-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
0.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
8.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
1.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
10.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
2.68%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.31%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.48%
4.97%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
3.48%
1.64%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.16%
3.48%
1.64%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.16%
3.48%
1.64%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.22%
3.48%
1.64%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.22%
3.48%
1.64%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.27%
3.69%
0.60%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
4.48%
1.27%
1.07%
83.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.68%
4.48%
1.27%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.24%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
es and timing inputs

Contract Close
Construction commencement date for Contractor cos
Construction period
Operations end
Months in year
Days in year
exation and discount rates
Note: Please insert annual rate applying during th
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

urves
Construction
QH Costs
Statutory Fees
FF&E
Public Artwork
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Site acquisition
Medical School
H
I
J
1-Apr-08
30-Apr-08
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-May-08
31-May-08
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jun-08
30-Jun-08
30
7.53%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jul-08
31-Jul-08
31
92.47%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Aug-08
31-Aug-08
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Sep-08
30-Sep-08
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Oct-08
31-Oct-08
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Nov-08
30-Nov-08
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Dec-08
31-Dec-08
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jan-09
31-Jan-09
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Feb-09
28-Feb-09
28
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Mar-09
31-Mar-09
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Apr-09
30-Apr-09
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-May-09
31-May-09
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
30-Jun-09
31-Jul-09
31-Aug-09
30
31
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
ut costs
Please enter costs as a positive and revenue as a
Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302,408
0
0
302,408
45,959
15,268
302,408
0
0
363,635
137,877
45,805
302,408
0
0
486,089
137,877
45,805
302,408
0
0
486,089
183,835
61,073
302,408
0
0
547,316
183,835
61,073
302,408
0
0
547,316
229,794
76,341
320,744
0
0
626,879
206,815
68,707
389,306
510,225
0
1,175,053
566,729
188,276
389,306
0
0
1,144,311
834,114
277,104
389,306
0
0
1,500,525
1,034,068
343,532
389,306
102,045
0
1,868,951

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49,889
0
0
49,889
7,582
2,519
49,889
0
0
59,990
22,746
7,557
49,889
0
0
80,192
22,746
7,557
49,889
0
0
80,192
30,328
10,075
49,889
0
0
90,292
30,328
10,075
49,889
0
0
90,292
37,910
12,594
52,914
0
0
103,418
34,119
11,335
64,225
84,173
0
193,852
93,495
31,060
64,225
0
0
188,781
137,606
45,715
64,225
0
0
247,546
170,593
56,674
64,225
16,835
0
308,327
Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
342,201
0
0
342,201
52,006
17,277
342,201
0
0
411,484
156,019
51,832
342,201
0
0
550,052
156,019
51,832
342,201
0
0
550,052
208,026
69,109
342,201
0
0
619,335
208,026
69,109
342,201
0
0
619,335
260,032
86,386
362,950
0
0
709,368
234,029
77,748
440,533
577,364
0
1,329,673
641,303
213,050
440,533
0
0
1,294,887
943,872
313,568
440,533
0
0
1,697,973
1,170,137
388,736
440,533
115,473
0
2,114,880

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
247,907
0
0
247,907
37,676
12,516
247,907
0
0
298,099
113,028
37,549
247,907
0
0
398,484
113,028
37,549
247,907
0
0
398,484
150,704
50,066
247,907
0
0
448,676
150,704
50,066
247,907
0
0
448,676
188,380
62,582
262,938
0
0
513,900
169,542
56,324
319,144
418,270
0
963,280
464,591
154,344
319,144
0
0
938,079
683,787
227,164
319,144
0
0
1,230,094
847,704
281,619
319,144
83,654
0
1,532,121

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,705
0
0
200,705
30,502
10,133
200,705
0
0
241,341
91,507
30,400
200,705
0
0
322,612
91,507
30,400
200,705
0
0
322,612
122,010
40,533
200,705
0
0
363,248
122,010
40,533
200,705
0
0
363,248
152,512
50,667
212,874
0
0
416,053
137,261
45,600
258,378
338,631
0
779,870
376,132
124,956
258,378
0
0
759,467
553,593
183,911
258,378
0
0
995,882
686,300
227,999
258,378
67,726
0
1,240,403

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70,123
0
0
70,123
10,657
3,540
70,123
0
0
84,321
31,971
10,621
70,123
0
0
112,716
31,971
10,621
70,123
0
0
112,716
42,628
14,162
70,123
0
0
126,914
42,628
14,162
70,123
0
0
126,914
53,286
17,702
74,375
0
0
145,363
47,957
15,932
90,274
118,313
0
272,476
131,415
43,658
90,274
0
0
265,347
193,417
64,256
90,274
0
0
347,947
239,784
79,660
90,274
23,663
0
433,379
Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & R

Trade costs
FF & E
TOTAL Division of Community, Allied Health Aged
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90,635
0
0
90,635
13,774
4,576
90,635
0
0
108,986
41,323
13,728
90,635
0
0
145,687
41,323
13,728
90,635
0
0
145,687
55,098
18,304
90,635
0
0
164,037
55,098
18,304
90,635
0
0
164,037
68,872
22,880
96,131
0
0
187,883
61,985
20,592
116,680
152,920
0
352,177
169,855
56,428
116,680
0
0
342,963
249,994
83,051
116,680
0
0
449,725
309,922
102,961
116,680
30,584
0
560,147
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Trade costs
FF & E
1-Apr-08
30-Apr-08
30
1-May-08
31-May-08
31
1-Jun-08
30-Jun-08
30
1-Jul-08
31-Jul-08
31
1-Aug-08
31-Aug-08
31
1-Sep-08
30-Sep-08
30
1-Oct-08
31-Oct-08
31
1-Nov-08
30-Nov-08
30
1-Dec-08
31-Dec-08
31
1-Jan-09
31-Jan-09
31
1-Feb-09
28-Feb-09
28
1-Mar-09
31-Mar-09
31
1-Apr-09
30-Apr-09
30
1-May-09
31-May-09
31
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
30-Jun-09
31-Jul-09
31-Aug-09
30
31
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89,041
0
0
89,041
13,532
4,496
89,041
0
0
107,069
40,596
13,487
89,041
0
0
143,124
40,596
13,487
89,041
0
0
143,124
54,128
17,982
89,041
0
0
161,151
54,128
17,982
89,041
0
0
161,151
67,660
22,478
94,440
0
0
184,578
60,894
20,230
114,627
150,230
0
345,982
166,868
55,436
114,627
0
0
336,930
245,596
81,591
114,627
0
0
441,814
304,471
101,149
114,627
30,046
0
550,293
Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
86,837
0
0
86,837
13,197
4,384
86,837
0
0
104,418
39,591
13,153
86,837
0
0
139,581
39,591
13,153
86,837
0
0
139,581
52,789
17,537
86,837
0
0
157,163
52,789
17,537
86,837
0
0
157,163
65,986
21,921
92,102
0
0
180,009
59,387
19,729
111,790
146,512
0
337,418
162,737
54,064
111,790
0
0
328,591
239,517
79,571
111,790
0
0
430,878
296,935
98,646
111,790
29,302
0
536,673

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
227,934
0
0
227,934
34,641
11,508
227,934
0
0
274,083
103,922
34,524
227,934
0
0
366,380
103,922
34,524
227,934
0
0
366,380
138,562
46,032
227,934
0
0
412,529
138,562
46,032
227,934
0
0
412,529
173,203
57,540
241,755
0
0
472,498
155,883
51,786
293,432
384,572
0
885,673
427,161
141,909
293,432
0
0
862,502
628,697
208,862
293,432
0
0
1,130,992
779,409
258,931
293,432
76,914
0
1,408,686

Trade costs
FF & E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
468,166
0
0
468,166
71,150
23,637
468,166
0
0
562,953
213,450
70,911
468,166
0
0
752,527
213,450
70,911
468,166
0
0
752,527
284,600
94,548
468,166
0
0
847,315
284,600
94,548
468,166
0
0
847,315
355,751
118,185
496,553
0
0
970,488
320,176
106,367
602,695
789,893
0
1,819,131
877,369
291,474
602,695
0
0
1,771,539
1,291,314
428,993
602,695
0
0
2,323,003
1,600,869
531,831
602,695
157,979
0
2,893,374
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
459,037
0
69,763
23,176
459,037
0
209,288
69,529
459,037
0
209,288
69,529
459,037
0
279,051
92,705
459,037
0
279,051
92,705
459,037
0
348,814
115,881
486,870
0
313,932
104,293
590,943
774,491
860,261
285,791
590,943
0
1,266,135
420,628
590,943
0
1,569,654
521,461
590,943
154,898
459,037
551,976
737,854
737,854
830,793
830,793
951,565
1,783,660
1,736,996
2,277,707
2,836,956
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
169,802
0
25,806
8,573
169,802
0
77,418
25,719
169,802
0
77,418
25,719
169,802
0
103,223
34,292
169,802
0
103,223
34,292
169,802
0
129,029
42,865
180,098
0
116,126
38,579
218,595
286,491
318,218
105,717
218,595
0
468,355
155,594
218,595
0
580,629
192,893
218,595
57,298
169,802
204,181
272,939
272,939
307,318
307,318
351,992
659,791
642,530
842,544
1,049,415
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158,791
0
24,132
8,017
158,791
0
72,397
24,051
158,791
0
72,397
24,051
158,791
0
96,530
32,069
158,791
0
96,530
32,069
158,791
0
120,662
40,086
168,419
0
108,596
36,077
204,420
267,913
297,583
98,861
204,420
0
437,983
145,504
204,420
0
542,976
180,384
204,420
53,583
158,791
190,940
255,239
255,239
287,389
287,389
329,166
617,006
600,864
787,907
981,363
Central Plant Etc

Trade costs
FF & E
ESD Initiatives
Trade costs
FF & E
External Works
Trade costs
FF & E
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
TOTAL Spare
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
1-Apr-08
30-Apr-08
30
1-May-08
31-May-08
31
1-Jun-08
30-Jun-08
30
1-Jul-08
31-Jul-08
31
1-Aug-08
31-Aug-08
31
1-Sep-08
30-Sep-08
30
1-Oct-08
31-Oct-08
31
1-Nov-08
30-Nov-08
30
1-Dec-08
31-Dec-08
31
1-Jan-09
31-Jan-09
31
1-Feb-09
28-Feb-09
28
1-Mar-09
31-Mar-09
31
1-Apr-09
30-Apr-09
30
1-May-09
31-May-09
31
1-Jun-09
1-Jul-09
1-Aug-09
30-Jun-09
31-Jul-09
31-Aug-09
30
31
31
2,963,476
3,563,476
4,763,476
4,763,476
5,363,476
5,363,476
6,143,163
11,515,042
11,213,786
14,704,535
18,314,970
145,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
445,000
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
3,220,438
1,821,376
0
3,929,008
0
0
830,600
1,821,376
0
48,270,992
0
0
330,600
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
330,600
1,821,376
0
0
0
0
330,600
2,732,730
0
0
0
0
330,600
901,637
0
0
0
0
330,600
901,637
0
0
0
0
330,600
901,637
0
0
0
0
330,600
901,637
0
0
0
0
330,600
901,637
0
0
0
0
330,600
329,667
0
0
0
0
330,600
699,188
0
0
0
0
330,600
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
1,966,376
2,266,376
8,970,822
50,922,968
2,151,976
2,151,976
3,063,330
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
660,267
1,029,788
1,029,788
1,067,188
1,067,188
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
1,966,376
2,266,376
8,970,822
50,922,968
2,151,976
2,151,976
3,063,330
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
1,232,237
660,267
1,029,788
1,029,788
1,067,188
1,067,188
Total construction costs (Contractor and Non-co
1,966,376
2,266,376
8,970,822
50,922,968
2,151,976
2,151,976
6,026,805
4,795,713
5,995,713
5,995,713
6,595,713
6,595,713
6,803,430
12,544,830
12,243,574
15,771,723
19,382,157

Site acquisition
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
ensland Health
d Coast Hospital
uts - Construction
es
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
1-Sep-09
30-Sep-09
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Nov-09
30-Nov-09
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jan-10
31-Jan-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Feb-10
28-Feb-10
28
TRUE
TRUE
1-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-May-10
31-May-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Oct-10
31-Oct-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Nov-10
30-Nov-10
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Dec-10
31-Dec-10
31
TRUE
TRUE
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
7.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1.45%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.56%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.58%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.68%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.80%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.90%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.99%
4.48%
1.27%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.08%
0.79%
0.67%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.16%
0.79%
0.67%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.24%
0.79%
0.67%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.31%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.37%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.43%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.48%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.53%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.58%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Contract Close
Construction period
Operations end
Months in year
Days in year
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

urves
Construction
QH Costs
Statutory Fees
FF&E
Public Artwork
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Site acquisition
Medical School
H
I
J
1-Sep-09
30-Sep-09
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Nov-09
30-Nov-09
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
31
0.00%
15.97%
0.00%
1-Jan-10
31-Jan-10
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Feb-10
28-Feb-10
28
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-May-10
31-May-10
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Oct-10
1-Nov-10
1-Dec-10
31-Oct-10
30-Nov-10
31-Dec-10
31
30
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
39.94%
0.00%
0.00%
23.96%
ut costs
Trade costs
FF & E
1,215,573
403,831
389,306
0
0
2,008,710
1,303,667
433,097
389,306
0
0
2,126,070
1,324,498
440,017
389,306
0
0
2,153,820
1,410,388
468,551
389,306
0
0
2,268,245
1,504,751
499,899
389,306
0
0
2,393,956
1,590,770
528,476
389,306
0
0
2,508,552
1,669,686
554,693
389,306
0
0
2,613,686
1,742,413
578,854
68,562
0
0
2,389,830
1,809,645
601,189
68,562
0
0
2,479,396
1,871,916
621,877
68,562
0
0
2,562,355
1,929,650
641,057
68,562
0
0
2,639,269
1,983,183
658,841
68,562
0
0
2,710,586
2,032,782
675,319
68,562
0
0
2,776,663
2,078,662
690,561
68,562
0
0
2,837,785
2,120,993
704,624
68,562
0
0
2,894,179
2,159,907
717,552
68,562
0
0
2,946,021

Trade costs
FF & E
200,537
66,621
64,225
0
0
331,383
215,070
71,449
64,225
0
0
350,744
218,506
72,591
64,225
0
0
355,322
232,676
77,298
64,225
0
0
374,199
248,243
82,470
64,225
0
0
394,938
262,434
87,184
64,225
0
0
413,844
275,453
91,509
64,225
0
0
431,188
287,451
95,495
11,311
0
0
394,258
298,543
99,180
11,311
0
0
409,034
308,816
102,593
11,311
0
0
422,720
318,340
105,757
11,311
0
0
435,408
327,172
108,691
11,311
0
0
447,174
335,354
111,409
11,311
0
0
458,075
342,923
113,924
11,311
0
0
468,158
349,907
116,244
11,311
0
0
477,462
356,327
118,377
11,311
0
0
486,014
Trade costs
FF & E
1,375,526
456,969
440,533
0
0
2,273,029
1,475,212
490,086
440,533
0
0
2,405,831
1,498,783
497,917
440,533
0
0
2,437,233
1,595,975
530,206
440,533
0
0
2,566,714
1,702,755
565,679
440,533
0
0
2,708,968
1,800,093
598,016
440,533
0
0
2,838,643
1,889,394
627,683
440,533
0
0
2,957,610
1,971,691
655,024
77,584
0
0
2,704,298
2,047,769
680,298
77,584
0
0
2,805,650
2,118,234
703,707
77,584
0
0
2,899,526
2,183,566
725,411
77,584
0
0
2,986,561
2,244,142
745,536
77,584
0
0
3,067,262
2,300,268
764,182
77,584
0
0
3,142,034
2,352,186
781,429
77,584
0
0
3,211,199
2,400,087
797,343
77,584
0
0
3,275,013
2,444,121
811,972
77,584
0
0
3,333,677

Trade costs
FF & E
996,498
331,051
319,144
0
0
1,646,692
1,068,715
355,042
319,144
0
0
1,742,901
1,085,791
360,715
319,144
0
0
1,765,650
1,156,202
384,107
319,144
0
0
1,859,452
1,233,558
409,806
319,144
0
0
1,962,508
1,304,075
433,232
319,144
0
0
2,056,451
1,368,768
454,724
319,144
0
0
2,142,636
1,428,389
474,531
56,205
0
0
1,959,125
1,483,503
492,841
56,205
0
0
2,032,549
1,534,552
509,800
56,205
0
0
2,100,557
1,581,881
525,523
56,205
0
0
2,163,609
1,625,766
540,102
56,205
0
0
2,222,073
1,666,426
553,610
56,205
0
0
2,276,242
1,704,037
566,105
56,205
0
0
2,326,348
1,738,739
577,634
56,205
0
0
2,372,578
1,770,640
588,232
56,205
0
0
2,415,077

Trade costs
FF & E
806,763
268,018
258,378
0
0
1,333,160
865,230
287,442
258,378
0
0
1,411,050
879,055
292,035
258,378
0
0
1,429,468
936,060
310,972
258,378
0
0
1,505,410
998,687
331,778
258,378
0
0
1,588,844
1,055,777
350,744
258,378
0
0
1,664,900
1,108,153
368,144
258,378
0
0
1,734,676
1,156,421
384,180
45,504
0
0
1,586,105
1,201,042
399,003
45,504
0
0
1,645,549
1,242,371
412,733
45,504
0
0
1,700,608
1,280,689
425,463
45,504
0
0
1,751,655
1,316,218
437,266
45,504
0
0
1,798,988
1,349,136
448,202
45,504
0
0
1,842,842
1,379,586
458,318
45,504
0
0
1,883,408
1,407,681
467,651
45,504
0
0
1,920,836
1,433,508
476,232
45,504
0
0
1,955,243

Trade costs
FF & E
281,872
93,642
90,274
0
0
465,787
302,299
100,428
90,274
0
0
493,001
307,129
102,033
90,274
0
0
499,436
327,046
108,649
90,274
0
0
525,969
348,927
115,919
90,274
0
0
555,120
368,874
122,545
90,274
0
0
581,693
387,173
128,624
90,274
0
0
606,071
404,037
134,227
15,898
0
0
554,163
419,627
139,406
15,898
0
0
574,932
434,067
144,203
15,898
0
0
594,169
447,455
148,651
15,898
0
0
612,004
459,868
152,775
15,898
0
0
628,541
471,369
156,596
15,898
0
0
643,863
482,008
160,130
15,898
0
0
658,036
491,824
163,391
15,898
0
0
671,113
500,847
166,389
15,898
0
0
683,134

Trade costs
FF & E
364,322
121,033
116,680
0
0
602,034
390,724
129,804
116,680
0
0
637,208
396,967
131,878
116,680
0
0
645,525
422,710
140,430
116,680
0
0
679,819
450,991
149,826
116,680
0
0
717,497
476,772
158,391
116,680
0
0
751,842
500,424
166,248
116,680
0
0
783,352
522,222
173,489
20,549
0
0
716,260
542,372
180,184
20,549
0
0
743,104
561,035
186,384
20,549
0
0
767,968
578,339
192,132
20,549
0
0
791,020
594,383
197,462
20,549
0
0
812,394
609,249
202,401
20,549
0
0
832,198
622,999
206,969
20,549
0
0
850,517
635,686
211,184
20,549
0
0
867,419
647,349
215,059
20,549
0
0
882,957
10
1-Oct-10
1-Nov-10
1-Dec-10
31-Oct-10
30-Nov-10
31-Dec-10
31
30
31
1-Sep-09
30-Sep-09
30
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
31
1-Nov-09
30-Nov-09
30
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
31
1-Jan-10
31-Jan-10
31
1-Feb-10
28-Feb-10
28
1-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
31
1-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
30
1-May-10
31-May-10
31
1-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
30
1-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
31
1-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
31
1-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
30
357,913
118,904
114,627
0
0
591,444
383,851
127,521
114,627
0
0
625,999
389,984
129,558
114,627
0
0
634,170
415,274
137,960
114,627
0
0
667,861
443,058
147,190
114,627
0
0
704,875
468,386
155,604
114,627
0
0
738,617
491,622
163,324
114,627
0
0
769,572
513,035
170,438
20,187
0
0
703,660
532,831
177,014
20,187
0
0
730,032
551,166
183,105
20,187
0
0
754,459
568,165
188,753
20,187
0
0
777,105
583,928
193,989
20,187
0
0
798,104
598,532
198,841
20,187
0
0
817,559
612,040
203,328
20,187
0
0
835,556
624,504
207,469
20,187
0
0
852,161
635,962
211,276
20,187
0
0
867,425
349,054
115,961
111,790
0
0
576,805
374,350
124,364
111,790
0
0
610,505
380,332
126,352
111,790
0
0
618,473
404,995
134,545
111,790
0
0
651,331
432,092
143,547
111,790
0
0
687,429
456,792
151,753
111,790
0
0
720,335
479,453
159,281
111,790
0
0
750,524
500,337
166,219
19,688
0
0
686,244
519,643
172,633
19,688
0
0
711,963
537,524
178,573
19,688
0
0
735,785
554,103
184,081
19,688
0
0
757,871
569,475
189,187
19,688
0
0
778,350
583,717
193,919
19,688
0
0
797,324
596,892
198,296
19,688
0
0
814,875
609,047
202,334
19,688
0
0
831,069
620,221
206,046
19,688
0
0
845,955

Trade costs
FF & E
916,215
304,380
293,432
0
0
1,514,027
982,614
326,438
293,432
0
0
1,602,484
998,315
331,654
293,432
0
0
1,623,401
1,063,053
353,161
293,432
0
0
1,709,646
1,134,177
376,790
293,432
0
0
1,804,398
1,199,012
398,329
293,432
0
0
1,890,773
1,258,494
418,089
293,432
0
0
1,970,015
1,313,311
436,300
51,677
0
0
1,801,288
1,363,985
453,135
51,677
0
0
1,868,797
1,410,921
468,728
51,677
0
0
1,931,326
1,454,437
483,184
51,677
0
0
1,989,299
1,494,786
496,589
51,677
0
0
2,043,052
1,532,170
509,009
51,677
0
0
2,092,856
1,566,752
520,497
51,677
0
0
2,138,926
1,598,658
531,097
51,677
0
0
2,181,432
1,627,989
540,841
51,677
0
0
2,220,507

Trade costs
FF & E
1,881,862
625,181
602,695
0
0
3,109,738
2,018,242
670,489
602,695
0
0
3,291,426
2,050,490
681,202
602,695
0
0
3,334,387
2,183,460
725,376
602,695
0
0
3,511,531
2,329,545
773,908
602,695
0
0
3,706,148
2,462,714
818,148
602,695
0
0
3,883,557
2,584,886
858,736
602,695
0
0
4,046,317
2,697,477
896,140
106,143
0
0
3,699,760
2,801,559
930,718
106,143
0
0
3,838,420
2,897,964
962,745
106,143
0
0
3,966,851
2,987,344
992,438
106,143
0
0
4,085,924
3,070,219
1,019,970
106,143
0
0
4,196,332
3,147,005
1,045,480
106,143
0
0
4,298,627
3,218,033
1,069,076
106,143
0
0
4,393,252
3,283,567
1,090,847
106,143
0
0
4,480,557
3,343,811
1,110,861
106,143
0
0
4,560,815
1,845,168
612,991
590,943
0
1,978,889
657,415
590,943
0
2,010,508
667,919
590,943
0
2,140,884
711,232
590,943
0
2,284,122
758,817
590,943
0
2,414,693
802,195
590,943
0
2,534,484
841,991
590,943
0
2,644,879
878,666
104,073
0
2,746,932
912,570
104,073
0
2,841,457
943,972
104,073
0
2,929,094
973,086
104,073
0
3,010,353
1,000,082
104,073
0
3,085,642
1,025,094
104,073
0
3,155,285
1,048,230
104,073
0
3,219,541
1,069,577
104,073
0
3,278,610
1,089,201
104,073
0
3,049,102
3,227,247
3,269,370
3,443,060
3,633,882
3,807,832
3,967,418
3,627,619
3,763,575
3,889,502
4,006,253
4,114,508
4,214,809
4,307,588
4,393,191
4,471,884
682,544
226,751
218,595
0
732,008
243,184
218,595
0
743,705
247,069
218,595
0
791,932
263,091
218,595
0
844,917
280,693
218,595
0
893,216
296,739
218,595
0
937,528
311,460
218,595
0
978,364
325,026
38,498
0
1,016,114
337,568
38,498
0
1,051,080
349,184
38,498
0
1,083,498
359,953
38,498
0
1,113,556
369,939
38,498
0
1,141,406
379,191
38,498
0
1,167,168
387,750
38,498
0
1,190,937
395,646
38,498
0
1,212,787
402,905
38,498
0
1,127,890
1,193,787
1,209,369
1,273,618
1,344,205
1,408,551
1,467,583
1,341,888
1,392,180
1,438,761
1,481,948
1,521,993
1,559,095
1,593,415
1,625,080
1,654,189
638,282
212,046
204,420
0
684,539
227,414
204,420
0
695,477
231,047
204,420
0
740,577
246,030
204,420
0
790,126
262,491
204,420
0
835,294
277,496
204,420
0
876,731
291,263
204,420
0
914,920
303,949
36,001
0
950,222
315,677
36,001
0
982,920
326,540
36,001
0
1,013,235
336,611
36,001
0
1,041,345
345,949
36,001
0
1,067,389
354,602
36,001
0
1,091,480
362,605
36,001
0
1,113,707
369,989
36,001
0
1,134,141
376,778
36,001
0
1,054,749
1,116,373
1,130,944
1,191,027
1,257,037
1,317,210
1,372,414
1,254,870
1,301,900
1,345,461
1,385,848
1,423,295
1,457,991
1,490,086
1,519,698
1,546,919
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Trade costs
FF & E
Trade costs
FF & E
Central Plant Etc

Trade costs
FF & E
ESD Initiatives
Trade costs
FF & E
External Works
Trade costs
FF & E
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
TOTAL Spare
11
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
1-Sep-09
30-Sep-09
30
1-Oct-09
31-Oct-09
31
1-Nov-09
30-Nov-09
30
1-Dec-09
31-Dec-09
31
1-Jan-10
31-Jan-10
31
1-Feb-10
28-Feb-10
28
1-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
31
1-Apr-10
30-Apr-10
30
1-May-10
31-May-10
31
1-Jun-10
30-Jun-10
30
1-Jul-10
31-Jul-10
31
1-Aug-10
31-Aug-10
31
1-Sep-10
30-Sep-10
30
1-Oct-10
1-Nov-10
1-Dec-10
31-Oct-10
30-Nov-10
31-Dec-10
31
30
31
19,684,548
20,834,627
21,106,570
22,227,883
23,459,805
24,582,799
25,613,063
23,419,367
24,297,080
25,110,045
25,863,775
26,562,652
27,210,178
27,809,150
28,361,787
28,869,818
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
10,000,000
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
699,188
0
0
0
0
368,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
368,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
368,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
25,000,000
15,000,000
1,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
11,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
737,520
737,520
737,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
40,759,520
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
1,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
11,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
1,067,188
737,520
737,520
737,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
40,759,520
20,751,736
21,901,814
22,173,758
33,295,071
24,526,993
25,649,987
26,680,251
24,156,887
25,034,600
25,847,565
26,623,296
27,322,173
27,969,698
28,568,670
29,121,307
69,629,339

Site acquisition
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
12
ensland Health
d Coast Hospital
uts - Construction
es
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
1-Jan-11
31-Jan-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Feb-11
28-Feb-11
28
TRUE
TRUE
1-Mar-11
31-Mar-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Apr-11
30-Apr-11
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-May-11
31-May-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jun-11
30-Jun-11
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jul-11
31-Jul-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Aug-11
31-Aug-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Sep-11
30-Sep-11
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Oct-11
31-Oct-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Nov-11
30-Nov-11
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Dec-11
31-Dec-11
31
TRUE
TRUE
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
2.62%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.66%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.70%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.73%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.75%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.78%
0.79%
0.67%
1.26%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.80%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.81%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.82%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.83%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.83%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.83%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%

Contract Close
Construction period
Operations end
Months in year
Days in year
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

urves
Construction
QH Costs
Statutory Fees
FF&E
Public Artwork
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
13
1-Jan-11
31-Jan-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Feb-11
28-Feb-11
28
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Mar-11
31-Mar-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-May-11
31-May-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jun-11
30-Jun-11
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Trade costs
FF & E
2,195,505
729,378
68,562
0
0
2,993,445
2,227,857
740,126
68,562
0
0
3,036,544
2,257,007
749,810
68,562
0
604,271
3,679,650
2,282,974
758,436
68,562
0
604,271
3,714,243
2,305,750
766,003
68,562
0
604,271
3,744,586
2,325,303
772,499
68,562
0
604,271
3,770,635

Trade costs
FF & E
362,199
120,328
11,311
0
0
493,838
367,536
122,101
11,311
0
0
500,948
372,345
123,698
11,311
0
59,980
567,334
376,629
125,122
11,311
0
59,980
573,041
380,387
126,370
11,311
0
59,980
578,047
Trade costs
FF & E
2,484,403
825,354
77,584
0
0
3,387,341
2,521,012
837,516
77,584
0
0
3,436,112
2,553,998
848,474
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,551,537
2,583,382
858,236
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,590,683

Trade costs
FF & E
1,799,822
597,926
56,205
0
0
2,453,954
1,826,343
606,737
56,205
0
0
2,489,286
1,850,240
614,676
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,796,544

Trade costs
FF & E
1,457,133
484,080
45,504
0
0
1,986,718
1,478,605
491,214
45,504
0
0
2,015,322

Trade costs
FF & E
509,102
169,131
15,898
0
0
694,131

Trade costs
FF & E
658,018
218,603
20,549
0
0
897,170
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Site acquisition
Medical School
H
I
J
1-Apr-11
30-Apr-11
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jul-11
31-Jul-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Aug-11
31-Aug-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Sep-11
30-Sep-11
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2,341,571
777,903
68,562
0
604,271
3,792,307
2,354,464
782,186
68,562
0
604,271
3,809,483
2,363,855
785,306
68,562
0
604,271
3,821,994
383,612
127,441
11,311
0
59,980
582,344
386,296
128,333
11,311
0
59,980
585,920
388,423
129,040
11,311
0
59,980
588,753
2,609,155
866,798
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,625,018
2,631,281
874,149
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,654,495
2,649,690
880,264
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,679,019
1,871,527
621,748
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,824,903
1,890,198
627,951
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,849,778
1,906,227
633,276
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,871,132
1,497,952
497,641
45,504
0
277,225
2,318,321
1,515,186
503,366
45,504
0
277,225
2,341,280
1,530,302
508,388
45,504
0
277,225
2,361,419
516,604
171,623
15,898
0
0
704,125
523,363
173,869
15,898
0
103,583
816,714
529,385
175,869
15,898
0
103,583
824,735
667,715
221,824
20,549
0
0
910,088
676,451
224,727
20,549
0
93,711
1,015,438
684,234
227,312
20,549
0
93,711
1,025,806
1-Oct-11
31-Oct-11
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Nov-11
30-Nov-11
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Dec-11
31-Dec-11
31
0.00%
31.95%
55.91%
2,369,578
787,207
68,562
0
604,271
3,829,618
2,371,417
787,818
68,562
0
604,271
3,832,068
2,369,097
787,048
68,562
0
604,271
3,828,978
389,972
129,554
11,311
0
59,980
590,817
390,917
129,868
11,311
0
59,980
592,075
391,220
129,969
11,311
0
59,980
592,479
390,837
129,842
11,311
0
59,980
591,970
2,664,279
885,111
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,698,455
2,674,905
888,641
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,712,612
2,681,381
890,793
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,721,239
2,683,463
891,484
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,724,012
2,680,838
890,612
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,720,515
1,919,564
637,706
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,888,899
1,930,133
641,217
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,902,979
1,937,831
643,775
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,913,235
1,942,523
645,333
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,919,485
1,944,030
645,834
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,921,493
1,942,129
645,203
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,918,960
1,543,279
512,699
45,504
0
277,225
2,378,707
1,554,076
516,286
45,504
0
277,225
2,393,091
1,562,633
519,129
45,504
0
277,225
2,404,490
1,568,865
521,199
45,504
0
277,225
2,412,793
1,572,664
522,461
45,504
0
277,225
2,417,853
1,573,884
522,867
45,504
0
277,225
2,419,480
1,572,345
522,355
45,504
0
277,225
2,417,429
534,666
177,624
15,898
0
103,583
831,771
539,200
179,130
15,898
0
103,583
837,811
542,972
180,383
15,898
0
103,583
842,837
545,962
181,376
15,898
0
103,583
846,820
548,140
182,100
15,898
0
103,583
849,721
549,467
182,541
15,898
0
103,583
851,489
549,893
182,682
15,898
0
103,583
852,057
549,355
182,504
15,898
0
103,583
851,340
691,060
229,580
20,549
0
93,711
1,034,900
696,920
231,527
20,549
0
93,711
1,042,707
701,796
233,147
20,549
0
93,711
1,049,203
705,660
234,430
20,549
0
93,711
1,054,351
708,475
235,365
20,549
0
93,711
1,058,100
710,190
235,935
20,549
0
93,711
1,060,385
710,741
236,118
20,549
0
93,711
1,061,120
710,046
235,887
20,549
0
93,711
1,060,194
ut costs
14
1-Jan-11
31-Jan-11
31
1-Feb-11
28-Feb-11
28
1-Mar-11
31-Mar-11
31
646,444
214,758
20,187
0
0
881,389
655,969
217,922
20,187
0
0
894,079
664,552
220,774
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,939,038
630,443
209,442
19,688
0
0
859,573
639,733
212,528
19,688
0
0
871,949

Trade costs
FF & E
1,654,820
549,754
51,677
0
0
2,256,251

Trade costs
FF & E
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Trade costs
FF & E
Trade costs
FF & E
Central Plant Etc

Trade costs
FF & E
ESD Initiatives
Trade costs
FF & E
External Works
Trade costs
FF & E
1-May-11
31-May-11
31
1-Jun-11
30-Jun-11
30
1-Aug-11
31-Aug-11
31
1-Sep-11
30-Sep-11
30
1-Nov-11
30-Nov-11
30
1-Dec-11
31-Dec-11
31
672,198
223,314
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,949,224
678,904
225,542
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,958,158
684,661
227,454
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,965,828
689,451
229,045
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,972,209
693,247
230,307
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,977,266
696,012
231,225
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,980,950
697,697
231,785
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,983,195
698,239
231,965
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,983,916
697,556
231,738
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,983,006
648,104
215,309
19,688
0
310,367
1,193,467
655,560
217,786
19,688
0
310,367
1,203,401
662,100
219,959
19,688
0
310,367
1,212,114
667,715
221,824
19,688
0
310,367
1,219,594
672,386
223,376
19,688
0
310,367
1,225,817
676,088
224,606
19,688
0
310,367
1,230,749
678,785
225,502
19,688
0
310,367
1,234,341
680,428
226,048
19,688
0
310,367
1,236,531
680,957
226,223
19,688
0
310,367
1,237,234
680,291
226,002
19,688
0
310,367
1,236,347
1,679,204
557,855
51,677
0
0
2,288,737
1,701,176
565,155
51,677
0
466,173
2,784,180
1,720,748
571,657
51,677
0
466,173
2,810,254
1,737,915
577,360
51,677
0
466,173
2,833,125
1,752,652
582,256
51,677
0
466,173
2,852,759
1,764,914
586,329
51,677
0
466,173
2,869,094
1,774,632
589,558
51,677
0
466,173
2,882,040
1,781,710
591,909
51,677
0
466,173
2,891,469
1,786,023
593,342
51,677
0
466,173
2,897,216
1,787,410
593,803
51,677
0
466,173
2,899,063
1,785,662
593,222
51,677
0
466,173
2,896,734
3,398,920
1,129,169
106,143
0
0
4,634,232
3,449,005
1,145,808
106,143
0
0
4,700,956
3,494,133
1,160,800
106,143
0
30,349
4,791,425
3,534,333
1,174,155
106,143
0
30,349
4,844,980
3,569,594
1,185,870
106,143
0
30,349
4,891,955
3,599,864
1,195,926
106,143
0
30,349
4,932,281
3,625,050
1,204,293
106,143
0
30,349
4,965,834
3,645,009
1,210,924
106,143
0
30,349
4,992,424
3,659,547
1,215,753
106,143
0
30,349
5,011,792
3,668,407
1,218,697
106,143
0
30,349
5,023,595
3,671,255
1,219,643
106,143
0
30,349
5,027,388
3,667,664
1,218,450
106,143
0
30,349
5,022,604
3,332,645
1,107,152
104,073
0
3,381,753
1,123,466
104,073
0
3,426,002
1,138,166
104,073
0
3,465,418
1,151,261
104,073
0
3,499,991
1,162,746
104,073
0
3,529,671
1,172,607
104,073
0
3,554,365
1,180,810
104,073
0
3,573,935
1,187,312
104,073
0
3,588,190
1,192,047
104,073
0
3,596,877
1,194,933
104,073
0
3,599,669
1,195,861
104,073
0
3,596,148
1,194,691
104,073
0
4,543,870
4,609,293
4,668,241
4,720,751
4,766,810
4,806,350
4,839,249
4,865,320
4,884,311
4,895,883
4,899,603
4,894,912
1,232,775
409,545
38,498
0
1,250,940
415,580
38,498
0
1,267,308
421,018
38,498
0
1,281,889
425,862
38,498
0
1,294,678
430,110
38,498
0
1,305,656
433,758
38,498
0
1,314,791
436,792
38,498
0
1,322,030
439,197
38,498
0
1,327,303
440,949
38,498
0
1,330,517
442,016
38,498
0
1,331,549
442,360
38,498
0
1,330,247
441,927
38,498
0
1,680,818
1,705,018
1,726,823
1,746,248
1,763,285
1,777,911
1,790,081
1,799,725
1,806,750
1,811,030
1,812,406
1,810,671
1,152,832
382,987
36,001
0
1,169,820
388,631
36,001
0
1,185,126
393,716
36,001
0
1,198,761
398,245
36,001
0
1,210,721
402,219
36,001
0
1,220,988
405,629
36,001
0
1,229,530
408,467
36,001
0
1,236,300
410,716
36,001
0
1,241,231
412,354
36,001
0
1,244,236
413,353
36,001
0
1,245,202
413,674
36,001
0
1,243,984
413,269
36,001
0
1,571,821
1,594,452
1,614,843
1,633,008
1,648,940
1,662,618
1,673,998
1,683,017
1,689,586
1,693,590
1,694,876
1,693,254
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
TOTAL Spare
1-Apr-11
30-Apr-11
30
1-Jul-11
31-Jul-11
31
1-Oct-11
31-Oct-11
31
15
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
1-Jan-11
31-Jan-11
31
1-Feb-11
28-Feb-11
28
1-Mar-11
31-Mar-11
31
1-Apr-11
30-Apr-11
30
1-May-11
31-May-11
31
1-Jun-11
30-Jun-11
30
1-Jul-11
31-Jul-11
31
1-Aug-11
31-Aug-11
31
1-Sep-11
30-Sep-11
30
1-Oct-11
31-Oct-11
31
1-Nov-11
30-Nov-11
30
1-Dec-11
31-Dec-11
31
29,334,550
29,756,909
37,463,556
37,802,557
38,099,907
38,355,172
38,567,558
38,735,872
38,858,471
38,933,182
38,957,197
38,926,914
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
390,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
20,000,000
35,000,000
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
55,781,520
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
759,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
55,781,520
30,094,071
30,516,429
38,223,077
38,562,078
38,859,427
39,114,692
39,349,078
39,517,392
39,639,991
39,714,703
39,738,717
94,708,435

Site acquisition
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
16
ensland Health
d Coast Hospital
uts - Construction
es
Period start date
Period end date
Days in period
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Feb-12
29-Feb-12
29
TRUE
TRUE
1-Mar-12
31-Mar-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Apr-12
30-Apr-12
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-May-12
31-May-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jun-12
30-Jun-12
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Sep-12
30-Sep-12
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Oct-12
31-Oct-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-Dec-12
31-Dec-12
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 1-Mar-13

31-Jan-13 28-Feb-13 31-Mar-13
31
28
31
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
1-Apr-13
30-Apr-13
30
TRUE
TRUE
1-May-13
31-May-13
31
TRUE
TRUE
1-Jun-13
30-Jun-13
30
TRUE
TRUE
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
6.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
2.50%
4.00%
2.50%
4.00%
3.20%
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2.82%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.81%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.79%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.76%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.72%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.67%
0.79%
0.67%
1.33%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.61%
0.79%
0.67%
3.10%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.53%
0.79%
0.67%
3.10%
0.00%
4.35%
100.00%
2.43%
0.42%
0.41%
3.10%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
2.18%
0.42%
0.41%
2.74%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
1.97%
0.42%
0.41%
2.74%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
0.96%
0.42%
0.41%
1.78%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
0.06%
0.42%
0.41%
1.78%
0.00%
4.35%
0.00%
0.06%
0.42%
0.41%
1.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.42%
0.41%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.40%
0.28%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Contract Close
Construction period
Operations end
Months in year
Days in year
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
No indexation
CPI
BPI - Construction
Operating Cost
Employee Cost
Lifecycle Cost
QH & FF&E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

urves
Construction
QH Costs
Statutory Fees
FF&E
Public Artwork
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
17
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Feb-12
29-Feb-12
29
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Mar-12
31-Mar-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-May-12
31-May-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jun-12
30-Jun-12
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Trade costs
FF & E
2,362,266
784,778
68,562
0
604,271
3,819,877
2,350,469
780,859
68,562
0
604,271
3,804,160
2,333,114
775,094
68,562
0
604,271
3,781,041
2,309,420
767,222
68,562
0
604,271
3,749,475
2,278,324
756,891
68,562
0
604,271
3,708,048
2,238,337
743,607
68,562
0
604,271
3,654,776

Trade costs
FF & E
389,710
129,467
11,311
0
59,980
590,468
387,764
128,821
11,311
0
59,980
587,875
384,901
127,870
11,311
0
59,980
584,061
380,992
126,571
11,311
0
59,980
578,854
375,862
124,867
11,311
0
59,980
572,019
Trade costs
FF & E
2,673,108
888,044
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,710,217
2,659,758
883,609
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,692,432
2,640,120
877,085
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,666,270
2,613,308
868,178
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,630,551

Trade costs
FF & E
1,936,529
643,342
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,911,500
1,926,858
640,129
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,898,615
1,912,631
635,403
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,879,662

Trade costs
FF & E
1,567,811
520,849
45,504
0
277,225
2,411,388
1,559,981
518,248
45,504
0
277,225
2,400,958

Trade costs
FF & E
547,771
181,977
15,898
0
103,583
849,230
707,999
235,207
20,549
0
93,711
1,057,466
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Site acquisition
Medical School
H
I
J
1-Apr-12
30-Apr-12
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Sep-12
30-Sep-12
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2,187,278
726,645
68,562
0
604,271
3,586,756
2,121,757
704,878
68,562
0
604,271
3,499,468
2,036,021
676,395
36,737
0
604,271
3,353,423
369,265
122,675
11,311
0
59,980
563,231
360,842
119,877
11,311
0
59,980
552,009
350,033
116,286
11,311
0
59,980
537,609
2,578,120
856,488
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,583,672
2,532,871
841,455
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,523,391
2,475,094
822,261
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,446,420
1,893,207
628,950
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,853,785
1,867,715
620,481
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,819,825
1,834,934
609,591
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,776,154
1,548,463
514,421
45,504
0
277,225
2,385,613
1,532,738
509,197
45,504
0
277,225
2,364,663
1,512,099
502,341
45,504
0
277,225
2,337,169
545,035
181,068
15,898
0
103,583
845,586
541,011
179,732
15,898
0
103,583
840,224
535,517
177,906
15,898
0
103,583
832,905
704,463
234,033
20,549
0
93,711
1,052,755
699,262
232,305
20,549
0
93,711
1,045,826
692,160
229,945
20,549
0
93,711
1,036,365
1-Oct-12
31-Oct-12
31
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 1-Mar-13
1-Apr-13
1-May-13
1-Jun-13
31-Jan-13 28-Feb-13 31-Mar-13
30-Apr-13
31-May-13
30-Jun-13
31
28
31
30
31
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
30
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1-Dec-12
31-Dec-12
31
0.00%
12.14%
20.13%
1,826,986
606,951
36,737
0
604,271
3,074,945
1,650,826
548,428
36,737
0
604,271
2,840,262
804,130
267,143
36,737
0
604,271
1,712,281
52,402
17,409
36,737
0
604,271
710,819
52,402
17,409
36,737
0
0
106,548
26,944
8,951
36,737
0
0
72,632
0
0
34,607
0
0
34,607
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335,889
111,587
6,061
0
59,980
513,516
301,404
100,131
6,061
0
59,980
467,574
272,342
90,476
6,061
0
59,980
428,858
132,660
44,071
6,061
0
59,980
242,771
8,645
2,872
6,061
0
59,980
77,557
8,645
2,872
6,061
0
0
17,578
4,445
1,477
6,061
0
0
11,982
0
0
5,709
0
0
5,709
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,400,951
797,630
77,584
0
2,071,481
5,347,646
2,303,933
765,399
41,571
0
2,071,481
5,182,384
2,067,392
686,817
41,571
0
2,071,481
4,867,261
1,868,052
620,593
41,571
0
2,071,481
4,601,698
909,942
302,296
41,571
0
2,071,481
3,325,290
59,298
19,700
41,571
0
2,071,481
2,192,050
59,298
19,700
41,571
0
0
120,568
30,489
10,129
41,571
0
0
82,189
0
0
39,161
0
0
39,161
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,793,078
595,686
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,720,392
1,739,365
577,842
56,205
0
1,275,423
3,648,836
1,669,081
554,492
30,116
0
1,275,423
3,529,112
1,497,719
497,563
30,116
0
1,275,423
3,300,822
1,353,308
449,588
30,116
0
1,275,423
3,108,435
659,206
218,998
30,116
0
1,275,423
2,183,743
42,958
14,271
30,116
0
1,275,423
1,362,769
42,958
14,271
30,116
0
0
87,346
22,088
7,338
30,116
0
0
59,542
0
0
28,370
0
0
28,370
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,485,560
493,524
45,504
0
277,225
2,301,813
1,451,673
482,266
45,504
0
277,225
2,256,668
1,408,188
467,820
45,504
0
277,225
2,198,736
1,351,285
448,916
24,382
0
277,225
2,101,808
1,212,551
402,827
24,382
0
277,225
1,916,985
1,095,636
363,986
24,382
0
277,225
1,761,228
533,692
177,300
24,382
0
277,225
1,012,599
34,779
11,554
24,382
0
277,225
347,939
34,779
11,554
24,382
0
0
70,715
17,882
5,941
24,382
0
0
48,205
0
0
22,968
0
0
22,968
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
528,306
175,511
15,898
0
103,583
823,299
519,034
172,430
15,898
0
103,583
810,946
507,194
168,497
15,898
0
103,583
795,173
492,001
163,450
15,898
0
103,583
774,932
472,120
156,845
8,519
0
103,583
741,067
423,648
140,742
8,519
0
103,583
676,492
382,800
127,171
8,519
0
103,583
622,073
186,465
61,946
8,519
0
103,583
360,513
12,151
4,037
8,519
0
103,583
128,290
12,151
4,037
8,519
0
0
24,707
6,248
2,076
8,519
0
0
16,842
0
0
8,025
0
0
8,025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
682,840
226,849
20,549
0
93,711
1,023,949
670,856
222,868
20,549
0
93,711
1,007,983
655,553
217,784
20,549
0
93,711
987,597
635,915
211,260
20,549
0
93,711
961,435
610,219
202,723
11,010
0
93,711
917,664
547,569
181,910
11,010
0
93,711
834,201
494,772
164,370
11,010
0
93,711
763,864
241,007
80,066
11,010
0
93,711
425,795
15,706
5,218
11,010
0
93,711
125,645
15,706
5,218
11,010
0
0
31,934
8,075
2,683
11,010
0
0
21,769
0
0
10,372
0
0
10,372
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ut costs

Trade costs
FF & E
18
1-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
30
1-Dec-12
31-Dec-12
31
1-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 1-Mar-13
1-Apr-13
1-May-13
1-Jun-13
31-Jan-13 28-Feb-13 31-Mar-13
30-Apr-13
31-May-13
30-Jun-13
31
28
31
30
31
30
537,937
178,710
10,817
0
2,033,525
2,760,989
486,069
161,479
10,817
0
2,033,525
2,691,889
236,768
78,658
10,817
0
2,033,525
2,359,767
15,429
5,126
10,817
0
2,033,525
2,064,897
15,429
5,126
10,817
0
0
31,372
7,933
2,636
10,817
0
0
21,386
0
0
10,190
0
0
10,190
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
584,647
194,228
10,549
0
310,367
1,099,791
524,622
174,287
10,549
0
310,367
1,019,825
474,038
157,482
10,549
0
310,367
952,435
230,907
76,711
10,549
0
310,367
628,534
15,047
4,999
10,549
0
310,367
340,962
15,047
4,999
10,549
0
0
30,595
7,737
2,570
10,549
0
0
20,856
0
0
9,938
0
0
9,938
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,599,234
531,288
51,677
0
466,173
2,648,372
1,534,611
509,820
27,690
0
466,173
2,538,294
1,377,056
457,477
27,690
0
466,173
2,328,396
1,244,278
413,367
27,690
0
466,173
2,151,508
606,097
201,354
27,690
0
466,173
1,301,314
39,497
13,122
27,690
0
466,173
546,482
39,497
13,122
27,690
0
0
80,309
20,308
6,747
27,690
0
0
54,745
0
0
26,085
0
0
26,085
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,386,184
1,124,938
106,143
0
30,349
4,647,614
3,284,749
1,091,240
106,143
0
30,349
4,512,481
3,152,018
1,047,145
56,873
0
30,349
4,286,386
2,828,406
939,637
56,873
0
30,349
3,855,265
2,555,688
849,036
56,873
0
30,349
3,491,946
1,244,895
413,572
56,873
0
30,349
1,745,689
81,126
26,951
56,873
0
30,349
195,299
81,126
26,951
56,873
0
0
164,950
41,712
13,857
56,873
0
0
112,443
0
0
53,576
0
0
53,576
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,397,661
1,128,751
104,073
0
3,320,157
1,103,003
104,073
0
3,220,700
1,069,962
104,073
0
3,090,558
1,026,727
55,765
0
2,773,255
921,315
55,765
0
2,505,855
832,481
55,765
0
1,220,621
405,508
55,765
0
79,544
26,426
55,765
0
79,544
26,426
55,765
0
40,899
13,587
55,765
0
0
0
52,532
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,711,348
4,630,485
4,527,233
4,394,735
4,173,049
3,750,335
3,394,100
1,681,893
161,734
161,734
110,251
52,532
1,296,738
430,795
38,498
0
1,279,278
424,994
38,498
0
1,256,825
417,535
38,498
0
1,228,156
408,011
38,498
0
1,191,365
395,788
38,498
0
1,143,225
379,795
20,628
0
1,025,852
340,802
20,628
0
926,938
307,942
20,628
0
451,518
150,001
20,628
0
29,424
9,775
20,628
0
29,424
9,775
20,628
0
15,129
5,026
20,628
0
0
0
19,432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,783,755
1,766,030
1,742,769
1,712,857
1,674,664
1,625,651
1,543,648
1,387,282
1,255,508
622,147
59,827
59,827
40,783
19,432
1,234,202
410,019
36,001
0
1,225,089
406,992
36,001
0
1,212,648
402,859
36,001
0
1,196,320
397,434
36,001
0
1,175,323
390,459
36,001
0
1,148,513
381,552
36,001
0
1,114,108
370,123
36,001
0
1,069,089
355,167
19,290
0
959,328
318,702
19,290
0
866,828
287,973
19,290
0
422,239
140,274
19,290
0
27,516
9,141
19,290
0
27,516
9,141
19,290
0
14,148
4,700
19,290
0
0
0
18,172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,688,475
1,680,222
1,668,082
1,651,508
1,629,755
1,601,783
1,566,066
1,520,232
1,443,546
1,297,320
1,174,091
581,802
55,947
55,947
38,138
18,172
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
Trade costs
FF & E
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
31
1-Feb-12
29-Feb-12
29
1-Mar-12
31-Mar-12
31
695,545
231,070
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,980,327
692,071
229,916
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,975,699
686,961
228,218
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,968,892
Trade costs
FF & E
678,329
225,350
19,688
0
310,367
1,233,734
674,941
224,225
19,688
0
310,367
1,229,221

Trade costs
FF & E
1,780,513
591,511
51,677
0
466,173
2,889,874

Trade costs
FF & E
Central Plant Etc
Trade costs
FF & E
ESD Initiatives
Trade costs
FF & E
External Works
Trade costs
FF & E
1-May-12
31-May-12
31
1-Jun-12
30-Jun-12
30
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
31
1-Sep-12
30-Sep-12
30
679,985
225,900
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,959,597
670,829
222,859
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,947,400
659,055
218,947
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,931,714
644,021
213,953
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,911,686
624,729
207,544
20,187
0
2,033,525
2,885,985
599,485
199,157
10,817
0
2,033,525
2,842,984
669,958
222,569
19,688
0
310,367
1,222,582
663,154
220,309
19,688
0
310,367
1,213,517
654,225
217,343
19,688
0
310,367
1,201,622
642,742
213,528
19,688
0
310,367
1,186,325
628,081
208,657
19,688
0
310,367
1,166,792
609,266
202,407
19,688
0
310,367
1,141,727
1,771,620
588,557
51,677
0
466,173
2,878,028
1,758,540
584,212
51,677
0
466,173
2,860,602
1,740,681
578,279
51,677
0
466,173
2,836,810
1,717,243
570,492
51,677
0
466,173
2,805,585
1,687,103
560,479
51,677
0
466,173
2,765,433
1,648,619
547,694
51,677
0
466,173
2,714,163
3,657,088
1,214,936
106,143
0
30,349
5,008,515
3,638,824
1,208,869
106,143
0
30,349
4,984,184
3,611,957
1,199,943
106,143
0
30,349
4,948,391
3,575,275
1,187,757
106,143
0
30,349
4,899,523
3,527,134
1,171,764
106,143
0
30,349
4,835,389
3,465,229
1,151,198
106,143
0
30,349
4,752,918
3,585,778
1,191,246
104,073
0
3,567,871
1,185,297
104,073
0
3,541,528
1,176,546
104,073
0
3,505,561
1,164,597
104,073
0
3,458,359
1,148,916
104,073
0
4,881,098
4,857,241
4,822,146
4,774,231
1,326,411
440,653
38,498
0
1,319,787
438,452
38,498
0
1,310,042
435,215
38,498
0
1,805,561
1,796,736
1,240,397
412,077
36,001
0
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
Spare
TOTAL Spare
1-Apr-12
30-Apr-12
30
1-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
31
1-Oct-12
31-Oct-12
31
19
Period start date

Period end date
Days in period
1-Jan-12
31-Jan-12
31
1-Feb-12
29-Feb-12
29
1-Mar-12
31-Mar-12
31
1-Apr-12
30-Apr-12
30
1-May-12
31-May-12
31
1-Jun-12
30-Jun-12
30
1-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
31
1-Aug-12
31-Aug-12
31
1-Sep-12
30-Sep-12
30
1-Oct-12
31-Oct-12
31
1-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
30
1-Dec-12
31-Dec-12
31
35,697,846 34,266,671 31,537,691 29,237,895 18,184,138
1-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 1-Mar-13
1-Apr-13
1-May-13
1-Jun-13
31-Jan-13 28-Feb-13 31-Mar-13
30-Apr-13
31-May-13
30-Jun-13
31
28
31
30
31
30
38,837,729
38,683,712
38,457,148
38,147,816
37,741,849
37,219,810
36,553,234
8,370,216 1,044,129
711,761
339,137
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
412,000
369,520
0
0
0
0
960,467
369,520
0
0
0
0
960,467
369,520
2,000,000
0
0
0
960,467
227,176
0
0
0
0
850,467
227,176
0
0
0
0
850,467
550,467
227,176
227,176
0
0
0
0
0 7,600,000
0 12,600,000
550,467
227,176
0
0
0
0
478,095
227,176
0
0
0
0
302,000
227,176
0
0
0
0
302,000
153,929
0
0
0
0
302,000
0
0
0
0
0
310,000
0
0
0
0
0
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
1,329,987
3,329,987
1,187,642
1,077,642
1,077,642 20,977,642
777,643
705,271
529,176
455,929
302,000
310,000
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
781,520
1,329,987
3,329,987
1,187,642
1,077,642
1,077,642 20,977,642
777,643
705,271
529,176
455,929
302,000
310,000
39,619,249
39,465,233
39,238,668
38,929,336
38,523,369
38,001,330
37,883,221
9,147,858 1,749,399 1,240,937
795,066
302,000
310,000

Site acquisition
Category 7
Category 8
Category 9
Category 10
39,027,833 35,454,314 32,615,333 30,315,538 39,161,780
20
Queensland Health
Gold Coast Hospital
Government Benchmark Model
Summary
Input terms
$M
Nominal terms
$M
NPC terms
$M
134.72
21.31
184.36
128.38
86.56
30.40
38.37
82.35
41.83
101.79
187.75
183.40
67.84
63.44
0.00
1,352.51
162.13
25.69
220.33
153.64
104.32
36.63
46.27
97.03
50.19
122.49
226.96
221.74
82.02
76.70
0.00
1,626.15
273,640,974
135.54
21.52
182.71
127.60
87.34
30.66
38.77
79.14
41.81
102.39
190.70
186.35
68.93
64.46
0.00
1,357.92
265.42
0.00
0.00
265.42
302.76
0.00
0.00
302.76
266.65
0.00
0.00
266.65
1,617.93
TRUE
1,928.91
310,981,191
1,624.57
317.85
7.01
6.73
7.08
299.12
240.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
878.01
466.80
12.70
12.19
12.83
480.32
457.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,442.02
189.42
5.01
4.81
5.06
192.60
128.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
524.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
878.01
1,442.02
524.90
2,230.52
265.42
2,495.95
3,068.17
302.76
3,370.93
1,882.82
266.65
2,149.47
51.97
152.89
204.86
42.87
65.51
108.38
3,273.03
1,991.20
Retained risks
Total Construction period risks
Total Operational period risks
Total retained risk
127.42
0.50
127.92
108.09
0.23
108.32
Total risk
332.78
216.70
3,703.71
2,366.17
Capital costs
Contractor
TOTAL Division of Community, Allied Health Aged & Rehabilitation Serv
TOTAL Spare
Non-Contractor
Total Non-Contractor construction costs
Total Capital costs
Operating costs
Contractor
Total Routine Building & Plant maintenance
Total Grounds maintenance costs
Total Cleaning
Total Helpdesk
Total Utilities
Total Lifecycle Building Maintenance
Total Other 1 operating costs
Total Contractor operating costs
Non-Contractor
Total Non-contractor type 1 costs
Total Non-Contractor operating costs
Total Operating costs
Total Contractor project costs

Total Non-contractor project costs
Total project costs (pre risk)
Risks
Transferred risks
Total Construction period risks
Total Operational period risks
Total transferred risk
Total transferred risk adjusted contractor project costs
Total Project risk adjusted costs
179.38
9.3%
Transferred capital costs
Retained Capital costs
Total risk adjusted capital costs
1,980.88
2,056.33
2,108.30
Transferred operating costs

Retained operating costs
Total risk adjusted operating costs
1,594.91
1,442.52
1,595.41
21
Queensland Health
September 2008
Space area reconciliation

1 page
303
GCUH SUMMARY OF AREAS COMPARSION
GCUH ARCHITECTURE
Total Gross
Functional
2
Area M
Planning Units
Project Definition Plan
Total Gross
Total Gross
Functional
Functional
2
Area % of total
Area M
Scheme Design
gross area
TGFA M2
SD
Places
Bed
Alternatives
MD Beds
Procedure/
Treatment
Places
Consult
Rooms
Townsville
with 750beds
based on the
AHFG &
VHFG..
TGFA M2
Townsville
Single Bed
implications
TGFA M2
Townsville
with 750beds
Allowance for
ESD & OH&S
implications
TGFA M2
Townsville
with 750beds
total to all
Current
guidelines & %
Single Rooms.
GCUH Scheme
Design &
Townsville
Difference
Comments
20170
19057
11.59%
400
13
17043
1940
18983
74
The difference of 74m2 only.
4011
3871
2.36%
3866
3866
The difference is 5m2 only.
24414
24437
14.87%
14
97
76
115
115
26102
240
26342
-1905
15976
16032
9.75%
40
50
39
11
14527
375
15330
702
12777
14018
8.53%
20
124
26
39
10988
620
11608
2410
The area allocated for GCUH is 702m2 higher and can be attributed to the higher number of procedural
rooms and critical care bays to meet the health service projections.
Children's ambulatory care being part of this cluster and inclusion of clinical education & training and allied
health areas specific to FWC. This are increase also needs to be read in conjunction with Division of
Medicine.
7336
5817
3.54%
72
5582
360
5942
-125
The differential is 125m2 below Townsville Hospital and is based on a revised model of three 24 bed units in
lieu of 4 18 bed units.
This area needs to be read in conjunction with the Division of Family Womens and Childrens area.
7342
7359
4.48%
28
99
10
6425
240
6665
694
The differential is 694m2. The Allied Health areas within this facility are considerably larger than Townsville
and are based on a central hub at present. The Hub is GCUH, with the spockes yet to be developed(Health
Hubs) across region.The cluster has additional services provided which including Transitional care
services, and clinical education and training areas.
5847
5923
3.60%
28
5858
5858
65
The area differential is only 64m2.
4612
5039
3.07%
4493
4493
546
10
10.07%
Total
18305
16556
120790
118109
14513
14513
2043
74
97
750
316
188
109397
3775
113172
4937
Travel
20390
18580
17504
604
18108
472
Plant
23820
27673
21573
744
22317
5356
148474
5123
10445
164042
148474
5123
10445
164042
Unenclosed Covered Areas
Gross Area
165000
Total Gross Area
164362
AREA ALLOWANCE
Cyclotron
500
To be considered/advised
Archive Store
Child Care Centre
Hydrotherapy Pool
398
Hyperbaric Unit
Medihotel
Total
3440692_1.xls
Retail Allowance - Not within hospital
5000
Carparking Allowance
90000
95000
19/09/2008
320
The area differential is 546m2 and can be attributed towards a a pathology service that services a number
of hospital within the health service district.
The area difference is 2043m2 and this can be attributed to a number functions at GCUH such as a district
wide Central Plate Kitchen, Cafeteria space allowance, increased retail spaces, increased offices and
services for Health Service District including Health Promotion, Operational services including Engineering,
Information Management and Bio-medical service.
Queensland Health
September 2008
Updated beds and treatment places schedule

6 pages
305
GOLD COAST UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL PROJECT

Planning Units
Location

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
388
400
Comments
13
MEDICAL INPATIENT BEDS (EXCLUDING CANCER X 56 BEDS)

Includes CCU x 10 Beds, Pot-angio
beds x 4 & Class N room x 1
IPU 1
Inpatient Unit - Cardiology
L4W
24
24
IPU 2
Inpatient Unit - General Medical
L5W
24
24
IPU 3
Inpatient Unit - Infectious Disease
MCB 5N
24
24
IPU 4
Inpatient Unit - Medical Assessment Unit
LLGW
28
28
IPU 5
Inpatient Unit - Neurology
L5S
24
28
Note: 10 beds are to accessed by the

Rehabilitation Unit;
IPU 6
Inpatient Unit - Renal Medicine
L3S
24
28
Includes Class N x 2 Rooms & Store for

Renal Fluids
IPU 7
Inpatient Unit - Respiratory Medical
L5W
24
24
L6S
24
28
L6S
24
28
Class N x 12 Rooms & Class S x 12

rooms. 100% single rooms
1
SURGICAL INPATIENT BEDS

IPU 8
Inpatient Unit - Orthopaedic Surgery (Elective)
Inpatient Unit - Orthopaedic/Trauma Surgery

Inpatient Unit - Gastrointestinal Surgery (includes
IPU 10 Colo-rectal)
IPU 11 Inpatient Unit - Short-stay Surgical
IPU 9
L2S
24
28
L2S
24
28
IPU 12
Inpatient Unit - Neurosurgery
L4S
24
28
IPU 13
Inpatient Unit - ENT/Eye/MF/Plastics
L4S
24
28
IPU 14
Inpatient Unit - Uro/Gynae/Breast
IPU 15
Inpatient Unit - Vascular Surgery
L3S
Inpatient Unit - Cardiothoracic Surgery
L4W
Level Lower Ground

Level 2
LLGW
MCB 2
Level 3
MCB 3
Level 4
CSB4
Level 5
MCB 5
Level 6
MCB 6
IPU 16
24
24
28
24
24
SHARED AREAS PER LEVEL

Education
2
0
0
Includes leased offices for Bond
University staff
Education Administration
Library
Clinical Placement Unit & Student Amenities
Medical Illustration/Photograpy & Reprographics.
Clinical Photography
Research
3
3.1
14
97
68
76
115
115
Internal Medicine
Sleep Studies
MCB 5
Renal Medicine (Clinical Admin)
MCB 3
Acute Dialysis Unit

Day Medical Beds
Infection Control (Offices)
3.2
Ambulatory Services & OPD
3.3
Comprehensive Cancer Service
CSB 3
MCB L1
16
14
PDP = Acute Dialysis x 24 & Peritoneal

Dialysis x 3 places. SD = Acute
Dialysis x 16 & Peritoneal Dialysis x 2
places. Mix of inpatient and acute
ambaulatory outpatients.
Includes Clinical Trials places x 4
13
Includes 80 C/R, including -ve Pressure

room x 1, Treatment Rooms x 10,
Plaster Rooms x 2 and Noninterventional diagnostics and Nurse
Practitioners
P& E B L2
MCB L1
Summary _SD10-Rev 05 Review_20080911-Places only (2).xls/Summary
GCUH Architects
Issue Date:13/05/2008
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
80
Page 1/6

Planning Units
IPU 17
IPU 18
3.4
Location

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
L1S
24
28
L1S
24
28
Shared areas - Inpatient Units
L1S
Day Oncology/Haematology
LGS
OPD
Shared areas Day Oncology/OPD + Palliative care
Outreach Services
LGS
Comments
Includes +ve pressure rooms x 2

Includes Lead-lined rooms x 2, -ve
pressure rooms x 2 & Palliative Care
Beds x 6
PDP = Day Oncology x 25 & Apheresis
x 4.Includes Holding Bay x 4. SD =
Apheresis x 2
29
30
LGS
Radiotherapy
LLLGS
LLGS
PDP = Bunkers x 5 with Linacs x 2,

Brachytherapy x 1.
SD = Bunkers
x3
11
ECHO, Stress ECHOs, TOE, Holter

monitoring, Exercise Stress Testing,
ECG, Pacemaker
Cardiology
Diagnostics, including Clinical Measurement &
Stress Testing
MCB 4N
18
CCL x 3 & TOE Room x 1, RR x 12

places. Plus expansion for CCL/CT
Scan x 1 of 200m2
59
PDP = 77 places SD = 59 Places
Drawn area includes CPU & Sexual

Assault Assessment Unit
3.5
Emergency Medicine
Sexual Assault Unit
MCB LG
Child Protection Unit

Short-stay Observation Unit
3.5
Others
Discharge Services
ACIEM
Day of Discharge/Transit Lounge
3.7
4.2
4.4
20
Includes Paeds x 6 beds
MCB LG
Basement
Level S
30
MCB 5N

Department of Anaesthetics
40
Anaesthetic & Pain Mgt Offices
MCB 3N
Pain Management OPD
MCB G
50
50
39
11

IV Infusion Therapy Service
4.3
20
4
4.1
LLGW
MCB LG
MCB 4S
Intensive Care
ICU/HDU
MCB 4
MCB 2
Angiography
MCB 2N
Endoscopy
MCB 2S
Intraoperative MRI
MCB 2N
Operating Suite
MCB 2
20
Post-anaesthetic Care Unit
MCB 2
38 PACU Places
Same Day Accommodation
MCB 2
Includes Paeds
Surgical/Endoscopy/Surgical Day Stay
DOSA & Day Surgery Admissions
MCB 2
Change Room
Centre
MCB 3
CSD
MCB 3
50
Includes PICU x 2 beds
50
Perioperative services
4.5
GCUH Architects
Plus Expansion zone x 2 ORs x

600m2
40
10
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
Page 2/6

Planning Units
4.6
MCB LG
CSB 2

Maternity Services
IPU 19
& 20 Inpatient Unit - Maternity Services
Birth Suite
20
124
124
48
48
L3W
L2W
L2W
L1W
Neonatal Intensive Care
5.3
Paediatric Services
IPU 21 Inpatient - Paediatric & Day Stay

Paediatric OPD/Allied Health
39
Includes Transitional Care Unit x 4

Includes High Acuity Beds x 2,
Assessment Rooms x 2 & Ante-natal
assessment x 10
Ante-natal Assessment Clinic
5.2
26
12
Birth Centre
5.4
Comments

5
5.1

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
Ambulatory Care
Vascular - Vascular Laboratory / Clinical Admin
Offices
4.7
Location
10
L3
LGW
10
44
44
32
32
Includes 14 NICU, SCN x 30 cots.

Expansion zone required for 7
additional Level 2/3 cots = approx
420m2
Includes shared areas per level
MCB GN
20
FWC - OPD & Ambulatory Services

Ante-natal Clinic
Qld Genetic Counselling
10
L1W
Fetal -Maternal Assessment Clinic Assessment Unit
Ultrasound Rooms
Neonatology
Gynaecology/Gyn Oncology
Early Assessment Pregnancy Clinic
Shared Areas
6
MHU
72
72
72
72
Division of CARAS
Allied Health
Allied Health Management Hub
Aids & Equipment (Loan)
7.2
Community Health
7.4
Rehabilitation, Aged and Palliative Care Services
Health Promotion Unit
Inpatient Unit - Acute Rehabilitation - Neuro

IPU 23
7.5
48
28
99
10
MCB G
District Management Directorate to
be located off-site
MCB G
Basement LS
Locate in/near Front Entry
MCB G
L5S
Therapy Areas
MCB 5
Shared area per 48 Beds, Day/Inpt Therapy Areas
MCB 5
MCB 5
24
28
24
Includes ABI beds x + ILU beds x 1.

Note: Rehabilitation Unit to access 10
beds in the co-located IPU
(Neurology)
28
Beds x 6 included in Division of

Medicine
Included in Comprehensive Cancer Services - 3.2
HomeLink Services
Community Hospital Interface Program (CHIP)
Transitional Care
Inpatient Unit - Acute Rehabilitation - Ortho
Palliative Care Services
0
Includes ECT, Clinical Administration,
Consultation Liaison & Research
Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs service

7
7.1
L1W

Adult Inpt Unit
L1W
MCB LG
GCUH Architects
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
28
Page 3/6

Planning Units
8.1
Comments
Note: Drawn area includes Vascular

Labs area
Bone Densitometry
Includes 16 Recovery Room bays
CT
Plus 1 in ED Zone
Fluoroscopy
General Rooms
Plus 3 in ED Zone & 2 Ambulatory Care
MCB LG
MRI
Nuclear Medicine
OPG
PET
Ultrasound
Plus 1 in ED Zone & 2 Vascular

Ambulatory Care
Includes CT x 1, General x 3 & U/S x 1.
MID - ED Zone

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
Medical Imaging
Mammography
8.2
Location
MCB LG
Pharmacy
Main Pharmacy
MCB LG
Production Unit
MCB LG
9.1
Pathology
Shared Areas-Due to separate Building
requirements
9.2
Mortuary
10
10.1 District & Hospital Administration

District Manager
Boardroom
Diivision of Corporate Services
Planning & Development Unit
District - Management (Hotdesks)
Disaster Services/Management
Medico-legal
MCB 6
Off-site
MCB 6
P&E + MCB
LGN
Access ED Training Room and Board

Room
Off-site
MCB 6
Off-site
Division of Nursing & Midwifery Services
MCB 6
Division of Teaching & Research
MCB 6
Nursing Support Services
MCB 6
Nursing Workforce Planning & Develop
Off-site
Clinical Resources Coord.
Path Builbing
B
Medical appointments
Bed Management
0
Path Builbing
MCB G
MCB 6
Administration - GCUH
Medical Typists
Fundraising & Foundation Services
Foundation Retail
Volunteer Services
Interpreter Services
Off-site
MCB 6
MCB G
MCB G
Off-site
Service Improvement Unit

CULT Liaision
Patient Liaison
Off-site
Patient Safety
Quality & Risk Management
Public Relations
Community & Consumer Advisory Service
Off-site
10.2 Operational Services

Operational Services
GCUH Architects
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
Page 4/6

Planning Units
Location

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
Comments
Mail Room
Satellite Operational Services
Cleaning & Waste Management
Based on 88m2 x 2 Basement locations
MCG B
Linen Services
Loading Dock
10.3 Hospital Co-ordination & Public Areas
Main Foyer
MCB G
Operation Co-ordination Centre
MCB G
Central Admissions
MCB G
Revenue Services
MCB G
Retail/ Coffee Shop
MCB G
10.4 Pastoral Care Services

Chaplaincy
Spiritual Meditation Unit
10.5 Staff Amenities
Central Staff Amenities
Decentralised Staff Amenities
Staff Health Promotion
Gymnasium
Function Rooms
Includes Health Promotion
MCB G
MCB B
Accessible toilets located throughout the
facility
MCB B
MCB 5
CSB 6
Staff on-call accommodation

Senior Medical Staff
MCB 5
RMO Facilities
10.6 Facilities Management
Facility Management & Building Engineering &
Management
CEP
Engineering Services
PABX ,Switchboard, MATV
MCB LG & G
Security
MCB LG & G
10.7 Food Services

Kitchen
Public/Staff Cafeteria
MCB G
MCB G
10.8 District Technology Services

MCB 6
Patient Information Management Services

10.90 Materials Management
Supply Depart
Clinical Resource Unit - Equipment/Bed Store
MCB B
Distribution centre located off-site
MCB B
10.1 Clinical Information Unit

MCB 1N
Decision Support
Casemix
MCB 1N
10.12 District Finance Service

Finance Services (District)
Off-site
Payroll
Off-site
Human Resource Management (District)

Occupational Health & Safety
Off-site
MCB LG
10.13 Biomecical Technology Services

MCB G
11.0 Medical Offices - Medical & Surgical Divisions

CSB
CSB 2
CSB 4
MCB 4N
CSB 5
GCUH Architects
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
Page 5/6

Planning Units
Location

Bed
Consult
SD Places
Alternative
Rooms
beds)
28 beds)
Places
Comments
CSB 6
74
Total
97
750
750
316
188
EXPANSION ZONES
3

Operating Suite
10
Expansion for CCL/CT Scan x 1
1
2
NICU
if no EMR/Scanning
Total
Locations
MCB Main Clinical Building
CSB Clinical Services Building (Offices)
P & E Pathology & Education Building
W
Inpatient Builfding - West wing (FW&C Building)
Inpatient Builfding - Southt wing (Cancer Servces Building)
GCUH Architects
Revision 6: 19/06/2008
Page 6/6
Queensland Health
September 2008
Definition of Key Procurement Stages

The key procurement stages under the proposed procurement process are described in more
detail in the following section:
Master planning
The Master Plan will identify and evaluate the entire project planning options for the facility with
consideration of the:
services to be provided
demographics
future trends
existing facilities
capital and recurrent costs
implementation strategy.
The outcome will be the preferred development strategy that will enable a GCHSD to deliver its
services in the most effective and cost efficient manner, taking into consideration best value and
the return on capital investment. The Master Plan phase does not include detailed planning, but
rather broad concept planning.
Project Definition Plan (PDP)
The purpose of the PDP is to provide a detailed analysis of a preferred facility development
strategy as determined in the Master Plan study. It will enable the GCUH to fully determine the
outcome, which will provide the most, cost efficient and effective delivery of its services. The
preferred options for developing facilities to accommodate service delivery can then be
determined. It includes:
type of project
procurement method
proposed operating policies, both in terms of overall policies and detailed departmental
policies. This is required for recurrent cost preparation
changing work practices
capital and recurrent cost constraints
life cycle costing implications
future planning needs
ongoing operation of the facility during redevelopment
changing trends in services provision, models of care and hospital design.
Schematic Design
The preferred planning options are advanced, to ensure that the broad spatial and functional
planning requirements can be fulfilled and that critical issues have been addressed including:
312
Queensland Health
September 2008
review and amendments of Master Plan, and any other relevant documents
obtaining further information and data as required for design
preparing schematic designs to accord with the Master Plan and Project Definition Plan
(PDP)
developing the schematic design on the basis of the preferred option in sufficient detail to
describe:
-
fulfilment of spatial and functional requirements
building forms
spatial, functional and design relationships
access and vehicular and pedestrian traffic routes
internal circulation, handicapped access
response to major engineering services requirements
response to climatic and environmental issues
response to Environmentally Sustainable Design issues
response to Lifecycle and Recurrent Cost considerations.
preparing alternative schematic designs or altering and amending the schematic design as
required
including layouts for major items of furniture and equipment, indicated on 1:50 scale
drawings
updating the Schedule of Areas
preparing a plan for overall development and phasing to show best utilisation
conceptual site and building plans
preliminary sections and elevations (including treatment of internal spaces)
preliminary selection of building system and materials
development of approximate dimensions, areas and volumes
a colour presentation perspective of the new building (s) of at least A1 size showing external
views and internal perspectives of the public spaces
recommendations regarding basic materials and systems
preferred structural system
consultation with relevant local, state, regional and federal authorities
preparation of the project estimate
amending design as required to meet Schematic Design Cost Plan
value management studies
updated project definition plan including room data sheets
313
Queensland Health
September 2008
preliminary submission for review for Building Act Approval consisting of preparation and
lodgement of documents to the relevant authorities for preliminary building approval.
At the end of this stage it is proposed that the Business Case will be updated. The updated
Business Case will then be used to brief the Cabinet Budget Review Committee of progress
achieved on the project.
Design Development
The schematic design is developed and expanded by the Managing Contractor and their
consultants including:
reviewing and revising the Project Definition Plan including room data sheets and updating
to reflect ongoing development of the design including all items of furniture, fittings and
equipment
updating and developing any 1:50 room plans and elevations incorporating room data
requirements and showing built-in joinery, all required loose furniture and equipment,
services, services outlets and equipment items
responding to operational constraints
presentations to and meeting with committees, user groups, staff meetings etc. to ensure
their ownership of the design
preparing material for and consultation with relevant local, regional, state and federal
authorities, regarding laws, statutes and building codes and regulations affecting the project
preparing plans, sections and elevations (including treatment of internal spaces)
preparing typical construction details
preparing three dimensional sketches
refining materials and finishes schedule and selections
amending design as required to meet Schematic Design Cost Plan and Project Definition.
Plan
conducting value management studies including but not limited to value management
workshops
preparing preliminary submission for review for Building Act Approval consisting of
Preparation of documents for lodgement to the relevant Authorities for preliminary building
approval
preparing documentation sufficient for the preparation of a developed design estimate and
cost plan to enable detailed measurement of elements and trade sections
revising and updating as necessary 1:50 room plans and elevations, equipment drawing and
room data sheets produced at the Schematic Design stage
preparing room layout plans for each room and space involved in the development including
all furniture, fittings and equipment, both existing and proposed
refining schedules of materials and fittings
preparing typical construction details and arrangements
314
Queensland Health
September 2008
identifying all associated building works and interfaces with services
providing engineering design services comprising the development and expansion of

engineering schematic design documents
revising the schedule of areas to reflect development of the design
reviewing room data sheets and plans with user groups, in each functional area, amending
room data sheets and plans as required
preparing fully developed site plan showing the relationship of the project site to the building
and proposed levels, site services and landscaped features at a scale of 1:500
preparing fully developed plans of each level of the preferred design showing all existing
and altered landforms, paved areas and planting and the location of services at a scale of
1:100
preparing roof plan to a scale of 1:100 showing slopes, materials and penetrations
preparing elevations of all aspects and general sections showing roof forms and all
projections at a scale of 1:100
preparing particular plans and sections sufficient to describe the building form through the
overall scheme or part of it at a scale of 1:100.
preparing plans and elevations of typical elements and sections of the proposed
construction, clearly showing floor, ceiling and roof heights, construction methods and
indicating typical details and preliminary structure sizes at a scale of 1:50.
preparing a schedule of finishes and a sample board showing materials to be used for
external and internal finishes. The board is to show clearly the location in which the
materials and colours are to be used.
At the end of this stage it is proposed that the Business Case will be updated. The updated
Business Case will then be used to brief the Cabinet Budget Review Committee of progress
achieved on the project.
Construction Documentation
Construction documents including final designs and trade packages are prepared by the
Managing Contractor based on approved Design Development Scheme.
Construction
The Managing Contractor tenders and lets sub contract packages for the Works. The Quantity
Surveyor audits the cost of the Works. Early works may be required during Schematic Design
and/or Developed Design to meet a fixed completion date for the end of 2012.
Commissioning
The Managing Contractor commissions the works prior to Practical Completion and handover.
Commissioning includes training and testing of services, plant and equipment. Staged
completion dates or separable portions may also be required to suit commissioning timeframes.
Defects liability Period
315
Queensland Health
September 2008
The defects liability period is a set period of time in which the Managing Contractor has to be
available to quickly and efficiently resolve any defects that occur with the works completed by
the Managing Contractor. The Managing Contractor Contract is likely to include provisions
where a level of security (e.g. retention of money or performance bonds) is held by the State
until the defects liability is satisfactorily completed.
316
Queensland Health
September 2008
Managing Contractor procurement paper

17 pages
317

Managing Contractor Procurement Paper
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
GOLD COAST UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
MANAGING CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
1
OBJECTIVE
The Infrastructure Cabinet Sub-Committee decided that the current

business case for the Gold Coast University Hospital not consider an option
for delivery of the hospital as a Private Finance Initiative/Public Private
Partnership.
The Committee has also ratified a proposal to procure the Gold Coast
University Hospital via a modified Managing Contractor form of
procurement and endorsed-in-principle the preferred option for contractor
selection being, where clear benefit can be demonstrated, by single select
tender or limited select tender (maximum of three) based on the results of a
two stage registration of interest process.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the detailed
implementation of the joint Queensland Health and Department of Public
Works procurement strategy for the Gold Coast University Hospital project
under the SEQ Infrastructure Plan.
2
BACKGROUND
2.1
Endorsement of Procurement Approach
The Department of Public Works has previously briefed the Infrastructure

Cabinet Subcommittee, Treasury, Department of Infrastructure and Health
on the level of construction activity in Queensland and the likely impact on
the capital works program of subcontract and supplier shortages. The
Department of Public Works obtained endorsement to utilise a greater level
of flexibility and innovation in project procurement and delivery. In
particular the following principles were endorsed:
engaging industry through early notification of upcoming major

capital works projects, allowing longer lead times for planning and to
source experienced resources, from interstate/overseas. This will
maximise opportunity to secure the best possible team for the project;
provide an avenue for potential contractors to nominate projects

which best align with their expertise, resource capability and business
development;
a delivery process whereby the cost to industry of tendering is

minimised, ensuring limited resources are available for project
delivery, rather than for preparation of extensive tender submissions;
ensuring early contractor involvement through the engagement of a

consultant managing contractor in the very early design stages to
provide management and constructability input into the design team.
This strategy effectively locks in the major resource for the future
design and construction stages and ensures the longest possible lead
time for a contractor to secure the key subcontract and supply chain
resources required;
Gold Coast University Hospital 8th may (3)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
use of a known contract form such as a Managing Contractor

(Negotiated Guaranteed Construction Sum) contract, specifically
amended to suit each individual project for risk management and
allowing early trades to commence while the design is being finalised.
Inclusion of facilities management and long term maintenance will be
considered for each project; and
a procurement strategy that seeks the key subcontractors input into

the design, allowing amongst other benefits, resources and industry
production rate constraints to be factored into the overall project
duration.
In addition, following consideration of alternative tender options for the

delivery of the projects, the Department of Public Works determined that
the preferred option for contractor selection for the upcoming major
projects, of which Gold Coast University Hospital is one, is where clear
based benefit can be demonstrated, by single select tender or limited
select tender based on the results of a two stage registration process.
.
2.2
Key Procurement Strategy Drivers
2.2.1 Time
The briefing paper by the Department of Public Works identified many of
the industry wide issues that impacted on the selection of the Managing
Contractor procurement method.
In addition to the industry wide issues, the key Gold Coast University Hospital
driver is the Governments public commitment to a completion date for the
new Gold Coast University Hospital of December 2012. The following table
identifies the estimated project completion dates for alternative
procurement approaches. The accelerated managing contractor
procurement strategy is the only strategy capable of delivering the project
within the required timeframe. A comparison of potential delay costs for
these alternative procurement methods is included as Attachment 1.
Procurement Method
All Procurement Methods
Lump Sum
D&C 1
DD&C
Phase
PDP
Site Acquisition
Scheme Design
Design Development
Contract Documentation
Tender Period/Negotiation
Contract Award
Completion
Contract Award
Design Completion
Completion
Estimated Completion
Date
December 2007
September 2008
September 2008
March 2009
January 2010
May 2010
June 2010
February 2014
November 2009
January 2010
September 2010
September 2013
October 2009
2

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Procurement Method
Managing Contractor
Accelerated MC 2
Phase
Contract Award
Design Completion
Completion
Contract Award
Completion
Early Works (complete)
Contract Award
Completion
Estimated Completion
Date
November 2009
July 2010
June 2013
November 2009
December 2009
July 2013
April 2009
May 2009
May 2009
December 2012
Notes
1: D&C program assumes preparation of performance based documentation
following Design Development and commencement of tender process in June 2009.
2: Accelerated MC approach discussed further below, includes early works and
alternative procurement approach for subcontractors.
2.2.2 Resources
It was determined that the earliest possible confirmation of project
commitment is essential to minimise the impact of the volume of
infrastructure spending in south-east Queensland, both from commitment of
resources and in price growth/escalation risk which Queensland Treasury
has agreed with the projected rate, from the Quantity Surveyors for the
three major hospital projects, of 6% in the next few years.
The Gold Coast University Hospital is the largest and most complex building
project undertaken in Queensland. The size, complexity and program for
implementation of the project requires the earliest possible commitment of
all project resources:
the quality of the organisations, ensuring:
overall capability,
required experience,
demonstrated methodology and approach;
commitment of the best possible resources within an organisation;

and
commitment of the number of resources, given that the largest public

building project had a maximum peak resource requirement of
approximately 1000, and a projected peak workforce for the Gold
Coast University Hospital exceeding 2500 workers.
The demand for construction workers and the escalation risk are illustrated
by the following graph of historic growth in the gap between work
undertaken and work outstanding in Queensland, which will be further
exacerbated by the upcoming major infrastructure commitments.
This graph illustrates the widening gap between the capacity of the market
(work done) and the work undertaken, which if it continues, and potentially
exacerbated with the introduction of major infrastructure projects, will result

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
in significant competition for subcontractor organisations capable of
undertaking the projects, project resources and price escalation risk.
The impact of this widening gap between work done (industry capacity)
and work outstanding will also be impacted by the potential requirement
for additional resources in the two other eastern states.
Whilst the growth in NSW work volume/value outstanding is relatively
constant, the increase in outstanding work volume in Victoria will also
increase demand for construction resources, impacting on the potential for
additional resource capability for south-east Queensland projects.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
2.3
Managing Contractor Procurement
The Department of Public Works and Queensland Health have a successful

history of implementation of Managing Contractor projects, both within
time and budget to the required standard and quality. Example projects
include Royal Brisbane Hospital (Centre and West Blocks and Block 7),
Prince Charles Hospital expansion, PA Hospital, Townsville Hospital, Logan
Hospital and Redlands Hospital.
Other significant state projects successfully delivered through this form of
contract include Skilled Stadium and Woolloongabba Stadium extensions
(both single select tenders), Suncorp Stadium, Gallery of Modern Art and
State Library extension, Brisbane Magistrates Courts and Corrective Services
facilities at Townsville and in S E Queensland.
Key characteristics of the Managing Contractor form of procurement are:
typically successful where an initially undefined brief can be

developed by the Managing Contractor, achieving the benefit of
input from the contractor during the design phase design
consultants are engaged by the Managing Contractor for the design
development and documentation phases, typically warranting the
design and that the completed facility will meet the client brief;
can also significantly assist in meeting time constraints including an

earlier start to construction, since the contractor has the capacity to
overlap design development and construction activities, avoiding the
delays of more traditional forms of procurement that require clearer
definition of all requirements and a tender call and evaluation
process prior to award of the contract early commencement is
achieved through letting of early packages of work, such as site
clearing and bulk excavation, with the overall design, coordination
and interface responsibility resting with the Managing Contractor;

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
for complex projects, where it is essential not to exceed an agreed

budget, a managing contractor guarantees an overall construction
sum (typically referred to as the Guaranteed Construction Sum (GCS),
which will not be exceeded unless the client changes the scope of
the project following contract award; and
typical Managing Contractor contracts provide for packages of work

to be tendered progressively to suit the overall construction program
and any savings between the actual trade tendered prices and the
trade components of the GCS are shared between the client and the
managing contractor at a pre-agreed ratio.
CURRENT STATUS
3.1
Appointment of a Building Consultant
In accordance with the principles of procurement endorsed by the

Infrastructure Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Department of Public Works
undertook a two stage registration of interest process from the major
contractors capable of undertaking the major infrastructure projects,
including Gold Coast University Hospital:
the first stage being a registration of interest two organisations

nominated for the Gold Coast University Hospital project: Bovis Lend
Lease and John Holland Group; and
the second stage, a detailed submission from these two registered

organisations addressing:
their major relevant project experience and capability,
resources,
methodology, and
value-adding opportunities.
These submissions addressed the requirements for both the early contractor
involvement, through the engagement of a building consultant in the
early design stages, and the subsequent managing contractor
implementation role.
Following evaluation of the detailed submissions, Bovis Lend Lease was
appointed as the building consultant for the early design stages. This role is
being successfully implemented with positive outcomes for the project.
Bovis Lend Leases submission also included the opportunity to provide
advice during the design process on how facilities management and long
term maintenance issues are incorporated into the design of the project,
addressing an additional procurement principal outlined above.
3.2
Preparation of Early Works Packages
Detailed programming advice from both the Program Consultant and from
the Building Consultant has confirmed a requirement to commence on-site
construction activities in September 2009 in order to complete the project
within the Governments public commitment to a completion date for the
new Gold Coast University Hospital of December 2012.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Two contracting
commencement:
options
exist
to
achieve
the
September
2009
award the Managing Contractor contract, and commence works

under that contract; or
award an early works contract under a Construction Management

(CM) form of contract, and subject to finalisation of the Managing
Contractor contract, incorporation of this CM contract into the
Managing Contractor Contract, when let.
The project team considers that in relation to the first option, for finalisation
of an acceptable GCS within this timeframe, the risk premium that would
most likely be incorporated into a GCS by the Managing Contractor would
be unacceptable, as:
insufficient definition/documentation currently exists i.e. project scope

is not fully defined; and
subcontractor/trade tender pricing in support of the GCS would not

be obtainable.
An early works Construction Management contract incorporating the

following elements, is therefore being prepared:
site establishment including:
fencing,
site accommodation;
demolition of existing buildings;
services diversions;
bulk excavation; and
early structural works, as required.
3.3
Preparation of Tender Documents for Managing Contractor
Currently tender documents are being prepared on the basis of a 2 Phase

Managing Contractor Contract, namely:
Phase 1: Managing Contractor appointment for design development

and major trade subcontract tender process, leading to submission of
a single Guaranteed Construction Sum upon completion of Design
Development; and subject to satisfactory completion of Phase 1
Phase 2: Documentation and Construction of the project.
The generic form of the contract is being modified to reflect the detailed
requirement and strategies unique to this project. MinterEllison Lawyers have
been engaged to provide detailed advice on the contract.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
4
FUTURE ACTIONS
4.1
Managing Contractor Tender Process
The process for selection of the Managing Contractor is proceeding in

accordance with the direction endorsed by the Infrastructure Cabinet
Subcommittee and the following key procurement principles:
finalisation of the MC selection based on the results of the two stage

registration process:
where clear benefit can be demonstrated, by single select

tender, or
limited select tender;
use of a known contract form such as a Managing Contractor

(Negotiated Guaranteed Construction Sum) contract, specifically
amended to suit each individual project for risk management and
allowing early trades to commence while the design is being finalised;
and
obtaining key subcontractors input into the design, allowing amongst

other benefits, resources and industry production rate constraints to
be factored into the overall project duration.
4.1.1 Single Select Tender For Managing Contractor

A two stage submission process for the selection of the Managing
Contractor has been undertaken by the Department of Public Works,
incorporating an initial role as Building Consultant. This process has resulted
in the selection of Bovis Lend Lease as Building Consultant. The second
stage of submissions required details of major relevant project experience
and capability, level of resources, understanding and approach to the
project methodology and value-adding opportunities for both an initial
Building Consultant role and for the subsequent Managing Contractor role.
In the evaluation of these second stage submissions, clear separation of the
assessment for the initial Building Consultant role and for the Managing
Contractor role was undertaken. In all evaluation criteria Bovis Lend Lease
demonstrated outstanding ability and clearly outranked, in all criteria, the
John Holland Group.
This process has established Bovis Lend Lease as the only contractor with
the capacity and capability of delivering the project to the quality and
complexity required under the time and market constraints that exist.
In addition, Bovis Lend Lease has:
successfully
project;
successfully completed the largest recent hospital development

project in Queensland (under a Managing Contractor contract)
delivered on time and on budget;
undertaken the largest recent government building

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
a national and state based commitment to health projects including

development and support of health specific project teams;
international experience on major hospital projects transferring this

knowledge and experience to the development of a world class Gold
Coast University Hospital;
appropriate resources becoming available from other projects to suit

the proposed timeframe for the Gold Coast University Hospital project;
and
recently been successful on comparable large managing contractor

projects in other states (separate delivery teams).
The assessment undertaken for the Managing Contractor role represents

the non-price criteria that would be applicable for any competitive
tender process. The non-price criteria typically has a 70% weighting of the
total assessment of a competitive tender process. The remaining portion of
the tender is price, which normally represents a 30% weighting of the total
assessment.
This price component of the tender requires the managing contractor to
tender:
lump sum fee for design and construction management resources;
lump sum fee for on site overheads;
lump sum fee for consultant design and documentation fees; and
% fee for profit and overheads
Note that all tendered resources are scheduled and costed for the tender
program for the project and must be based on previously competitively
tendered resource estimates from the two stage tender assessment. The
main design consultant fees have been previously competitively tendered
by the Department of Public Works. Physical resources associated with onsite overheads are competitively tendered later in trade costs as part of the
GCS.
The total of all fees tendered in this stage is typically of the order of 20% of
the project costs.
4.1.2 Why not limited select tender for Managing Contractor anyway?
In undertaking the Building Consultant role, Bovis Lend Lease has developed
a detailed understanding of site issues, client group/stakeholders
requirements, the detailed design, programming issues and subcontractor
industry capability. Therefore:
Bovis Lend Lease has unfair knowledge/a competitive advantage

over any other tenderer (in addition to the assessed value confirmed
in their tender submission);
a level playing field does not exist;
undertaking a select tender would be counter productive for the

client project team and for Bovis Lend Lease in diverting their

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
attention from the planning and management of activities to
maintain the overall program;
Bovis Lend Lease will manage the design development process

reflecting
partially
their
proposed
procurement
approach/methodology, with the potential for a delay and
associated increased costs for the project for re-design (if they were
not selected);
any other tenderer may consider that any tender process that was
undertaken was only being done as a check price, and that the
likelihood of their appointment was minimal, with their involvement a
waste of their time; and
a fall back strategy is in place should the single select tender process
not be successful, enabling early works to continue under a separate
Construction Management agreement, minimising the program
impact.
4.1.3 Ensuring Value for Money from the Managing Contractor Tender
Process
In following a single select tender process, it is important that mechanisms
are established to continually assess that the two stage tender assessment
already undertaken of Bovis Lend Lease as the best organisation, and the
value for money for the project, is maintained. This is achieved through the
following mechanisms:
Managing Contract Fees Issues:
Profit and overheads known margins from tendering

organisations from previously submitted managing contractor
tenders against which final margin can be benchmarked,
On-site overheads (physical resources) to form part of the trade

contract component for the project, and tendered as part of
finalisation of the GCS,
Design consultants fees major design consultants fees have

already been separately competitively tendered by Department
of Public Works, for defined scope of services,
Contractor resource management team costs projected

resource levels already submitted as part of Building
Consultant/Managing Contractor tender process, with required
resource levels benchmarked to suit detailed program
developed during the Building Consultancy role. The proposed
methodology will also be compared against that already
submitted with the Building Consultant/Managing Contractor
tender.
The resource levels and methodology competitively submitted
was assessed as being both the necessary level of resources and
the required experience, for the most complex public building
project in Queensland.
Rates for resources to be benchmarked against previously

submitted Building Consultant/Managing Contractor tenders.
10

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
The majority of this fee can be benchmarked against previous
tenders/projects and the resource commitments submitted as part of
the Gold Coast University Hospital two stage tender processes already
undertaken.
Experienced Contract Finalisation Team - the client team includes

organisations and individuals experienced in negotiations of
Managing Contractor contracts:
Public Works Procurement Manager,
Capital Insight Project Manger,
Davis Langdon Quantity Surveyor,
TBH Programmer,
Queensland Health Project Director.
In summary, it is considered that there is little prospect of obtaining any

significant price advantage in seeking competitive managing contractor
tenders. This is particularly evident given the very limited areas in the tender
where there is actual price competition. It is possible that another tenderer
may seek to buy the project with an under resourced proposal and low
margin price. The consequences of such a result is that project outcomes
would be unlikely to be achieved, with the Bovis Lend Lease tender
submission already assessed as providing the required level of resources.
Any delay in tender award and/or delays from introducing another
contractor would result in significant cost increases to budget which would
not be offset by possible reduction in tender costs, if any, for this stage.
4.2
Guaranteed Construction Sum (GCS) Submission and Agreement
4.2.1 Typical GCS Agreement Process

Typical Managing Contractor contract provides for:
submission of a GCS during the design development phase, based

on:
scheme design and partially developed design documentation,
trade cover, rather than tendered trade package pricing. Trade

cover represents indicative pricing and program projections from
the Managing Contractors preferred sub-contractors, rather
than fixed prices and programs,
an assessment of/allowance for risk including contingency and

escalation;
finalisation of the GCS following negotiations on the value of the GCS

prior to contract award; and
post contract award packages of work to be competitively tendered

progressively to suit the overall construction/contract program and
any savings between the actual construction cost (total of all trade
costs) and the GCS are shared between the client and the Managing
Contractor at a pre-agreed ratio.
4.2.2 Proposed GCS Agreement Process

The process proposed for Gold Coast University Hospital includes:
11

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
tendering key major trade packages during the design development

phase, with price finalisation at GCS submission based on the
completed design development documentation;
the balance of the trade packages will be tendered post GCs

acceptance, as outlined above for the typical GCS process; and
key major trade contractors will participate with the Managing

Contractor and the design team during design in value adding
opportunities in design reviews, construction planning and cost
planning
A table at Attachment 2 summarises the proposed allocation of precontract competitive trade pricing and those trades where (trade) price
cover is not competitively priced pre-contract i.e. competitively priced post
GCS finalisation.
The target is for approximately 80% of the trade pricing to be competitively
tendered prior to finalisation of the GCS.
4.2.3 Benefits of Proposed Process
The proposed subcontractor procurement process addresses a number of
key risks to the project program and budget:
Long term securing of resources. The graphs provided earlier in this

paper identify a widening gap between the volume of work done
and volume of work undertaken, which will increase the demand for
construction resources. The proposed procurement method secures
the required level/best and largest organisations and resources for
key trades on the largest and most complex building project in
Queensland, earlier than otherwise possible.
Secures larger subcontractors earlier risk that project delay in

appointment of subcontractors could result in more smaller
subcontractors being utilised with increased interface risks, and
associated quality and cost risks.
Reduction of the risk premium incorporated into the GCS by the

Managing Contractor by including trades into the process of
finalisation of the design and planning for the project. Key trades will
better understand both the project requirements and the project
team, leading to:
more robust and reliable pricing,
more accurate project planning/programming, leading to more

accurate prices,
a lower risk or contingency allowance being incorporated into

the subcontractor tender price and the Managing Contractor
GCS.
The potential to obtain better design and building efficiency from key
trades through early involvement, also reducing the subsequent costs
for further design development and contract documentation.
Earlier involvement of Managing Contractor and subcontractors

enables earlier planning and implementation for Local Industry
12

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Participation Plan, leading to earlier knowledge of the specific project
requirements, planning of resources and commitments.
Maintaining the competitive pricing of a large percentage of the

trade costs, pre finalisation of the GCS. This will also lead to a greater
likelihood that an acceptable GCS will be obtained from key
subcontractors and therefore the Managing Contractor in a timely
manner, allowing earlier award of the construction stage of the
contract.
Reduction of the risk of not obtaining acceptable tenders, which

would lead to delays including the need to re-tender trades or
alternatively utilising an alternative form of procurement.
Less risk of subcontractor default during the project due to better

understanding of the project scope, the project team and their
relationship with the Managing Contractor.
Earlier understanding of all issues associated with finalisation of the

GCS.
Should agreement of the GCS not occur the contract will be

terminated and it is anticipated that a competitive document and
construct form of contract would be tendered following completion
of design development.
4.2.4 Ensuring Value for Money

Value for money in the finalisation of the GCS, during Phase 1 of the
Managing Contractor role, will be maintained by the following 2-step
process:
Step 1: Subcontract Non-Price Tender:
Select list of tenderers approved by the Principal;
Tender on stated non-price criteria for appointment as preferred

subcontractor;
no guarantee of project award;
select short listed minimum 2 preferred subcontractors for each trade

providing:
opportunity for price competitiveness at appropriate time,
options to split scope between more than one subcontractor,
fallback if a subcontractor withdraws from the process; and
different trade models available dependent upon market response,

with inherent flexibility.
Criteria for this tender would include the following:
relevant experience and capability (including financial) statement;
proposed key team members for the project;
construction management methodology including safety;
ability to provide design advice;
13

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Value Adding ability;
demonstration of level of commitment to project;
fees for services pre subcontract engagement (i.e. pre GCS); and
capability of delivering long term maintenance for up to 20 years

(services contractors).
A third party probity auditor would be involved to ensure the Governments
required levels of probity are maintained.
Step 2: Subcontractor Cost Plans for Final Cost Plan Input
Key Issues:
realistic cost plan provided: in competition until submission of final

pricing on design development documentation;
competitive tender pricing of representative bill of quantities, if

necessary, with rates becoming part of binding contract at post GCS
engagement;
as progressive design information becomes available, subcontractors

update trade specific cost plans for their prospective works subject to
cost plan review by the clients QS and the Managing Contractor,
against current cost plan;
where differences occur, assessment made regarding reasons and

adjustments made to either cost plan as appropriate;
GCS Offer by Managing Contractor will be based on binding costing

for their works from the appointed preferred trade subcontractors;
competitive pricing obtained from preferred trade subcontractors,

subject to formal tender submission process; and
pricing to be used in determination of final subcontractor for each

area of work.
For those components of the GCS that are not subject to the formal trade
tender process, the Managing Contractor will obtain indicative pricing from
trade contractors. These prices will be used to establish the overall GCS.
During Phase 2 of the Managing Contractor role, these trades will be
competitively tendered (at the appropriate time). Upon completion of all
such tenders, the overall GCS saving would be calculated and allocation of
relevant percentages made.
14

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
15

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1 DELAY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PROCUREMENT
The table in Section 2.2.1 identifies the timeframes for implementation and
completion of the project utilising alternative forms of procurement. The
estimated delay to completion of the project for these alternatives and,
based on the cost of project delay identified in the Gold Coast University
Hospital Business Case of $8.3 million/month, the cost of this delay are
shown below. These alternative forms of procurement are essentially the
fall-back options, should the Accelerated Managing Contractor
procurement model currently being implemented, not be successfully
finalised.
Alternative Procurement
Estimated Delay to the
Cost of Delay
Method
Completion Date 1
(@ $8.3m/month)
Lump Sum
14 months
$116.2m
D&C
10 months
$83m
DD&C
6 months
$49.8m
Managing Contractor 2
7 months
$58.1m
Notes:
1: Delay based on continuous program i.e. no delays in changing from Managing
Contractor procurement. Extent of any delay is subject to timing of decision to
change form of procurement.
2: Assumes separate MC tender process commences in April 2009 following
completion of design development.
20

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSE ALLOCATION OF TRADE PRICING
The following table summarises the proposed allocation of pre-contract
competitive trade pricing and those trades where (trade) price cover is not
competitively priced pre-contract i.e. competitively priced post GCS
finalisation. The Total Trade estimate reflects the Elemental Analysis of
Functional Area Cost Plan, which forms part of the estimate in the PDP Cost
Plan. This estimate exceeds the budget allowance and a valuemanagement process is currently being undertaken to reduce the
estimated project costs, to the Project Budget allowance. The cost plan
does however illustrate the appropriate trade-by-trade proportion of
estimated trade costs.
The target is for approximately 80% of the trade pricing to be competitively
tendered prior to finalisation of the GCS.
Element rate /m Cost
Total Trade
Trade Price
Estimate
pre-GCS
$'000
% Total
$ '000
% Total
Trade Price
Post-GCS
$ '000
% Total
Sub structure
14,025
1.7% $
14,025
1.7% $
0.0%
Columns
8,250
1.0% $
8,250
1.0% $
0.0%
Upper Floors
54,450
6.6% $
54,450
6.6% $
0.0%
Staircases
5,775
0.0% $
5,775
0.7%
0.7%
Roof
16,500
2.0% $
16,500
2.0% $
0.0%
External Walls & Windows
74,250
8.9% $
74,250
8.9% $
0.0%
External Doors
1,650
0.2% $
1,650
0.2% $
0.0%
Internal Walls & Screens
54,790
6.6% $
54,790
6.6% $
0.0%
Internal Doors
13,356
1.6%
0.0% $
13,356
1.6%
Wall Finishes
14,222
1.7%
0.0% $
14,222
1.7%
Floor Finishes
21,782
2.6%
0.0% $
21,782
2.6%
Ceiling Finishes
14,692
1.8%
0.0% $
14,692
1.8%
Fitments
40,788
4.9%
0.0% $
40,788
4.9%
Hydraulics
41,955
5.1% $
41,955
5.1% $
0.0%
Mechanical
80,490
9.7% $
80,490
9.7% $
0.0%
Medical Gas
5,207
0.6% $
5,207
0.6% $
0.0%
Electrical
64,459
7.8% $
64,459
7.8% $
0.0%
Security & CCTV
2,613
0.3% $
2,613
0.3% $
0.0%
ICT
11,533
0.0% $
11,533
1.4%
1.4%
Electronic Fire
4,950
0.6% $
4,950
0.6% $
0.0%
Wet Fire
9,900
1.2% $
9,900
1.2% $
0.0%
BWIC
4,401
0.5% $
4,401
0.5% $
0.0%
Trade preliminaries
41,250
5.0% $
41,250
5.0% $
Sub-total
601,288
72.5% $
479,140
57.7% $
Central Plant/Engineering
131,605
15.9% $
131,605
15.9%
External works / siteworks
50,000
Sub-total
ESD Initiatives (Green Star)
$
$
782,893
46,937
94.3% $
5.7% $
Total - Trade Costs
829,830
100.0% $
6.0%
122,148
0.0%
14.7%
0.0%
0.0% $
50,000
6.0%
610,745
46,937
73.6% $
5.7%
172,148
20.7%
0.0%
657,682
79.3% $
172,148
20.7%
21
Queensland Health
September 2008
ESD initiatives summary

1 page
335
PROJECT:
REPORT:
REVISION:
DATE:
ITEM

ESD Initiatives Summary - $47 million budget solution
04
5/08/2008
Description
Management
GBCA Greenstar Healthcare registration
Undertake Energy modelling
3
4
5
Accreditation to Greenstar Healthcare tool not included

Commissioning clauses
Building tuning
Commissioning agent
7
8
9
Building users guide

Environmental management to ISO14001
Waste management
10
Construction Indoor Air Quality plan
11
12
Building Management systems
Comment
Recommended
Registration in Oct 08 may allow further dialogue with GBCA re: healthcare tool,
and keep options open however will require engagement of a consultant by QH to
manage the process. This would require an upgrade to consultant TOR's
The GCUH Engineering JV is in dialogue with GBCA regarding energy
benchmarks. Some additional modelling sevices are recommended to investigate
an appropriate level of investment in energy minimisation for the faade
Not proposed noting that Healthcare is only a Pilot at present and noting that
additional costs for compliance will be required even with a 4 star target
Include in trade package specs
Include in trade package specs
Experience has shown that appointment of an independent commissioning agent
can be expensive due to the scope of service required. Not recommenmded due to
cost
To the extent that the design adopts special ESD design features and requires
operational management upgrade of the usual O&M manuals to a full building
users guide could be beneficial. This would require an upgrade to consultant TOR's
and trade specs
Recommended and needs to be specified in MC contract
Recommended and needs to be specified in MC contract
Requires building flushout and 2-weeks additional construction time to
accommodate, therefore not recommended due to cost and time
Additional metering will be included to achieve a reasonable extent of monitoring,
design to budget, not to GBCA requirements
Q Health
Cost
Sub Totals
$500,000
$300,000
N
Y
Y
$1,000,000
Engineering Discipline
Responsible for ESD Initiative
Discipline Leader
Responsibility
Y
Y
Y
$500,000
N
Y
$500,000
$2,800,000
Indoor Environment Quality

13
Ventilation rates
14
15
16
Daylighting
Daylight glare control
High Frequency ballasts
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Electric lighting levels

External views
Thermal comfort
Comfort control
Low VOC's in:
Wall & ceiling finishes
Carpet & Floor finishes
Adhesives & Sealants
Matresses
Formaldehyde minimisation
27
28
29
Mould prevention
Exhaust Riser
Air distribution systems
30
31
Outdoor pollutant control

Places of Respite
Energy
32
33
34
35
36
Energy improvement
Co-generation
Heat Exchange
Displacement in WBS, WBW, MEH
Controls
37
Modelling
38
39
Faade design
High efficiency chillers
40
Variable speed controls for pumps and fans
41
Efficient motor selection
42
43
Electrical sub-metering
Lighting zoning & control
44
High efficacy external lighting
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Peak Energy Demand reduction

Medical equipment efficiency
Stairs
Transport
Car parking
Fuel efficient transport
Cyclist facilities
Proximity to public transport
Pedestrian routes
Water
Potable water efficiency
Water meters
Landscape irrigation water efficiency
56
57
58
Cooling tower water consumption

Fire system water consumption
Potable water use for equipment cooling
59
60
61
Extension of GCCC recycled water main

Recycled water for fire systems
Rainwater harvesting
Materials
Recycling waste storage
PVC minimisation
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Sustainable timber
Flooring
Ceiling , walls and partitions
Joinery
Loose joinery
Land use & Ecology
Ecological value of site
Re-use of land
Reclaimed contaminated land
Change of ecological value
Topsoil and fill removal
Sediment & Erosion control
Stormwater detention
Emissions
Refrigerant ODP
Refrigerant GWP
Refigerant leak protection
79
80
81
82
83
Watercourse pollution reduction

Reduced flow to sewer
Light pollution minimisation
Cooling towers
Insulant ODP
84
Trade waste pollution
85
Airborne emissions
Increased for infection control reasons only, in HVAC design however not proposed
to suggested GBCA requirements due to energy impact
Improved daylighting for inpatient units for comfort is proposed but not to current
GBCA requirements which are not practical for a tertiary hospital
Being considered in faade design but not to GBCA requirements
Included in electrical design
Being optimised in electrical design but not to GBCA requirements, which are more
aligned to an office environment. Energy efficient lighting is proposed including in
clinical areas
Being considered in faade design but not to GBCA requirements
Being optimised in mechanical design but not to GBCA requirements
Being optimised in mechanical design but not to GBCA requirements
N
N
N
Y
$0
Electrical
Simon Forster
Mechanical
Kevin Eaton
N
N
N
N
$1,000,000
This is considered to be worthwhile to improve IEQ

Buildability challenges make this hard to achieve
QH need to consider this in review of their policy on matresses design.
HVAC design will consider infection control requirements only, but not
implementing humidity control to GBCA requirements due to energy and cost
implications
Dedicated printing rooms not envisaged in SD
Designs will adress requirements of infection control guidelines which meet this req
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Some reasonable provision is proposed in mechanical design but not to GBCA

filtering requirements, compliance would require modelling and filtering
Included in SD
N
Y
This is a key issue with the level of energy improvement benchmark improvement
still under investigation. The design is proposed to have significant improvement in
energy consumption from previous similar facilities.
Separate energy feasibility study in progress
Proposed in HVAC
Proposed in selected areas
Additional modelling may be required to achieve energy benchmarks. This will be
reviewed
Faade design is a balance of daylighting, energy efficiency, comfort, external
views, glare control and a balance of capital and recurrent costs. Extent of faade
ESD may be optimised. The design team believes that the opportunity may exist
for some of the allowance to be utilised for a solar PV installation
Chiller selection will include as a primary consideration efficiency
Variable speed controls for significant pumps and fans can provide energy
efficiency
Selection of energy efficient motors optimised for application can provide energy
efficiency
Additional metering, design to budget but not to GBCA requirements, metering of
major zones and large plant will be included
Includes lighting dimming and automatic control to appropriate areas
Efficient and long lamp life lighting designs for external areas are recommended
for energy efficiency and maintenance minimisation
$1,000,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
$14,000,000
$3,000,000
$600,000
$500,000
$250,000
Y
Y
$16,500,000
Y
Y
N
Y
$500,000
Proposed to make space provision only for power factor correction. Not proposed
to include peak demand reduction in hospital due to conflict with operational
requirements. If co-gen adopted then it would effect this requirement
QH issue however difficult to enforce, perhaps a policy in equipment evaluation,
naturally medical functional requirements will need to be a priority
Additional stairs for improved circulation (already included)
Mechanical
Kevin Eaton
Electrical
Electrical
Simon Forster
Simon Forster
Electrical
Simon Forster
Mechanical
Bill Drake
N
Y
Y
In BOOT but not to strict GBCA requirements due to interpretation issues

In BOOT but not to strict GBCA requirements due to interpretation issues
Included in design for BOOT but not to GBCA requirements
N
Y
Y
Good proximity in design but not GBCA requirements as GCRT is a future service
Include in landscape design
Y
Y
Impliment to comply with new QDC standards

Water treatment of GCCC recycled waste water proposed to minimise impact of
water consumption
Test water harvesting will be implemented to new QDC requirements
QH issue to be considered in equipment procurement where appropriate
Proposed to connect to existing GCCC main. Headworks costs and recurrent costs
to be determined by GCCC
Being investigated
Extensive rainwater harvesting proposed for GCUH project
Y
Y
Y
$500,000
$35,850,000
$1,000,000
Y
Y
$1,000,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Design is including waste storage

Design to budget but not to GBCA requirements
Team proposes to minimise use in design but not following GBCA requirements
due to implementation problems
Y
N
Linoleum cost is nil ,however other alternatives require further cost investigations
QH issue
N
Y
Y
Site selection has considered ecological value

Greenfield site so N/A
N/A
Site will be effected by development for a hospital. Can not comply
Design has been optimised to reduce extent of cut
To GCCC requirements
To GCCC requirements
Y
N
$2,000,000
$950,000
$2,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$5,350,000
N
N
Y
Y
Low ODP proposed but not to GBCA requirements

Low GWP proposed
To be included
Rainwater harvesting proposed, extent of WSUD design in landscape to be
resolved
Water efficient fixtures will result in reduced flow to sewer
Lighting design will be tailored to site application to minimise spill
Cooling towers proposed for energy efficiency utilising recycled water
Will be considered in insulant specification
N
Y
Y
Extent of investment in trade waste treatment expected to be limited due to cost

Compliance requires extensive modelling. Filtering unlikely to be cost effective or
necessary for general aplications
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
tba
N
TOTAL
1 of 1
$47,000,000
$0
$47,000,000
D:\Documents and Settings\mashby\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD\080805 ESD Initiatives Summary(1) (2).xls
Queensland Health
September 2008
Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008/09 proposals

1 page
337
Interim Demand Management Strategy Proposals for 2008/09

Reference
Priority Service
Description
Fully/Part
Funded
Status
Capital
Status Operational
District to resubmit in a funding

submission for 2009/10
Purchase facility to provide 63

subacute beds, provide recurrent funds
sufficient to support increased acuity at
Southport Hospital (medical, surgical,
cancer)
Part
Full
Non Recurrent
N/A
N/A
Gap
Carrara Facility
Backfill of 16 MH beds & 19 Beds IMH

Robina
Palm Beach Currumbin Lease (Mental
Health)
Community Care Units - MPurchase accomodation for 44 non
acute mental health beds
Full
N/A
Non Recurrent
Not
Not Funded
N/A
Pacific Private Lease

(Pallative Care beds)
Lease Palliative Care until Robina

Stage 3 completion in 2011
Part
N/A
Non Recurrent
Coomera Land
9 subacute/ medical beds

For Future Health Precinct/ Hospital
Not
Full
N/A
Full
Not Funded
N/A
Refurbish and install CT
Full
Full
Recurrent
N/A
2nd Computer Axial

Tomography scanner
(CT) at Southport
Southport Emergency
Expand Emergency Department
Full
Full
Recurrent
N/A
ICU Expansion
3 Beds Refurbish, 6 beds operationing

costs
Part
Not Funded
Recurrent (part)
N/A
Specialist Private
Practice OPD
Provide Outpatient Capcity to support

inpatient services
Not
Not Funded Not Funded/ Non Recurrent Have a persued a non recurrently GCUH is predicated on a
funded lease. No recurrent
strong community sector to
operating budget
allievate inpatient and
ambulatory needs. Without
these services the bed
numbers and ambulatory
services are insufficient
10
Community and
Ambulatory Services
Broad service growth to support

GCHSD requirements
Part
N/A
11
Medical Bed Package
Additional beds vis refurbishment and

medical support services
Not
Not Funded
Not Funded
12
Gold Coast Surgicentre
Day surgery lease and activity
Full
N/A
Recurrent
Source:
3440211_1.xls
Mental Health
Recurrent funds for 30 acute

medical, 7 cancer and 26 acute
surgical beds
These beds do not contribute

to "acute" hospital bed
projections
Required until 2011
Required until 2011 or 2012
Part Recurrent (1 Community The bulk of this initiative was not

Based Reahb Team)
funded
Capital Delay now makes these

options no longer viable
3 ICU beds short will delay

GCUH commissioning
GCUH is predicated on a
strong community sector to
allievate inpatient and
ambulatory needs. Without
these services the bed
numbers and ambulatory
services are insufficient
Increased funds required to

commission these services as
now unable to easily support
locally prior to GCUH opening
N/A
Funding Submission - Gold Coast Health Service District - Demand Management Strategy: High Priority Strategies

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 20september 2008

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 20september 2008

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Queensland Health

Gold Coast University Hospital

Description of the proposed procurement process

Risk adjusted nominal project costs

Scope of the Business Case

Service needs definition

Public hospital facilities

Demand for health services

Health services plan

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Clinical support services

Planned GCUH utilisation rates

Future use of existing health services

Proposed Delivery Model and PDP preferred option

Non-Clinical service divisions

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Car park facilities

Facilities management services

Single bed allowances

Proposed procurement method

Proposed procurement method

General risk allocation

Advantages and disadvantages (Managing Contractor Guaranteed

Project cost estimates

Key infrastructure components

Contractor raw capital costs

Project development costs

Total project capital costs

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Clinical and support service costs

Estimated capital expenditure

Estimated recurrent expenditure

Capital cost comparison with government budget and reference

Announced Capital Cost budget (August 2006)

Increased risk adjustment

Potential capital cost offsets to fund the affordability gap

Evaluation of the Proposed Delivery Model

Possible evaluation approaches

Cost benefit analysis

Qualitative assessment of Proposed Delivery Model

Project objective: Service delivery and care

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Project objective: Site access and egress

Planning, environment, cultural heritage and native title

Employee, employment and skills issues

Stakeholder Issue Management

Accountability and transparency

Raw costs inputs

Risk analysis methodology

Gold Coast Hospital Car Park Report

Space allocation benchmarking

Financial model inputs and results

Space area reconciliation

Updated beds and treatment places schedule

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Definition of Key Procurement Stages

Managing Contractor procurement paper

ESD initiatives summary

Interim Demand Management Strategy 2008/09 proposals

Gold Coast University Hospital Business Case 30 September 2008

Purpose of the Business Case

summarises the procurement method and procurement process going forward

Source: Australian Associated Press, 22 August 2007