University of Tasmania, Australia

UTAS Home | UTAS Staff | UTAS Contacts

Capital Works Submission and Approval Process

UTAS Home ›  › Commercial Services & Development › Built environment and development › Building Works Information for UTAS Clients  › Capital Works Submission and Approval Process

Applications for capital works should be submitted to Property Services using the Project Submission Template (Word 265.7KB). When Property Services has received the submission, the following processes will be followed.

Approval process for capital works

Preliminary assessment

Undertaken in consultation with the project sponsor to:

  • Clarify the requirements and project scope.
  • Determine the real need and assess if it can be met by a non-facility solution (e.g. timetabling) or by an alternative acquisition method (e.g. rental).
  • Establish if the proposed project would comply with the University Master Plan and if it fits in with accepted University strategic requirements.

The preliminary assessment will take into account the aims and objectives of the University Strategic Plan and will assess the proposal against other strategic information within the University. Projects that do not receive a favourable assessment will be unlikely to obtain eventual Capital Management Plan (CMP) funding.

Strategic screening

On completion of the preliminary assessment, projects that appear to meet strategic University initiatives will be forwarded to the Infrastructure Planning Management Committee (IPMC) for strategic screening and prioritising. Projects expected to cost in excess of $500,000 or to have strategic or political significance to the University may be referred to the Built Environment Committee at this stage.

At the strategic screening stage, projects could be:

  • prioritised for feasibility study
  • accepted as important but of insufficient priority to be recommended for feasibility study, or
  • rejected.

Feasibility study

Generally a feasibility study will only be undertaken for high priority projects. The study will be managed by a project manager in Property Services.

Approval by appropriate delegate

Projects that cost less than $500,000 could be approved by either the Chief Operating Officer or the Vice-Chancellor. Projects considered to be strategically or politically important and all projects expected to cost more than $500,000 will be referred to both the Built Environment Committee and Finance Committee before being recommended to the University Council.

In most instances, project delivery will start when funding approval is obtained.

Criteria for establishing priority

The following critieria are used to establish the relative priority of all projects submitted for Capital Management Plan funding:

Strategic importance

Critieria Weighting
  • Clearly supports the University Strategic Plan
  • Clearly demonstrates a sustainable increase in equivalent full-time student load
  • Will support the progression of enabling projects
  • Clearly demonstrates an increase in revenue for UTAS
  • Will improve UTAS’ ranking against the RQF and T&L Performance Fund
  • Has a very high potential to deliver excellent and relevant research outcomes
  • Provides a very high level of student focus and emphases the importance of the ‘student’
  • Is generally consistent with the UTAS Masterplan aspirations, noting departures
  • Will result in improved outcomes for the state of Tasmania
  • Can be demonstrated to be leading edge innovative
 25%

Provides maximum impact

Critieria Weighting
  • Will result in the sharing of resources – human, equipment, spatial
  • Will result in maximum outcome for the student/staff body for least cost
  • Promotes collaboration within the University
  • Promotes collaboration with relevant external bodies to the University
  • Supports community engagement
 20%

Sustainable

Critieria Weighting
  • Reduces impact on the environment or has the potential to employ techniques to minimise the impact on the environment
  • Is generally consistent with Governance Level Principles 9 and 10, noting departures
  • Improves the life cycle of the built environment (above and below ground)
  • Assesses opportunity to employ Green Star ESD initiatives
 15%

Operational effectiveness and efficiency

Critieria Weighting
  • Demonstrates clear benefits to the operation of the University as a whole and the relevant faculty/division/institute
  • Demonstrates a ‘spend to save’ outcome
  • Reduces bureaucracy and has an identifiable improvement at a policy or organisational structural level
  • Reduces ongoing recurrent costs
  • Engages leading-edge technology or IT of benefit
 15%

Resolves statutory or WHS issues

Critieria Weighting
  • Has the potential to reduce backlog maintenance liabilities
  • Will resolve/improve the University’s compliance requirements with relevant codes/standards/legislation
 15%

Minimises identified risks

Critieria Weighting
  • Has the potential to eliminate known risks – reputation, financial, statutory (building), business, etc

10%