The information collected in this updated tool is used to inform whether a project should be subject to the Government’s High Value or High Risk (HVHR) Project Assurance Framework. The assessment made by this tool is not binding as it is subject to a DTF risk assessment.

Project name (if part of wider program, please specify)
Type of project or program (e.g. roads project)
Department, Agency or GBE name
Ministerial Portfolio
Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) contact details (i)	Name:
Position or title:
Telephone:
Email:
Program or project manager details	Name:
Position or title:
Telephone:
Email:
Total Estimated Investment (TEI) (i)	$
Expected service length of the asset in years
Has the SRO reviewed the completed Project Profile Model?	Yes No	0	0

PART A

PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT

Part A is used to filter whether a project has the potential to be HVHR. If it has the potential, more detail on the project is to be provided through Part B.

Question	Selection
(1) Has an investment logic map been completed?	Yes No	1	0
(2) Is the expected service contract longer than ten years?	Yes No	1	0
(3) Does the project or program of works involve a significant ICT component? (i)	Yes No	1	0
(4) Does the project or program involve multiple delivery agencies?	Yes No	1	0
(5) Does the project or program of works require an Environmental Effects Statement, significant planning approvals or approval from Heritage Victoria?	Yes No	1	0
(6) Could a non-traditional or collaborative procurement methodology (i) be suitable for delivery of the program or project?	Yes No	1	0
(7) Will the project or program generate material disadvantages for any stakeholder group?	Yes No	1	0
(8) Has there been a Ministerial announcement regarding the project or program or significant regional or state wide media exposure?	Yes No	1	0
(9) Is the investment contingent on funding from sources outside the State Government?	Yes No	1	0
(10) Does the investment directly impact on a large number of people?	Yes No	1	0
(11) Does the investment require funding from sources outside the State Government?	Yes No	1	0

PART B

Please select the most relevant answer.

TABLE B1: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Question	Options
(1) Has a strategic options analysis been completed? (i)	Facilitated by an independent, experienced and qualified third party	0
Internally prepared and reviewed by an independent third party	3
Internally prepared and reviewed	5
Strategic options assessment not completed	10
(2) To what extent is project delivery dependent on other projects or programs?	No dependencies	0
Partial dependency but limited impact on project delivery	5
Strong dependency but high degree of certainty that dependent projects or programs will be delivered on time	10
Strong dependency on another initiative with limited certainty that dependent projects or programs will be delivered on time	20
(3) What is the basis on which the costs (TEI) have been developed?	Tendered price or schedule of rates	0
Independent cost development or review by specialist quantity surveyor based on functional or detailed specifications with appropriate contingency	3
Comparison to similar projects or order of magnitude estimates only	10
(4) What is the degree of certainty or complexity of the funding arrangements?	All funding being sought is dependent on State Government budget process	0
Complex funding environment with multiple funders required (with no conditional committed or philanthropic funding required)	5
Funding environment with multiple funders required (with no conditional committed or philanthropic funding required)	10
Complex funding environment with multiple funders required (obtaining required committed or philanthropic funding is expected to be challenging)	20
(5) To what extent does this investment proposal commit the Government to additional unfunded investment?	The project or program in no way commits the Government to further investment	0
The project or program may commit the Government to further investment	10
The project or program will likely commit the Government to further investment	15
The project or program will definitely commit the Government to further investment	20
(6) What is the proposed project environment?	Not applicable (e.g. ICT, non-construction project)	0
Greenfield	0
Greenfield but constrained site	5
Multi-site project with both greenfield and brownfield sites	15
Brownfield	15
Brownfield and constrained	20
(7) What is the political or public profile of the investment?	Ministers, local members and media have low awareness of project	0
Ministers, local members and media have a high awareness of project	10
(8) What is the level of potential impact and community opposition to the investment?	Expected unanimous support for the investment	5
There is widespread support for the initiative but a low level opposition is expected	10
Significant impact on a small cohort and high likelihood of substantial opposition	15
Large number of people may be negatively impacted, but low level of opposition expected	15
Large number of people may be negatively impacted and significant level of likely opposition	20
(9) Are stakeholders well understood?	A stakeholder engagement specialist is part of the project management team and a documented stakeholder identification and engagement plan has been prepared	-5
A documented stakeholder identification and engagement plan has been prepared but there is no stakeholder engagement specialist on the project team	0
A documented stakeholder identification and engagement plan is yet to be formalised	5
(10) What is level of external approvals (e.g. planning, heritage, environmental) required for the investment?	No external approvals are required	0
Limited approvals required, with approval requirements that are routine, simple, well defined and understood	5
Multiple approvals are required from various levels of government and/or agencies	15
Complex cross-jurisdictional approval requirements across various levels of government and/or agencies	20
Legislation needs to be passed for this project to proceed	30

TABLE B2: SCOPE
Question	Options
(1) To what extent is the investment vulnerable to external factors that are beyond an investor’s control (e.g. unexpected changes to supply and demand conditions, socio-economic conditions, environmental factors, legal protocols, technology)?	External factors beyond the investor's control could have a minor impact on the successful delivery of the project	0
External factors beyond the investor's control could have a moderate impact on the successful delivery of the project but the project can be readily adapted through the take up of a 'Real option' or through investment flexibility (i)	0
External factors beyond the investor's control could have a major impact on the successful delivery of the project but the project can be readily adapted through the take up of a 'Real option' or through investment flexibility	4
External factors beyond the investor's control could have a moderate impact on the successful delivery of the project and there is no 'Real option' or investment flexibility to readily adapt the project	8
External factors beyond the investor's control could have a major impact on the successful delivery of the project and there is no 'Real option' or investment flexibility to readily adapt the project	10
(2) Is this a routine project for the department with a tried and tested solution?	Yes, standard project, which the organisation has a successful track record in delivering, in a familiar operating environment	-40
Yes, standard project, which the organisation has a successful track record in delivering, but in a complex operating environment	0
No, unique solution proposed, or large increase in scale, in a familiar operating environment	15
No, unique solution being proposed in a complex operating environment	20
(3) To what degree has the project been scoped, designed or developed?	Scope has been informed by a previous, similar project	20
Scope has been informed by reference or schematic design	0
Scope has been informed by detailed design	-20
(4) Does the project or program of works involve a material ICT component?	Yes (i)	20
No (Q5 and Q6 do not need to be answered)	0
(5) What is the proportion of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) required within this investment?	Off the shelf proven ICT solution spanning single site and organisation	40
Off the shelf proven ICT solution spanning multiple sites and/or user organisations or groups (i)	60
Bespoke ICT solution required spanning single site organisation	90
Bespoke ICT solution required spanning multiple sites and/or user organisations or groups	100
(6) Does this ICT project include a pilot project?	Yes	-10
No	10

TABLE B3: PROCUREMENT
Question	Options
(1) What is the degree of complexity in the proposed procurement approach?	Not yet assessed	30
Use of construction supply register	5
Open market - traditional procurement	10
Public private partnership	20
Alternative procurement methodology (i.e. alliance, collaborative procurement model, market led proposal) (i)	20
(2) Does the organisation have experience using this procurement method to deliver projects on time and to budget?	The organisation has extensive experience using this procurement method to deliver projects on time and to budget	0
The organisation has some experience and success in using this procurement method to deliver projects on time and to budget (i)	10
Not yet assessed OR the organisation has no experience delivering projects using this procurement methodology or has faced material timing or cost challenges with delivering projects through this procurement model in the past	20
(3) Is the supplier market capable of providing a competitive tender outcome?	Well-developed local competitive supplier market with extensive experience in similar projects	5
Limited local experience requiring national or international experienced head contractor or consortium	15
Sole source supplier	15
Limited market experience or capability in a national or international market place	20
(4) Is the investment an additional tranche of an existing procurement?	No	0
Yes with some changes and limited project interface (i)	-80
Yes with some changes and significant project interface	-20
Yes with no material changes and significant project interface	-20
Yes with no material changes and minimal project interface	-100

TABLE B4: DELIVERY
Question	Options
(1) What is the level of impact on maintaining existing services during delivery?	No impact or risk to service delivery during implementation (Go to Q4)	0
Temporary suspension of service delivery during implementation	5
Major suspension or relocation of service delivery during implementation	10
(2) How critical are the existing services?	Not critical	0
Somewhat critical	5
Highly critical	10
(3) Have alternative service delivery arrangements been put in place?	Yes	0
No	10
(4) What is the degree of interface with other infrastructure?	Project does not require interface with other infrastructure	0
Project requires limited interface with other infrastructure	10
Significant interface required with other infrastructure and integration approach well understood	20
Significant level of interface required with other infrastructure and approach to integration is yet to be determined	40
(5) Is delivery of the project (with the scope identified in the business case) readily achievable by the stated delivery date?	The timelines are realistic and achievable based on project resources, dependencies and delivery environment with sufficient contingency factored into timelines	0
There is a critical delivery date but with specialist project management delivery is achievable	10
The delivery date is challenging with little scope for unknowns so even with specialist project management arrangements there is a degree of uncertainty around delivering the project by the due date	20
(6) Are the scope of works or benefits entirely within the domain of a single department or agency?	Yes	0
No	10
(7) Are staging or flexible delivery options proposed for this investment?	Staged and/or flexible delivery options which can be readily varied to meet changes in assumptions	0
Limited opportunity for scope variation once project or program commences delivery phase	5
Staging has not been considered or is not appropriate for this project	10

TABLE B5: GOVERNANCE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Question	Options
(1) What is the degree of business change required to implement the investment?	No measurable business changes required	0
Some process re-engineering	10
Organisation wide changes required	20
(2) Is the SRO responsible for the planning, delivery and operational phases of the investment?	Yes - a single SRO will be responsible for the full lifecycle	-10
No - the investment will involve a handover from a planning or delivery SRO to an operational SRO	10
(3) What level of experience does the SRO have?	Extensive experience in the delivery of similar projects within the current delivery environment (internal and external)	0
Extensive experience in the delivery of similar projects but in a different delivery environment	10
Limited experience in the delivery of similar projects but extensive experience delivering other projects of a similar scale in the delivery environment	10
Limited experience in the delivery of similar projects and in the delivery environment	20
(4) Has a project or program risk management plan been prepared and key risks assessed and documented?	A risk management plan has been documented and a risk register prepared	0
A preliminary risk assessment has been completed identifying key risks and mitigation strategy	5
There is no documented risk management plan or register	20
(5) Have project governance arrangements been defined?	Governance arrangements are in operation	-10
Governance arrangements have been developed but are not yet in operation (Do not answer Q6)	0
Governance arrangements have not been determined (Do not answer Q6)	10
(6) If Governance arrangements are in operation, has a project manager or director been appointed?	Yes	-5
No	5

Next steps

1.	Please verify that all the questions have been answered and have the form locked to ensure no further changes can be made by others. You can do this by clicking the Verify completion and lock this form button on the toolbar at the top of the screen if you are using Word 2003 or in the Add-Ins tab if you are using Word 2007 or higher.

2.	Have a discussion with DTF's Infrastructure Policy and Assurance Team about the outcome of the PPM and whether or not the project should be categorised as HVHR, and whether it should undergo Gate 1 and 2 Gateway reviews.

NOTE: The assessment made by this tool is not binding. A DTF risk assessment will be completed on the results of the PPM to determine whether or not the project meets the HVHR criteria.

Your locked PPM must be provided with business cases submitted for budget funding to inform DTF's briefing on whether or not a project should be subject to the HVHR Project Assurance Framework if funded.

Doubts?

If you are a Senior Responsible Owner or Project Manager and think that your project might fall into the High Value/High Risk category, or if you are not sure if your project should undergo a Gateway Review, you should:

Complete the PPM for your project; and

have a discussion with DTF’s Infrastructure Policy and Assurance team.