Introduction
Regional councils own most community sport infrastructure in New South Wales and face growing expectations from funders, auditors and ratepayers that capital works will be planned in a disciplined, auditable way (Office of Local Government NSW, 2020). This assignment prepares the core initiation and planning artefacts for the Barrabri Sportsground Precinct Upgrade, a council led capital project in the NSW Central West. Barrabri Regional Council services a local government area of approximately 12,300 residents, a population growing modestly on the strength of regional migration out of Sydney (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2023). The project will replace the sportsground’s 1974 amenities block, install LED floodlighting, renew the playing surface and upgrade access paths and parking, within a total approved funding envelope of A$2.6 million drawn from the NSW Government’s Stronger Country Communities Fund (A$1.6 million) and Council’s own capital works program (A$1.0 million).
The assignment applies the predictive delivery approach described in the PMBOK Guide (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021) and AS ISO 21500 (Standards Australia, 2021), which suits a fixed scope, grant funded construction project with a hard seasonal deadline. It presents the project charter elements (background, scope, objectives, success criteria and stakeholders), a work breakdown structure (WBS) decomposed to level 3, a nine month milestone schedule with critical path calculations, a risk register extract and a budget summary with a contingency calculation.
Project Charter
Background and Justification
The existing amenities block predates modern access and participation requirements. It offers no female friendly change facilities even though netball and women’s football now generate the precinct’s fastest membership growth, a pattern consistent with state level participation trends reported by the NSW Office of Sport (2023). The building also fails the current access provisions of the National Construction Code and AS 1428.1, and its deteriorating condition engages Council’s duties as a person conducting a business or undertaking under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). Beyond compliance, investment in community sport facilities is associated with sustained participation, volunteering and social cohesion benefits in regional communities (Sport Australia, 2021), which underpinned the business case Council adopted.
The charter is the instrument that formally authorises the project manager to apply organisational resources to project work and records the sponsor’s definition of success before detailed planning begins (Meredith et al., 2021; PMI, 2021). The sponsor is Council’s Director of Infrastructure Services; the project manager is drawn from the capital works unit and reports monthly to a project control group.
Scope Statement
The approved scope comprises:
- Demolition of the 1974 amenities block and construction of a new amenities building containing two unisex, female friendly change rooms, accessible toilets and showers, a canteen and a first aid room;
- LED floodlighting of the main oval to club competition standard under AS 2560;
- Renewal of the playing surface, including subsurface drainage, irrigation and returfing;
- An accessible path network linking the building, spectator areas and a reconfigured 40 space car park with compliant accessible bays; and
- The project management, design, approvals, procurement and commissioning activities required to deliver these assets.
Exclusions are recorded in the charter to manage expectations and limit scope creep (Larson & Gray, 2021). The project excludes replacement of the timber grandstand, construction of indoor courts, road works beyond the car park entry, and ongoing maintenance, which transfers to Council’s operational budget at handover.
Objectives and Success Criteria
- Deliver the approved scope by the end of Month 9, before the commencement of the winter sporting season.
- Complete the project within the A$2.6 million approved funding envelope.
- Record zero lost time injuries across all demolition and construction works.
- Achieve a 20 per cent increase in weekly facility utilisation within 12 months of reopening, measured against Council’s 2025 booking data baseline.
Success criteria deliberately extend beyond the traditional time, cost and quality constraints, because a project can meet its baselines and still fail its stakeholders (Kerzner, 2022; Pinto, 2020). Success will therefore also be assessed against user satisfaction of at least 80 per cent in the post occupancy survey, closure of all defects within three months of practical completion, and full acquittal of the grant in accordance with the funding deed.
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholders were classified on a power interest grid, which concentrates engagement effort where influence and stake are greatest (Pinto, 2020). Table 1 summarises the register. Engagement is deliberately front loaded: user groups and the Local Aboriginal Land Council are consulted during design because late design changes are the most expensive form of rework (Meredith et al., 2021).
Table 1: Stakeholder register and engagement strategy
| Stakeholder | Stake in the project | Power | Interest | Engagement approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Council executive and elected councillors (sponsor) | Accountable for funds and community outcomes | High | High | Manage closely; monthly project control group |
| NSW Office of Sport (co-funder) | Grant acquittal and participation outcomes | High | Medium | Keep satisfied; milestone reports under the funding deed |
| Sporting clubs and user groups | Fit for purpose facilities; season continuity | Low | High | Keep informed; design workshops and season scheduling liaison |
| Residents and ratepayers | Local amenity and value for money | Low | Medium | Monitor and inform; project webpage and drop in sessions |
| Principal contractor | Commercial delivery of the works | Medium | High | Manage closely; contract administration and weekly site meetings |
| SafeWork NSW and building certifier | Statutory WHS and building compliance | High | Low | Keep satisfied; notifications, inspections and certificates |
| Council operations and facilities staff | Maintainability and operational handover | Medium | High | Involve; design reviews and commissioning training |
| Local Aboriginal Land Council | Cultural heritage due diligence | Medium | Medium | Consult; heritage assessment during the design phase |
Work Breakdown Structure
The WBS decomposes the total scope into deliverable oriented elements and applies the 100 per cent rule, meaning the child elements at each level capture all of the work of their parent and nothing outside it (PMI, 2021). Control accounts sit at level 2 and align with Council’s general ledger cost codes, while the level 3 work packages are small enough to estimate reliably, assign to a single responsible officer and report progress against (Larson & Gray, 2021). The WBS defines what will be produced, not when; sequencing is addressed in the schedule section. Table 2 presents the structure to level 3.
Table 2: Work breakdown structure to level 3
| WBS code | Level | Element | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 1 | Barrabri Sportsground Precinct Upgrade | Total approved project scope |
| 1.1 | 2 | Project management | Control account: governance, controls and engagement |
| 1.1.1 | 3 | Planning and controls | Schedule, cost and risk baselines; change control |
| 1.1.2 | 3 | Governance and reporting | Project control group; funding deed milestone reports |
| 1.1.3 | 3 | Community and stakeholder engagement | Design workshops, heritage consultation, communications |
| 1.2 | 2 | Design and approvals | Control account: documentation, consents and procurement |
| 1.2.1 | 3 | Investigations and detailed design | Geotechnical and services surveys; architectural and civil documentation |
| 1.2.2 | 3 | Statutory approvals | Development consent, construction certificate, access compliance |
| 1.2.3 | 3 | Procurement and contract award | Open tender, evaluation and award of the construction contract |
| 1.3 | 2 | Construction | Control account: principal contractor site works |
| 1.3.1 | 3 | Site establishment and demolition | Fencing, services isolation, demolition of the 1974 block |
| 1.3.2 | 3 | Amenities building | Change rooms, accessible amenities, canteen and first aid room |
| 1.3.3 | 3 | Playing surface and floodlighting | Drainage, irrigation, returfing and LED floodlighting |
| 1.4 | 2 | Fit-out and external works | Control account: fixtures and site finishing |
| 1.4.1 | 3 | Fixtures and equipment | Seating, lockers, canteen equipment, signage |
| 1.4.2 | 3 | Landscaping and car park | Accessible paths, planting, 40 space car park reconfiguration |
| 1.5 | 2 | Commissioning and handover | Control account: acceptance and transition to operations |
| 1.5.1 | 3 | Testing and defect rectification | Systems testing, defect identification and closure |
| 1.5.2 | 3 | Operational handover and training | Manuals, staff training, benefits review arrangements |
Milestone Schedule and Critical Path
Activity durations were estimated by analogous comparison with two recent regional facility projects and adjusted for local contractor availability (Larson & Gray, 2021). Sequencing uses the precedence diagramming method with finish to start dependencies. Figure 1 illustrates the network: detailed design (A) enables both approvals and procurement (B) and community engagement (C); construction (D) cannot commence until B is complete and consultation findings from C are incorporated; fit-out (E) and handover (F) then follow in sequence.
The critical path is A-B-D-E-F, and its duration is found by summing the durations along the path: 8 + 6 + 18 + 4 + 3 = 39 weeks. Converting at 4.33 weeks per calendar month gives 39 ÷ 4.33 = 9.0 months, which consumes the entire nine month window between charter approval and the winter season. Community engagement (C) is the only non critical activity: construction’s earliest start through B is week 8 + 6 = 14, whereas the path through C finishes at week 8 + 5 = 13, so C carries total float of 14 – 13 = 1 week. Because the schedule holds essentially no slack, any overrun on a critical activity translates directly into a late reopening, which is why the wet weather risk in Table 4 is treated with a resequencing buffer rather than accepted. Table 3 maps the resulting milestones across the nine months.
Table 3: Milestone schedule across the nine month delivery window
| Milestone | WBS reference | Activity and duration | Cumulative critical path (weeks) | Project month |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1: Charter approved; project start | 1.1 | Start point | 0 | Month 1 |
| M2: Detailed design complete | 1.2.1 | A: Detailed design (8 weeks) | 8 | Month 2 |
| M3: Community engagement complete | 1.1.3 | C: Engagement (5 weeks; non critical) | 8 + 5 = 13 on path A-C | Month 3 |
| M4: Approvals granted; contract awarded | 1.2.2, 1.2.3 | B: Approvals and procurement (6 weeks) | 8 + 6 = 14 | Month 4 |
| M5: Construction practical completion | 1.3 | D: Construction (18 weeks) | 14 + 18 = 32 | Month 8 |
| M6: Fit-out and external works complete | 1.4 | E: Fit-out (4 weeks) | 32 + 4 = 36 | Month 9 |
| M7: Handover and facility reopening | 1.5 | F: Commissioning (3 weeks) | 36 + 3 = 39 | Month 9 |
| Critical path total | 1.0 | A + B + D + E + F | 8 + 6 + 18 + 4 + 3 = 39 weeks | 9.0 months |
Risk Register Extract
Risks were identified in a workshop with Council’s capital works, operations and procurement staff and assessed on Council’s five by five likelihood and consequence matrix, consistent with the risk management process in AS ISO 31000 (Standards Australia, 2018). The rating is the product of the two scores: extended wet weather, for example, is assessed at likelihood 4 and consequence 3, giving 4 × 3 = 12, which falls in the high band (scores of 10 and above). High rated risks require an active treatment, a named owner and review at every project control group meeting. Construction phase WHS risks sit under the principal contractor’s WHS management plan prepared in accordance with the code of practice for construction work (SafeWork NSW, 2022). Table 4 extracts the five highest rated risks.
Table 4: Risk register extract (five by five matrix; rating = likelihood × consequence)
| ID | Risk description | L | C | Rating | Treatment | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Extended wet weather during earthworks and surface renewal delays construction | 4 | 3 | 4 × 3 = 12 (High) | Mitigate: stage all weather works first; resequencing buffer in the construction program | Principal contractor |
| R2 | Cost escalation in the regional construction market exceeds estimates | 3 | 4 | 3 × 4 = 12 (High) | Mitigate: fixed price lump sum contract; 10 per cent contingency; early trade package pricing | Project manager |
| R3 | WHS incident on a site adjoining an operating sportsground | 2 | 5 | 2 × 5 = 10 (High) | Mitigate: full site segregation, induction regime and compliance with the construction work code of practice | Principal contractor |
| R4 | Limited contractor availability yields few conforming tenders | 3 | 3 | 3 × 3 = 9 (Medium) | Mitigate: early market sounding; advertising through the regional procurement portal | Procurement officer |
| R5 | Latent conditions (unmapped services, uncontrolled fill) discovered during demolition | 2 | 4 | 2 × 4 = 8 (Medium) | Mitigate: geotechnical and services surveys before tender; latent conditions clause | Design consultant |
The register links directly to the other planning artefacts: R1 is absorbed by schedule treatment because the critical path carries no float, while R2 and R5 are the primary justification for the size of the contingency provision calculated in the following section.
Budget Summary and Contingency
Base estimates were built bottom up from the level 3 work packages and benchmarked against recent tender outcomes in the region. A contingency of 10 per cent of base cost was adopted, at the upper end of the range appropriate for brownfield refurbishment where latent conditions are credible (Kerzner, 2022), and consistent with the capital expenditure review expectations placed on NSW councils (Office of Local Government NSW, 2020). The calculation is: contingency = 2,340,000 × 0.10 = A$234,000, giving a total project budget of 2,340,000 + 234,000 = A$2,574,000. The difference between the funding envelope and the budget, 2,600,000 – 2,574,000 = A$26,000, is held by the sponsor as a management reserve for unidentified risks. Expressed against the total budget, contingency represents 234,000 ÷ 2,574,000 = 9.1 per cent. Contingency drawdowns require a change request endorsed by the project control group, preserving the audit trail required for grant acquittal. Table 5 summarises the position.
Table 5: Budget summary and contingency calculation (A$)
| WBS element | Description | Base estimate (A$) |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Project management, engagement and supervision | 105,000 |
| 1.2 | Design, investigations, approvals and procurement | 210,000 |
| 1.3 | Construction works | 1,650,000 |
| 1.4 | Fit-out, equipment and external works | 330,000 |
| 1.5 | Commissioning and handover | 45,000 |
| Base cost subtotal | 2,340,000 | |
| Contingency (2,340,000 × 0.10) | 234,000 | |
| Total project budget | 2,574,000 | |
| Approved funding envelope | 2,600,000 | |
| Management reserve (2,600,000 – 2,574,000) | 26,000 | |
Conclusion
This assignment has assembled an integrated planning baseline for the Barrabri Sportsground Precinct Upgrade. The charter establishes why the project exists, what is in and out of scope, and how success will be judged, including benefits measures that outlast handover. The WBS translates that scope into 14 level 3 work packages under five control accounts aligned to Council’s cost codes; the schedule shows a 39 week critical path that fills the nine month window with only 1 week of float on a single activity; the risk register concentrates treatment on the weather, market escalation and latent condition exposures typical of regional NSW construction; and the budget carries a transparent, calculated contingency inside the approved envelope. The artefacts are deliberately interlocked, so that a change to any one of them is visible in the others through formal change control (PMI, 2021). For a council delivering grant funded works under public scrutiny, that traceability is the mechanism by which the project remains defensible to its funders, auditors and the Barrabri community.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Regional population, 2022-23. ABS.
Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley.
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2021). Project management: The managerial process (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Mantel, S. J. (2021). Project management: A strategic managerial approach (11th ed.). Wiley.
NSW Office of Sport. (2023). Facility planning guide for sport and recreation. NSW Government.
Office of Local Government NSW. (2020). Capital expenditure guidelines for local government. NSW Government.
Pinto, J. K. (2020). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage (5th ed.). Pearson.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
SafeWork NSW. (2022). Code of practice: Construction work. NSW Government.
Sport Australia. (2021). Community sport infrastructure investment: Evidence and principles. Australian Sports Commission.
Standards Australia. (2018). Risk management: Guidelines (AS ISO 31000:2018). Standards Australia.
Standards Australia. (2021). Project, programme and portfolio management: Context and concepts (AS ISO 21500:2021). Standards Australia.