Comparisons were made between the construction cost templates with the construction costs reported for of each of the GP Super Clinics that responded to the Establishment Aspect Survey.
Of the initial assessments of value for money all but six have been shown, to varying degrees, to represent acceptable value for money. Of these six, the construction cost for one was impacted by the need to remediate site contamination, a cost not provided for in the initial budgets. The construction cost for another is relatively high because of the added cost impost arising from the conversion of a heritage-listed building. A third site had an otherwise acceptable base building cost impacted by the delay costs that arose when construction was halted on two occasions. If these extra-ordinary circumstances had been factored into the value for money assessments, it is likely that they would have otherwise met the value for money criteria leaving three remaining sites as out of range of acceptable value for money.
The factors that contributed to the higher cost per square metre for the remaining three sites were not identifiable through the value for money assessment methodology and the advice obtained from the sites. It may well be that further assessment might identify similar extenuating circumstances but this would require further examination.