Craig Barling
In his evidence, given under oath, on 2 October 2024 to the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts (PAC), UTAS Chief Operating Officer, Craig Barling, misled the PAC by falsely claiming the massive cost blowout on UTAS’ Forestry Building project was due to the late inclusion of the Freedom Furniture building into the project.
At the very least, Mr Barling should provide a formal apology and correction to the PAC.
UTAS’ handling of the Forestry Building project also raises issues about both the credibility of the $500 million figure UTAS is attaching to its proposal for a new STEM building and the integrity of UTAS Council authorisation processes.
The facts
In its slide presentation to the PAC targeted inquiry into UTAS’ financial position on 22 August 2024, UTAS stated:
“We have a successful history of capital program delivery on time and on budget” (slide 35).
However, it is a matter of public record that UTAS’ Forestry Building project has increased in cost from $86 million to $131 million (see the Mercury article of 20 January 2023 and Attachment A, page 3) and, now, to $154 million (UTAS’ slide presentation, slide 43).
- An increase from $86 million to $131 million is 52% – shocking enough; an increase from $86 million to $154 million is 79% – appalling.
In his evidence to PAC on 2 October 2024, Mr Barling indicated that a significant part of the Forestry Building project cost increase was due to the fact that the Freedom Furniture Building/Timberyard had been included in the Foresty Building project as a late addition. In particular, Mr Barling stated:
“With actual Forestry, some of the parts of that changed because we bought Freedom halfway through.
There was a cost estimate for $80 million, that did include a redevelopment of that site that didn’t include the extent of changes we are now doing, which includes a large redevelopment to Freedom, the old Freedom building there. So the scope went from one building to two, and the Freedom building is almost just as big as the Forestry building, just so you know, in terms of size and scale of what we’re doing.” (see Transcript, page 20) [my bolding]
The assertion that the late addition of the Freedom Furniture building to the Forestry building project was responsible for the cost increase in the project is, quite simply, false.
I have undertaken a detailed review of cost and completion date estimates for the Forestry Building project, using UTAS Council minutes, UTAS Academic Senate minutes and other relevant documents (see Attachment A).
I can find no reference to a cost estimate of $80 million, which is likely an inaccurate reference to an actual cost estimate of $86 million or approved UTAS Council funding of “up to $90 million”.
More significantly, the approved UTAS Council funding of ”up to $90 million” was first approved by the UTAS Council on 10 September 2021:
“for the redevelopment of the former Forestry and Freedom buildings in Hobart (the Forestry Project” (UTAS Council minutes cited in Attachment A, pages 1-2). [my bolding]
Not only does Mr Barling’s explanation of the cost increase contradict UTAS Council minutes, it is also at odds with the excuses for the cost increase of $86 million to $131 million, given by Mr Barling’s colleague, Phil Leersen, to the Mercury in January 2023.
“Executive Director Campus Transformation Phil Leersen said the cost of the Forestry building renovation had increased as the project had moved from the high-level design phase to the construction phase.
‘This is due to a number of factors including the addition of a new pedestrian bridge to improve accessibility, the complexity of the civil and ground works as well as the important heritage aspects of the project, and the increases in supply and trade costs across the construction sector. The project value incorporates fit out items such as furniture, IT and audiovisual equipment,’ Mr Leersen said.”
There is no mention of the late addition of the Freedom Furniture building to the Forestry Building project in Mr Leersen’s veritable catalogue of excuses.
- I am critical of Mr Leersen’s comments below, but he – unlike Mr Barling – got that bit right.
The fact is that UTAS has incurred a 79% cost increase on a Forestry Building project that included the Freedom Furniture Building from the time the budget of “up to $90 million” was set. The Freedom Furniture Building was not a later addition to that project that added cost, as claimed by Mr Barling.
A 79% cost increase, whatever circumstances have impacted the Forestry Building project (and there are always issues that arise on construction projects), could be regarded as representing gross incompetence on UTAS’ part.
Whatever the reason for Mr Barling’s error, it can be seen as providing UTAS with a convenient ‘smokescreen’ for this incompetence.
- The Foresty Building project is one of a number of UTAS projects that makes a mockery of its claim that “We have a successful history of capital program delivery on time and on budget”. I will have more to say on this matter in future posts.
Other aspects of the Forestry Building project fiasco
Completion date for the Forestry Building project
Attachment A, and Mr Barling’s evidence on 2 October 2024, provide information on UTAS’ estimate for the completion date of the Forestry Building project.
In January 2023, UTAS stated that the project would take two years (that is, till roughly January 2025). That completion date estimate was subsequently amended to June 2025 and then to August 2025 (see bolded statements in Attachment A, pages 3-4). On Mr Barling’s evidence to PAC that date now seems to be around March 2026 (see Transcript, page 21).
Therefore, in the space of 22 months, the completion date for the Forestry Building project appears to have slipped by some 14 months – hardly delivering a project “on time”.
Implications for STEM
It is worth repeating Mr Leersen’s excuses for the cost increase in the Forestry Building project from $86 million to $131 million (now $154 million):
“This is due to a number of factors including the addition of a new pedestrian bridge to improve accessibility, the complexity of the civil and ground works as well as the important heritage aspects of the project, and the increases in supply and trade costs across the construction sector. The project value incorporates fit out items such as furniture, IT and audiovisual equipment.”
A “high-level design phase” cost estimate should do a lot better than now being 79% out (10-20% might be understandable). It also raises a question of whether UTAS could ever judge itself off budget as compared to “on budget”, if it does not hold itself accountable against “high-level design phase” cost estimates.
- The pedestrian bridge referred to is in effect a mandatory requirement for disabled access, which UTAS and its consultants neglected to include in the “high-level design phase”.
I have previously raised concerns over UTAS’ claim that a new $500 million STEM building is required in my blog post VC Black’s cynical $500 million STEM con job .
The fact that UTAS has been so far out in its cost and completion date estimates for the Forestry Building project should raise further concerns about going down the path of a new STEM building, particularly as UTAS admitted on 2 October 2024 (Transcript, page 16) that its $500 million cost estimate is little more than a back of envelope figure (and a flawed one at that, as my blog post shows).
Refurbishment of current STEM facilities is a low cost option with little to no risk, which can commence now.
UTAS Council approval processes
In an email of 24 April 2024 to the UTAS Chancellor, Alison Watkins AM, I raised my concern that the UTAS Council had not properly authorised, or delegated authority to UTAS management, for the relocation of the College of Business and Economics from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD. Ms Watkins’ response was totally unsatisfactory and raised potential legal issues (correspondence here). Further action on this matter is currently being considered.
In the absence of the UTAS Council clearly authorising an increase in expenditure on the Forestry Building project from $90 million to $131 million, I wrote to Chancellor Watkins on 25 June 2024 raising this matter, as it represented another possible abrogation of responsibility by the UTAS Council, although I note that a possibly relevant section of the UTAS Council minutes is redacted (Attachment A, page 3). I have not yet received a response.
However, while it is possible that the UTAS Council authorised an increase in expenditure from $90 million to $131 million in a section of the UTAS Council minutes that is redacted, UTAS Council minutes are available , without redactions, from January 2023 to August 2024. There are no references to the UTAS Council authorising a further increase in expenditure on the Forestry Building project from $131 million to $154 million. Nor are there any indications of the UTAS Council being informed, let alone concerned, about timeline blowouts.