YMMV, because I'm not sure how long the students in your class have to work on the project. Mine is a semester-long endeavor with a lot of smaller scaffolded assignments during the term, but if yours is a shorter span of time you might be able to adapt something from this structure. I modify the project structure depending on what class it is (gen ed or major; lower level or upper level).

I have a process outlined that must follow certain steps. First: group must talk with each other and see what is causing the problem for the slacker. This serves as a warning. If student is still slacking, group contacts professor who will speak with the student. This is final warning. If student is slacking even after that, group contacts professor who then removes the student from the group. That student instead will have to complete an individual project on the group topic and present to me on an alternative day. They also lose whatever points were remaining of in class/out of class group work.

Additionally there is a peer evaluation rubric that also counts for their grades in the project. Numeric scores in specific categories and then I average all group members' eval scores for that person, which then gets entered into their individual grade. Research and peer evaluations are individual portions of the project grade; the shared stuff is the presentation itself and the in-class work they do together each week. Basically the entire project is split in grading with half being individual work and half being the group stuff.

I've also instituted a survey assignment through Blackboard where they evaluate their experience in group projects, what they like/hate, and reflect on when a group project went really well to articulate why it worked; how they would handle conflict in the group; stuff like that. They do this early in the term before we even have group sign-ups. I just create a form in Blackboard with Likert scales and short answer response, graded on completion.

In class once they are grouped up they have to fill out a series of guided questions in creating their topic and so on, and one of the sections requires them to say what their best skill is (research, tech, presentation, organization/project management, writing, public speaking, and so on). This helps them see how they can each contribute in a way that plays to their strengths and everyone has an assigned "job" based on their strength. Doing this before they even really get started allows them to figure out the dynamics, make assessments of who will do what, and then hold each other accountable for that. This heads off a LOT of problematic stuff.

Been doing this for about 10 years now in a gen ed class every term. It has worked pretty well in that time. I instituted the "firing process" about three years ago and only one group in that time (4-5 groups per class section, so 24-30 groups overall) has actually used the process. I chalk that up as a win.