Hot Buttons: Transparency in Procurement

Darian Macey

....Welcome to the first episode in our Hot Button series for 2025. Today, we’re cracking open one of the most crucial challenges in Defence infrastructure—the procurement process and the barriers it poses to industry players. I'm Darian Macey, and I'm here today with Jessica, my cohost on the podcast, Mastering Defence Infrastructure. Welcome, Jessica.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Thanks Darian. It's great to be here. I'm looking forward to unpacking this important topic with you.

Darian Macey

Now, procurement isn’t just bureaucracy; it’s about ensuring Defence gets real value for its investments, while giving industry a fair and transparent chance to contribute. Why are we discussing it? Because when this process breaks down, it’s not just the projects that suffer—entire supply chains feel it.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And it’s not just the big contractors, is it? This impacts small and medium enterprises, regional players, even specialty providers who might offer something innovative. When the system gets murky, they’re the first to walk away from the table.

Darian Macey

Absolutely, Jessica. That’s why we’re dissecting the findings of the first in this year's Defence Estate Community Roundtable Series. It was held on the 8th of May this year, and it brought together an incredible mix—24 participants spanning major construction firms, regional consultants, SMEs, and even former Defence personnel now working in the private sector, to focus on tender evaluation and panel selection processes. Each brought their own unique lens to what’s working and, more importantly, what isn’t.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Right, and what stood out to me, Darian, is just how open and constructive this conversation was. It wasn’t just about complaining, but really digging into solutions. Stuff like what could be done today, with minimal effort, and then those bigger reforms that need time and policy backing.

Darian Macey

Exactly. The focus was on moving forward. And for those listening who might be new to this space—why does this matter to you? Well, whether you’re a seasoned contractor working Defence panels or a newcomer eyeing your first RFT, understanding these dynamics can make or break your business strategy.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And even if you’re not directly bidding, the ripple effects are real. Delays and uncertainties throw off not just individual firms’ plans but entire supply chains, right?

Darian Macey

Precisely. So, as you listen, think about this: what would a fairer, clearer, and more consistent system mean to you? Because that’s the goal of this report—it distills the frustrations of industry players into actionable steps that both Defence and the private sector can take to fix this system.

Jessica Bottlebrush

So now that we've set context, stay tuned because next, we’re diving into one of the biggest hurdles raised by industry: transparency. Lack of clarity, vague feedback, and those infamous "black box" panels—there’s a lot to unpack.

Darian Macey

Jessica, as we hinted at earlier, transparency stands out as one of the biggest challenges highlighted during the roundtable. Participants described the tendering process as operating in a “black box,” where months of meticulous effort go into crafting proposals, only to be met with vague feedback or no clear reasoning behind the decisions. It’s something that clearly resonated across the board.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Yeah, I remember reading one of the quotes from the report—I think someone said, "We submitted a strong bid but never found out how we ranked." Honestly, how’s anyone supposed to improve if the feedback is just… silence?

Darian Macey

Exactly. And the problem is, when even debriefs are offered, they’re inconsistent. Some are actually quite helpful, but others? They’re perfunctory. There was a frustration that evaluators sometimes hide behind probity rules, using them almost like a shield to avoid meaningful dialogue. I mean, probity is important, but there’s a line, right?

Jessica Bottlebrush

Oh, absolutely. And beyond that, it doesn’t just stop at transparency, does it? Communication—or, really, the lack of it—was another huge pain point. Post-tender radio silence? We heard stories of companies being left in limbo for months without updates.

Darian Macey

That’s true. One participant gave an example of a tender result that was expected in February, and by May, they’d still heard nothing. And when announcements about delays do come, they’re often last-minute—leaving teams scrambling and resources in limbo. Imagine the effect on smaller businesses that don’t have the luxury of waiting around.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Exactly, and businesses new to the sector aren’t just worrying about delays—they’re also worried about whether they can even break into the system. Those closed panels came up again and again, right?

Darian Macey

They did. One attendee summed it up perfectly: "Panels are closed for years; those who missed out don’t stand a chance." And since a lot of SMEs don’t have the resources or connections to navigate these barriers, they’re essentially locked out—this reduces competition and, ultimately, the diversity of suppliers available to Defence.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And don’t even get me started on evaluation criteria—how many times have we heard about the focus on lowest price over actual value? Even when tenders say they’ll prioritize technical capability, you hear stories of the cheapest bid sneaking into the winner’s circle.

Darian Macey

Indeed. Lowest price isn’t always best value, and yet, industry participants repeatedly flagged this exact issue. It’s a real concern—if bidders perceive that price trumps everything else, they’ll start under-pricing, cutting corners, or even second-guessing what Defence truly values. None of which leads to better outcomes.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And this all ties together, doesn’t it? The lack of transparency feeds into bad communication, which makes the evaluation process feel arbitrary, and then structural barriers just lock the door behind all of that.

Darian Macey

That’s exactly it, Jessica. These aren’t just isolated issues; they’re interconnected. And when you step back, it’s easy to see how they snowball—undermining industry confidence, disrupting capacity planning, and ultimately reducing competition. But the question is, how do we untangle all this?

Darian Macey

So, Jessica, picking up on what you said earlier about everything being interconnected, let’s unpack two key areas where the roundtable saw the greatest frustrations: communication delays and structural barriers. Starting with communication—this came up again and again. Bidders described submitting their proposals and then being met with radio silence, sometimes for months. One even said it felt like yelling into a void, expecting an echo but only getting static.

Jessica Bottlebrush

It’s maddening, isn’t it? I mean, so much time and effort go into crafting these responses. And then you’re left guessing if anyone’s even read them! Didn’t someone say, "We were told February for results, and by May, still no word"? The cost of holding resources in limbo alone must be massive.

Darian Macey

Absolutely. And the financial cost is just one piece. Delayed decisions eat away at morale, disrupt planning, and erode trust. This is particularly brutal for smaller players who can’t afford to have teams sitting idle, waiting for outcomes while other opportunities pass them by. Delays don’t just inconvenience; they create ripple effects across project pipelines.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And when updates come, it’s often too little, too late—like when a tender outcome gets delayed at the last minute after everyone’s already committed their resources. It’s avoidable, right? Just a simple, proactive status update would make such a difference.

Darian Macey

Exactly, Jessica. And that brings us to a deeper structural issue—closed panels. Think about it: panels locked for years with no opportunity for new entrants. That’s like posting a "closed for business" sign on the market. One SME owner actually said, "If you miss out, you’re locked out," and it captures the problem perfectly. There’s no dynamism, no room for fresh talent or new solutions.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And that’s such a shame because these smaller or regional firms often have exactly what’s needed—innovative approaches, local expertise. But when costs just to bid are so high, and panels are sealed shut, they’re forced out of the game before they’ve even started.

Darian Macey

Right. And what’s worse is that this system inadvertently encourages a concentration of resources in a handful of large firms. Now, these larger players obviously have their strengths, but when they dominate, it shrinks the pool of competition and limits Defence’s access to potentially better options—both in terms of innovation and cost.

Jessica Bottlebrush

That "locking the door" imagery you used really sticks with me—because it’s not just one door. It’s like layers of them, each one harder than the last to pry open. If closed panels are one layer, then high bid costs are another, aren’t they?

Darian Macey

Precisely. High costs disproportionately impact SMEs. Larger firms can justify the investment because they’re used to playing the long game with tenders. Smaller businesses? They simply can’t sustain multiple failed bids with zero feedback. So, naturally, they retreat. And what does that mean for Defence? Fewer bidders, less competition, and a system skewed towards inertia.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And it all loops back into communication—or the lack of it. When you're not being told how decisions are made or how future opportunities might evolve, how can anyone plan effectively? It’s like trying to navigate in pitch darkness.

Darian Macey

Right. And these barriers—be it communication delays, closed panels, or bid costs—they don’t just hurt individual companies. They hurt the relationship between industry and Defence as a whole.

Darian Macey

Building on those challenges we’ve just explored, let’s consider what’s truly at risk here. The barriers—communication delays, closed panels, and high bidding costs—don’t just create operational headaches; they erode trust on a much larger scale. When bidders perceive the system as unfair or unnecessarily complicated, trust in Defence as a dependable client begins to erode. And when that happens, the industry as a whole begins to pull back—a dangerous trend with far-reaching consequences.

Jessica Bottlebrush

I mean, one participant summed it up pretty starkly, didn’t they? “We’ve stopped bidding.” That’s not just a one-off story—it’s a sentiment echoed by others. If they’ve invested heavily in bids only to hear nothing or to get a half-hearted, templated rejection, why would they keep trying?

Darian Macey

Exactly. And this isn’t only about losing a few bidders here and there. When companies bow out, especially SMEs or regional businesses, it directly impacts diversity in the market, which, in turn, impacts competition. And you know what happens when there’s less competition—prices rise, quality suffers, innovation takes a backseat.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And let’s not forget the ripple effect on confidence within those companies too. Like, we’ve heard it described as a tipping point. After two or three bad experiences, firms just don’t see the value in tying up resources for months on a process they think is unfair anyway.

Darian Macey

And that leads us to capacity planning. If companies don’t trust Defence's timelines, they can’t plan their resources effectively. One firm, as reported in the roundtable, held an entire team on standby for four months, only to discover the contract was awarded weeks ago. Imagine what that does to morale, let alone their bottom line.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Exactly. And the cost is even worse for smaller companies—they cannot afford to have dedicated teams waiting around indefinitely. Or, worse, committing resources that could have been used elsewhere if they’d been given clarity upfront.

Darian Macey

It’s not just SMEs feeling the heat though, is it? Larger, more established firms might have the buffers to manage delays, but even they start doubting the process. When the focus seems to be on lowest price instead of actual value, why should they innovate? Why should they propose smarter, long-term solutions?

Jessica Bottlebrush

True. And then you’ve got bid costs on top of it. Larger firms might be able to write off losses as the cost of doing business, but SMEs? Regional providers? They don’t even get to play if the upfront costs are too high.

Darian Macey

And what’s worse is what happens when those smaller players drop out—they take their innovation and niche expertise with them. A more diverse supplier base is always better for outcomes, yet the current system practically ensures those voices are left out. It’s like locking the front door and handing the key to the usual suspects.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Which… ultimately limits competition—and value for money. And that’s the irony here, right? The very thing Defence wants—better value—is getting harder to achieve because the system deters many of the players who could actually deliver it.

Darian Macey

Exactly, Jessica. These aren’t just hypothetical risks; they’re clear, measurable impacts—confidence erodes, capacity planning becomes chaotic, the supplier pool shrinks, and Defence outcomes suffer. And what’s really concerning, if we don’t address this soon, is how quickly these issues compound, feeding into deeper systemic problems.

Darian Macey

So, Jessica, building on those critical challenges we discussed, let’s dive into a question raised repeatedly during the roundtable: What would a better, fairer procurement process actually look like?

Jessica Bottlebrush

Yeah, Darian, because right now, it’s easy to get stuck talking about what’s broken. But what stood out to me from the discussions was how specific the vision for improvement was—things like clearer criteria from the get-go and more meaningful feedback after decisions.

Darian Macey

Exactly. Let’s start with the tender criteria. Participants envisioned a system where the definition of value for money is published upfront, leaving no room for guessing. For example, bidders wanted to know, definitively, whether up-front cost would outweigh technical innovation or if whole-of-life value mattered more. With these things clearly stated, companies could tailor their proposals accordingly.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And it’s not just about setting those expectations, right? It’s about sticking to them too. One attendee mentioned feeling like the stated priorities in tender documents didn’t match the outcomes, which understandably creates a lot of scepticism.

Darian Macey

Absolutely, Jessica. Consistency ties in directly with trust. And let’s talk about feedback, because that was another big gap the roundtable highlighted. Imagine if every bidder—win or lose—received clear, actionable debriefs explaining their scores and what could’ve been improved. That kind of feedback loop, however simple, could really change the game.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Totally. I mean, vague rejections like "others had more experience" aren’t helping anyone. But a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses? That’s invaluable for future bids. And if Defence really wants stronger competition, giving bidders the tools to improve is a no-brainer.

Darian Macey

Right. And it’s not just what happens after the tender closes—it’s what happens in the lead-up too. One of the strongest messages was the need for better pre-tender signalling. Industry wants a heads-up, through tools like AusTender, about upcoming opportunities and any changes to timelines. Keeping that public schedule clear and updated could make a world of difference for suppliers trying to manage their resources.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Especially for smaller companies. Without that clarity, they risk wasting precious time preparing for tenders that might get delayed or, worse, cancelled. And it’s such an easy fix too—just regular updates could save so much frustration.

Darian Macey

Exactly. Proactive communication throughout the process was another key piece of the ideal vision. Imagine getting monthly updates on tender progress instead of radio silence. This could easily be implemented via the same AusTender listing used to distribute the tender docs. It’s the kind of small change that builds trust and keeps engagement high—not just for big players but for the SMEs and regional firms who often feel left out of the loop.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Which is so important. Because when the system feels fair and accessible, those smaller players are more likely to stick around and compete. And let’s face it—they’re often the ones bringing the innovative solutions Defence says it wants.

Darian Macey

And it’s not just about fairness; it’s about designing a system that works for everyone and delivers real value—whether that’s through clearer evaluation, reliable communication, or lowering entry barriers. These aren’t pie-in-the-sky ideas; they’re actionable steps. In fact...

Darian Macey

As we closed out on those actionable steps, Jessica, it was clear that the roundtable wasn’t just about surfacing problems but about solutions. Let’s begin with the immediate actions or "quick wins"—those changes that everyone agreed could be implemented with relative ease and deliver a significant impact right away.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Yeah, the ones the industry is practically begging for, like standardizing debriefs. Just giving all bidders actionable and specific feedback—how is that not already a thing?

Darian Macey

It’s a great point. Right now, debriefs are all over the place—some helpful, but many generic or even nonexistent. The first recommendation is clear: make meaningful debriefs a baseline requirement. Every bidder, whether they win or lose, deserves tailored feedback that highlights strengths and weaknesses. It's such a simple step, but it’s likely to have one of the biggest impacts on trust.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Exactly. And another one that feels like low-hanging fruit? Just... updating bidders regularly. Seriously, a monthly email saying, “Here’s where things are at” isn’t hard, but it means everything when you’re trying to plan resources.

Darian Macey

True, Jessica. Regular updates through a structured communications cycle could eliminate so much frustration. And let’s not forget AusTender—it’s underutilized as a tool to signal upcoming opportunities or flag timeline changes. Keeping that pipeline up to date isn’t just good practice; it’s vital for smaller firms who need to know what’s ahead.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And what stood out to me in the quick wins was the focus on internal consistency—like making good communication practices mandatory across all project teams. Defence has some shining examples within its ranks, so why not adopt those best practices everywhere?

Darian Macey

Exactly. Those quick wins are about building trust and reliability. But let’s talk now about the longer-term reforms—the structural fixes that will take more effort but are absolutely essential. One standout was refreshing panel arrangements. Right now, panels remain static for years, effectively shutting the door to new suppliers. Regular panel refreshes, or even an open, dynamic system, could inject much-needed competition and diversity.

Jessica Bottlebrush

And while we’re at it, what about bid costs? SMEs and smaller players are already on the back foot. Introducing bid stipends for larger tenders could offset their participation risks and encourage more robust competition. They’re not asking for handouts—just a level playing field.

Darian Macey

Right. And bid fairness goes beyond costs. It’s about making value for money assessments more comprehensive—incorporating whole-of-life considerations instead of defaulting to the lowest price. The roundtable made it clear that clarity in evaluation criteria is crucial, and this is a policy change worth investing in.

Jessica Bottlebrush

What I also found promising was the emphasis on training—mandating it for procurement teams. If people handling tenders or debriefs don’t have the right skills, the system fails before it starts.

Darian Macey

Absolutely. Professionalizing the procurement process—through training, clearer standards, and better tools—is a cornerstone of these reforms. It’s not just about ticking boxes; it’s about reshaping the culture of Defence procurement to prioritize partnership over pure compliance. These changes would fundamentally improve how Defence engages with industry.

Jessica Bottlebrush

The shift from transactional to partnership-based collaboration could be transformative. It’s what industry wants, and honestly, it’s what Defence needs to get better outcomes.

Darian Macey

Exactly. By embracing these reforms, Defence can rebuild trust, foster competition, and ultimately achieve stronger, more value-driven outcomes. But there’s one more piece to this puzzle...

Darian Macey

Which brings us to the final piece of this conversation, listeners. We’ve spoken a lot about quick wins and long-term reforms, but what ties all this together is the critical role of accountability. How do we ensure these changes aren't just talked about but actually implemented? Jessica, let’s dig into that.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Exactly, Darian. And what stood out to me today is just how ready the industry is to collaborate. They’re not just pointing out problems; they’re offering solutions—practical, realistic fixes that can have a big impact, even with minimal effort. It’s all about building that trust and partnership between Defence and the private sector.

Darian Macey

And speaking of partnerships, our listeners—the people on the frontlines navigating these systems—your voices matter. That’s what the Defence Estate Community Roundtables are all about. They provide a forum where issues don’t just echo; they lead to action. If today’s conversation sparked any thoughts or questions, we’d love to hear from you.

Jessica Bottlebrush

Absolutely! Head over to the DECNet Pro member forum. It’s your chance to share feedback, continue the discussions, or even bring new ideas to the table. If you’re not a member yet, it’s easy to join—just visit decnet.com.au slash pro.

Darian Macey

And let me add this: having candid conversations like the ones we’ve shared today isn’t just important—it’s essential. These are the conversations that will shape the future of Defence procurement, making it fairer, more transparent, and ultimately more effective for everyone involved.

Jessica Bottlebrush

It’s been a great discussion, Darian. Thanks to all our listeners for tuning in, and a big thank you to everyone who joined the roundtable discussions—your insights were invaluable. Let’s keep this momentum going.

Darian Macey

And with that, we’ll say goodbye for now. But remember, the work doesn’t stop here. Whether it’s engaging with the next roundtable or becoming a DECNet member, your involvement is key. Until next time—take care and keep driving innovation.