By Darian Macey, August 29 2025
Defence infrastructure projects are still largely shaped by a “Minimum Viable Capability” (MVC) mindset – deliver the essential requirements to meet capability needs, on time and on budget, with little appetite for extras. This approach, while understandable in a tight fiscal environment, has created a tension: how do we reconcile Defence’s commitments to sustainability with a procurement culture that rewards doing only the minimum?
As one Defence sustainability official bluntly put it, outside Defence “sustainability is BAU” (business as usual) but inside Defence, “sustainability is not BAU”. In other words, green initiatives are still seen as nice-to-have, not need-to-have, in the Defence estate.
This minimum viable ambition for sustainability is becoming a real tension. On one hand, Defence leaders talk about commitments to net zero and climate resilience; on the other, project teams are told not to aim for “gold standard” innovation. Felix Bowman-Derrick – Assistant Secretary, Environment & Engineering in Defence – captured this balancing act well. He doesn’t want sustainability to be just a token “consideration” that gets value-managed out (“a big waving flag to say, provide something we can chop off later”), and argues some requirements should simply be non-negotiable. Yet in the same breath he cautions that any green measures must “align with budget, troop pressure, [and] minimum viable capability” – Defence “don’t want the gold standard”, just the industry standard as business-as-usual. The message to industry is mixed: please include sustainability, but only the bare minimum.
It’s no surprise, then, that tender evaluations rarely give sustainability serious weight. Yes, there are new policies saying procurements must consider sustainable design and materials – tender administrators “are now forced to evaluate sustainability” – but they’ve received little guidance on how. Anecdotally, many bid teams scramble on the last day to toss in a few “green” ideas or glossy paragraphs, knowing those are unlikely to sway the outcome. In competitive bids, anything not strictly required (and adding cost or perceived risk) is seen as a liability. Innovative sustainability solutions often get cut as “nice-to-have” extras to keep bids price-competitive under the MVC ethos.
This conservative procurement approach has real consequences. It chills innovation and leaves a lot of positive environmental and performance outcomes on the table. It’s also at odds with broader government goals – after all, what good is achieving minimum capability if we incur avoidable long-term costs, supply chain fragility, or environmental damage in the process? The irony is that many sustainable solutions could strengthen capability (through energy self-sufficiency, durability, reduced maintenance, etc.), not undermine it. But they won’t get a chance to prove it if tenders never value them.
The Policy–Practice Gap
Defence has introduced the Environmental Sustainability Policy (ESP) framework, requiring reporting on low-carbon materials, circularity, waste reduction, and innovation. On paper, this looks like progress. But participants highlighted the practical difficulty of completing these templates at tender stage, when supply chain engagement is limited and data is patchy.
At our recent Roundtable on Sustainability Requirements in Defence Procurement, industry leaders, contractors, and sustainability specialists explored this dilemma. Their verdict was clear: until sustainability is weighted in tender evaluations, the new policies will have negligible effect on procurement behaviour
As one contractor put it: “We’re making educated guesses at tender stage – then carrying a huge workload during delivery to keep the templates updated.”
Others questioned the accountability mechanisms: will Defence simply pass the data upstream, or will it actively use it to drive change? And if sustainability isn’t explicitly scored in evaluations, why would bidders risk committing to ambitious measures that could inflate price or add delivery risk?
Minimum Viable Capability vs Whole-of-Life Value
The roundtable also revealed how the MVC ethos undermines whole-of-life benefits. For example:
- Energy efficiency measures are often dismissed because Defence pays low tariffs, making solar and renewables hard to justify financially.
- Sustainable innovations trialled in infrastructure projects (e.g. PFAS water treatment at Garden Island) were rejected in favour of costlier, lower-risk disposal options.
- Yet, contrastingly, at Woomera, contaminated water was successfully reused for dust suppression – saving significant money and aligning with Defence’s own waste hierarchy.
This shows the inconsistency: whether sustainability succeeds depends less on policy than on project-level risk appetite.
Sustainable Solutions Versus the Status Quo: Four Case Studies
To ground this discussion, let’s look at some real-world innovators trying to bring sustainability into Defence infrastructure. Each of these Australian suppliers offers a forward-thinking solution that could benefit Defence – and each has encountered the trade-offs of pitching “above standard” ideas to a system fixated on MVC.
Transmutation: From Waste to Infrastructure Assets
Transmutation, a South Australian startup, is turning industrial plastic waste into construction consumables – notably heavy-duty rebar support chairs. Defence projects use thousands of these chairs in every pour. The twist: Transmutation’s chairs are made entirely from recycled Australian plastic, GECA-certified, and perform as well or better than imported virgin-plastic versions.
On paper, it’s a perfect sustainability story. Locally made, eco-friendly, supply-chain secure. In principle, project managers and contractors agree – everyone who holds a sample “gets it straight away.” Yet in practice, the MVC procurement culture gets in the way. A prime contractor can tick the box simply by supplying any compliant bar chair. There is no evaluation weighting for recycled content. So unless a project champion insists, Transmutation’s greener option becomes a “nice-to-have” that adds no advantage in winning a tender.
The roundtable highlighted this very problem: without weighted sustainability criteria, innovations like Transmutation’s cannot scale. Participants argued that a single line in a tender spec – “recycled plastic bar chairs to be used” – would create an instant market. Until then, it’s up to suppliers like Brad Scott and his team to persuade one project at a time.
There are promising signs. A first order from a major builder is underway, and several Defence contractors are running pilots. But systemic uptake depends on procurement reform. The lesson from Transmutation’s journey is that viable sustainable products already exist – they just need the system to value them.
DEFY: Circular Interiors and the Fire Compliance Hurdle
DEFY takes waste plastic and transforms it into decorative HDPE panels, furniture, and joinery. Each panel is unique, speckled with colours from recycled materials, and can even be embossed with a QR code telling its recycling story. Designers love it: feature walls, counters, and cabinetry can become visible showcases of circular economy in action.
In theory, Defence projects could use DEFY’s panels to signal commitment to sustainability – imagine a visitor lobby lined with panels made from thousands of recycled milk bottles. Yet, as DEFY has discovered, Defence’s conservative mindset is a barrier. Fire compliance is one challenge: while the material is similar to dense plywood, it often needs fire-resistant backing. Some certifiers have approved it for non-structural uses, while others have been hesitant. That uncertainty deters risk-averse contractors.
There’s also the learning curve. Many joiners and builders have never worked with HDPE panels, assuming it adds time or cost. DEFY has countered by offering CNC pre-cutting to reduce labour, but unless the client specifies sustainability, contractors tend to default to laminates and steel.
Roundtable participants echoed this: Defence tends to reward compliance and low cost, not innovation. Unless lifecycle benefits (e.g., panels that don’t warp, never need repainting, and can be remelted into new panels) are formally valued in tenders, DEFY’s advantages are overlooked.
Still, DEFY is making headway, one project at a time. Successful fit-outs prove the panels can meet code, look great, and save maintenance costs. The bigger opportunity lies in procurement reform: if lifecycle costing or recycled-content targets were mandated, DEFY’s products could move from “pilot project purgatory” to standard Defence practice.
Polar Enviro: Lightening the Load (and the Footprint) with Photoluminescence
Every Defence building needs exit signs. Traditionally, they’re wired LED boxes or battery-powered units, consuming electricity and requiring constant maintenance. Polar Enviro offers a radically simpler alternative: photoluminescent exit signs. These absorb ambient light and glow for hours during an outage. No wiring, no batteries, no energy bills, and a 15-year lifespan.
The benefits are obvious. Defence facility managers see savings in power, waste, and maintenance. In one trial, Polar Enviro also supplied recycled-glass aggregate coatings for EV bay markings – more durable and sustainable than paint. Yet, despite proven compliance, their exit signs remain the exception. Why? Because Defence specs usually just say, “exit signs to standard XYZ,” and incumbents keep supplying LEDs.
Roundtable participants recognised this inertia: without specification change, innovations are sidelined. Polar Enviro has found success by identifying “champions” – FM contractors and base managers who experience the pain of battery testing and replacements. Once shown the data, these champions become advocates, helping adoption spread.
The irony is that Polar Enviro’s solution actually aligns perfectly with MVC thinking: it meets the capability need (safety signage) more efficiently, with fewer components. But because sustainability isn’t weighted, the practical advantages don’t translate into systemic procurement preference.
Polar Enviro is steadily breaking through. Their signs are already in limited use on Defence bases, and each success strengthens the case. The hope is that with policy evolution – for example, mandating energy-free exit signage where feasible – Defence can transform a small innovation into a base-wide standard.
ECG: Low-Carbon Construction and the Innovation Gap
Environmental Construction Group (ECG) champions low-carbon practices: solar microgrids and lifecycle analysis. Their value proposition is clear: smarter design choices today reduce emissions, save money, and build more resilient bases for tomorrow.
But under MVC rules, ECG’s proposals often stumble. A solar microgrid may need higher upfront capital. Without lifecycle costing in tender evaluations, these innovations are hard to justify. Defence’s design-and-build teams don’t own future energy bills – so why invest today to save someone else’s budget tomorrow?
Roundtable discussions reinforced this point: sustainability lacks an incentive structure. Contractors are wary of promising too much at tender stage, knowing Defence may hold them accountable later. PMCA staff lack guidance on how to weigh sustainability against cost or schedule. The result is that even proven solutions are stuck in “pilot project purgatory” – trialled once, never scaled.
ECG’s strategy is early engagement. On projects with sustainability ambitions (e.g., Green Star-rated HQs, or remote bases seeking energy independence), they influence design briefs before tenders are locked in. This “bakes in” sustainable requirements that all bidders must meet. The outcome: systemic change rather than one-off exceptions.
Still, such cases remain rare. Most projects default to conservative templates. The roundtable agreed that mandating minimum recycled content, requiring lifecycle cost assessments, and publishing performance data could shift the dial. For ECG and others, this would turn sustainability from an uphill battle into the baseline.
Until then, ECG’s work is about finding allies – Defence leaders, designers, and contractors willing to prove that low-carbon construction is not just greener, but smarter. Their challenge is turning early wins into a movement that Defence cannot ignore.
Towards a Meaningful Ambition
The takeaway from Roundtable 4 is blunt: sustainability will remain a side quest unless it is weighted in tender evaluations. Tick-box compliance will only generate paperwork, not change.
So what could meaningful ambition look like? Participants proposed:
- Assigning explicit scoring to sustainability criteria in tenders.
- Training PMCA staff and evaluation panels to assess sustainability beyond compliance.
- Incentivising innovation by allowing modest premiums for proven lifecycle savings.
- Publishing collected ESP data to build transparency and accountability.
- Rewarding circularity while managing unintended risks, such as microplastics.
Ultimately, sustainability and capability are not at odds. A base that is energy-efficient, resilient, and easier to maintain has more real capability over its life than one that only just meets the minimum on Day 1.
The Next Steps
Defence’s estate and infrastructure leaders acknowledge the need to catch up with industry. What matters now is whether upcoming projects in 2025–26 will integrate sustainability as a non-negotiable baseline rather than a fragile add-on.
As one participant put it: “Sustainability won’t drive change until it counts in the scorecard.”
Industry’s role is to keep bringing forward practical solutions, backed with data and case studies, and to press for procurement reform. The more success stories we generate – from recycled bar chairs to photoluminescent exit signs – the harder it will be to justify the old MVC-only approach.
In the end, Defence isn’t just defending today’s capability – it’s defending Australia’s future. And that future depends on sustainability being embedded, not optional.
Author: Darian Macey
Darian is a former Engineering Officer with the RAE with tertiary qualifications in Engineering and Project Management. He is a leading practitioner within Australia's NSI sector with previous employment in Government, project management and building contractor organisations.
