By Darian Macey, August 29 2025
The Australian Defence infrastructure sector is at a crossroads.
On one side, Defence leadership has doubled down on Minimum Viable Capability (MVC) – delivering projects with just the core requirements, no extras, “no gold plating.” On the other side, new sustainability mandates and net-zero targets are rising across government, demanding more innovation and long-term thinking in projects.
At our recent Roundtable 4: Sustainability Requirements in Defence Procurement, this tension was laid bare. The collective message from industry was blunt: until sustainability is explicitly weighted in tender evaluations, the new policies will have negligible effect on procurement behaviour.
Minimum Viable Capability vs. Sustainability Mandates
MVC has become a defining phrase in Defence estate delivery. Brigadier Matt Quinn, DG Capital Facilities & Infrastructure, has championed this ethos of speed, cost discipline, and functional baselines: deliver only what is strictly required, as fast as possible, without “unnecessary embellishments.”
At the same time, sustainability is no longer optional across government. Updated National Construction Code requirements, recycled material quotas, and Defence’s own Net Zero Strategy (with 2030 targets) are embedding sustainability in public works. Felix Bowman-Derrick, Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering, has argued that sustainability should be “business as usual,” not an afterthought.
But under a rigid MVC lens, many sustainability features – from solar batteries to higher-grade insulation – appear as “extras.” As one roundtable participant noted, “Defence asks for sustainability plans at tender, but treats them as value-adds that can be cut later.”
The Policy–Practice Gap
The introduction of the Environmental Sustainability Policy (ESP) framework has created new reporting obligations: low-carbon materials, waste reduction, innovation. Yet roundtable participants described the process as onerous and uncertain at tender stage, when suppliers haven’t been engaged and data is guesswork.
The bigger issue is enforcement. Will Defence actually use this data to shape procurement? Or will it simply be collated and passed upstream? Without evaluation weighting, sustainability remains a compliance exercise – more paperwork than change.
As one builder put it: “We’re signing up to promises at tender we can’t fully validate. What happens if we can’t meet them in delivery?”
Case Studies: Contradictions on the Ground
The roundtable surfaced examples where Defence’s sustainability posture swung between extremes:
- Garden Island (Sydney): Contractors proposed an on-site PFAS water treatment solution to cut cost and risk. Defence instead opted for rapid off-site disposal at greater expense – prioritising speed and avoidance of risk over sustainability.
- Woomera (SA): In contrast, PFAS-contaminated water was reused for dust suppression, saving hundreds of thousands in haulage costs while aligning with Defence’s waste hierarchy.
- Circularity dilemmas: Recycled products sometimes bring unintended risks, such as microplastic shedding from recycled fencing or erosion control products. As one participant noted, Defence will need to weigh not just recycled content, but end-of-life behaviour.
These contradictions highlight the inconsistency: sustainability succeeds or fails not by policy, but by the appetite of individual project teams.
Industry’s Frustration: Disincentivised Innovation
Contractors and suppliers stressed that the current evaluation settings actively discourage them from offering sustainable innovations. If sustainability carries no weight in scoring, bidders who invest in greener solutions risk pricing themselves out. The safer strategy is to comply with the minimum – no less, but definitely no more.
As one participant summed up: “Sustainability won’t drive change until it counts in the scorecard.”
Towards a Meaningful Ambition
Reconciling MVC and sustainability requires a reframing: redefine “viable capability” to include sustainability as a core measure of value. A base that is energy-inefficient, costly to maintain, or environmentally negligent may meet today’s brief – but is it truly viable over its lifecycle?
Participants suggested:
- Assigning explicit tender weighting to sustainability.
- Publishing ESP data to build transparency and comparability.
- Incentivising innovation with allowances for modest premiums when lifecycle savings are proven.
- Training PMCA staff and evaluators in sustainability assessment, or appointing specialists to panels.
The consensus was clear: clarity and consistency from Defence are essential. Align tender language with broader government standards. Replace “please consider” with “must include.” Reward sustainable innovation instead of penalising it.
Looking Ahead
This roundtable confirmed what many already suspected: Defence’s sustainability policies, without teeth, risk becoming tick-box exercises. But there is momentum. Internal champions within Defence, coupled with industry’s innovation pipeline, are ready to shift the dial – if procurement settings change.
As one consultant put it during the session: “Minimum viable doesn’t mean minimum vision. If Defence wants real value, sustainability must be part of capability itself.”
In Part 2 of this series, we’ll profile case studies of Australian innovators – from recycled bar chairs to photoluminescent exit signs – who are ready to deliver sustainability today. Their challenge is not capability, but culture.
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.
