By Darian Macey, January 21 2026
Defence has been clear with industry: there is no design panel under the Defence Infrastructure Panel 2022–2027 (DIP2022), and no intention to create one.
Procurement outcomes in 2025, however, continue to sit awkwardly against that message.
What’s happened
In 2025, AECOM was awarded two large Design Services contracts that were reported against the DIP2022 ATM — one in March (approximately $5.7m) and another in December ($8.2m).
Industry advice also indicates that AECOM was selected to deliver the Design Services Contract for EST02060 – Chowder Bay Defence Fuel Installation.
On its own, that selection would not be remarkable. What matters however, is how the work was procured and how it appears to have been reported.
The Chowder Bay Design Services Contract was released to the open market in December 2024 under a standalone ATM (ESTz063 – Chowder Bay). It was not released under DIP2022.
Under normal AusTender practice, contracts resulting from an open-market ATM are linked back to that ATM when published. They are not typically reported against a separate panel arrangement.
That is where the inconsistency arises.
Based on the information currently available, one of two things has occurred:
Either the Chowder Bay design work has been reported against DIP2022 despite being procured through an open-market ATM, or the Design Services contracts reported under DIP2022 relate to a different scope of work that has not been clearly distinguished.
Neither position has been explained publicly. Requests for clarification from Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Branch were declined.
Why this matters
This is not a technical quibble. It goes to transparency and market confidence.
Consultants and contractors use AusTender data to understand where genuine competition exists, which procurement pathways are active, and how Defence is actually utilising its panels.
When contract notices do not clearly align with the ATMs under which work was released, those signals weaken. Over time, firms are left making investment and staffing decisions on incomplete or misleading information.
The broader concern is not legality, but alignment.
Defence has told industry there is no design panel. Yet repeated high-value design work continues to be reported against a single panel, while parallel open-market processes appear to feed into similar outcomes.
For industry, that distinction matters.
What to watch in 2026
The issue now is classification, not contract award.
Industry will be watching for:
– whether the Chowder Bay Design Services Contract is ultimately linked to ATM ESTz063
– whether Defence clarifies the scope and origin of recent Design Services contracts reported under DIP2022
– whether future design work continues to be reported via panel mechanisms where open-market ATMs have been used
Until that clarity is provided, the gap between Defence’s stated intent and what the market observes will persist.
And in 2026, that gap is becoming harder to ignore.
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.
