All Articles

Every MSP 2.0 design question in the current RFI, workforce pooling, pricing, performance frameworks, ethical conduct, sits on top of one choice Defence has not yet been forced to make explicitly: whether the model is built around a small, familiar cohort of large, foreign-owned primes acting as gatekeepers to the market, or around a genuinely Australian-owned and controlled ecosystem that the 2026 National Defence Strategy says it wants. Those are not the same design, and MS

The Commonwealth Procurement Rules changed on 17 November 2025. Ethical conduct is now an explicit value for money criterion under CPR 4.5(c). Reasonable enquiries into a supplier's compliance apply to every procurement under CPR 6.6, not just those above a threshold. CPR 6.7 requires officials to actively prevent conflicts of interest, not just record them. Historic performance is now part of the value for money calculus, not a footnote to it. MSP 2.0 is being designed after

Defence is designing the next Major Service Provider model. The RFI (SIAD/RFI/90404/1) asks industry the right questions: forward demand visibility, skill-based workforce planning, standing panels, contract terms, pricing structures, knowledge transfer. Those are the easy questions. There is a harder one buried underneath them, and it is the one that will determine whether MSP 2.0 actually works. Who manages the workforce, and who competes for the work it delivers, cannot kee

For decades, the Big 4 and their cohort have commanded premium fees on the basis of institutional credibility, disciplined methodology and accountable senior oversight. Clients pay not for raw output, but for assurance: the assurance that analysis is rigorously interrogated, that risk is thoughtfully managed, and that partners with deep experience stand behind every conclusion. That trust premium has already been strained. In Australia, PWC’s tax policy controversy (where con

5 ways to do better business

The current dynamics surrounding AUKUS evoke memories of old-fashioned mob tactics, where pressure and financial demands dictate partnerships. Australians increasingly feel they are being coerced into funding military obligations without certainty of genuine return. Such arrangements could set a troubling precedent, placing the nation's security in the hands of foreign powers.

SMEs face ongoing reports of skill shortages and difficulties mobilising resources for key Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) projects. Why is there a disconnect between the talent available and the ability to engage it effectively? The answer lies in the systemic issues within the current MSP model.

With the Dept of Finance People Panel Phase 3 RFT closing today, we hope that not all of the Defence eggs are in that basket. Continuing to tolerate very large workforce contracts that are not tied to incremental gains in warfighting capability may not stand Australia in good stead in the years ahead. Nor should Defence tolerate any company demonstrated to be price fixing, colluding or eroding its supply chain by controlling supply and demand.

The current focus on MSPs and structured contracts may offer certain efficiencies but could also lead to reduced flexibility and slower response times.

In this article, we will explore how leaders can master the art of successful failure, recover from setbacks, and create a resilient culture within their teams.

Knowing who to ask for help and when can be the difference between success or failure, winning or losing. It demonstrates great leadership and a growth mindset.