A Canberra-based energy company has accused a federal government department of wasting taxpayer funds by paying a New Zealand consultancy for climate advice that was offered to it for free.
Free Work Rejected in Favour of Overseas Contract
Exemplary Energy, headquartered in Fadden, alleges the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) bypassed local expertise, resulting in unnecessary expense and delays. The dispute centres on an update to the critical Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) software.
The firm's executive director, Trevor Lee, stated his company had already completed the complex technical work required to update the solar radiation and weather files for the software. Having done the work, Mr Lee said he offered the data to the department at no cost to expedite the national update.
"We had already done it ... we couldn't charge honourably for work that we had already done," Mr Lee said. "We told [the department] that we'd already done it. So we will just give you the files and you can update the NatHERS software without any delay and without any substantial cost."
Despite this offer, the department declined and subsequently awarded a contract valued at over $100,000 to New Zealand's Crown Research Institute, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), in February 2025.
Department Defends Procurement Process
In response, the department defended its decision, stating that price was not the sole factor in achieving value for money. It confirmed the procurement was conducted via a "limited tender" under the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
This approach was justified, the department said, because it needed data consistency. NIWA had delivered the previous three updates using a specific methodology, and maintaining the same supplier ensured compatibility and upheld technical standards.
"This decision was largely driven by the need for data consistency, as NIWA had successfully delivered the previous three updates," a department statement explained.
Following a complaint, the department reviewed the procurement but stood by its process. It emphasised that its assessment considered broader factors like:
- Quality of service and past performance
- Relevant experience and technical expertise
- Overall fitness for purpose of the proposal
Technical Dispute and Public Cost
The core of the disagreement lies in the technical method for disaggregating daily solar data into the hourly values needed for accurate building energy simulations. Mr Lee asserts his firm's methodology, which uses ground stations from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, has been quality-assured by leading Australian universities.
Mr Lee labelled the department's choice a "waste" of public funds. "The financial loser in this case is the tax-paying public," he said. "This is a waste of that money and a massive delay in updating for the changed climate."
In correspondence seen by The Canberra Times, the department's Deputy Secretary, Luise McCulloch, acknowledged Mr Lee's concerns and advised him to contact the Department of Finance's Procurement Coordinator or the Commonwealth Ombudsman if he wished to escalate the matter.
The incident raises questions about balancing procurement rules, the value of local expertise, and the ultimate cost to taxpayers in updating essential climate tools.
