Two policies. Two different priorities.
Local content outcomes depend on how well they work together.
Ask a project team who is responsible for local content outcomes, and you’ll usually get two answers.
Procurement teams often see local content as someone else’s responsibility.
Local Content practitioners often see procurement as the mechanism through which local content outcomes are ultimately delivered.
Both are partly right. And that’s where the challenge begins.
Local content outcomes are shaped by two sets of policy that were designed for different purposes, written by different parts of government, and often managed by different people on a project.
Where these policies align, projects create meaningful opportunities for local businesses, workers and communities. Where they pull in different directions, projects often struggle to achieve the outcomes governments expect.
Local content is not a policy, process or procurement activity. It is an outcome. Whether local businesses, workers and communities benefit from a project depends on hundreds of decisions made throughout planning, procurement and delivery. Industry participation policy and procurement policy influence those decisions in different ways, but neither can deliver local content outcomes on its own.
What each policy is for
Industry participation policy is about opportunity and economic development.
At the Commonwealth level, the Australian Jobs Act 2013 can require major projects over $500 million to prepare an Australian Industry Participation (AIP) Plan.
States and territories have their own industry participation frameworks, often with broader objectives around employment creation, capability development, workforce participation, regional economic development and First Nations engagement.
While the details differ, the common thread is that capable local businesses and workers should have a genuine opportunity to participate in project delivery.
Industry participation policy asks:
Who gets the opportunity to participate, what capability is developed, and how can project investment create broader economic and social value?
Procurement policy is about purchasing goods and services in a way that delivers value and withstands scrutiny.
The Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and their state equivalents, establish the frameworks for how goods and services are procured. The focus is on value for money, probity, competition, transparency and accountable decision-making.
Procurement policy asks:
Are we buying the right solution, through the right process, in a way that delivers value for money and can withstand scrutiny?
Neither question is wrong.
They are simply different questions that need to be considered together.
Where they collide
Most of the time, the two policies don’t openly conflict.
They simply pull in different directions at the moments that matter most.
Timing
Industry participation policy encourages early visibility of upcoming opportunities so suppliers can prepare, form partnerships, and invest in capability.
Procurement processes often limit the information that can be released before a formal market approach commences. By that stage, however, the window for many suppliers to prepare may have largely passed.
Packaging
Procurement logic often favours fewer, larger contracts. Larger packages can simplify contract administration, reduce interface risk and establish clearer accountability.
Industry participation policy favours procurement strategies that create realistic opportunities for capable local businesses to compete.
The trade-off between delivery efficiency and supplier accessibility is best understood before a procurement strategy is finalised.
Bundle too much work together and "full, fair and reasonable opportunity" can become largely theoretical.
Prequalification
Procurement uses prequalification requirements to manage risk and ensure suppliers possess the capability, experience and systems required to deliver.
However, if those requirements are established without a clear understanding of the local market, capable suppliers may be excluded before they have an opportunity to compete.
Value for money
This is where the discussion becomes most important.
Value for money was never intended to mean lowest price. Most procurement frameworks recognise broader considerations such as quality, risk, whole-of-life cost and strategic outcomes.
However, many of the benefits industry participation policy seeks to achieve, including capability building, workforce development, regional resilience and long-term economic benefit, are often difficult to quantify and inconsistently reflected in evaluation methodologies.
If those benefits are not actively considered during evaluation, they rarely influence the outcome.
Where outcomes are really determined
Local content outcomes are rarely determined by an Industry Participation Plan itself.
They are typically determined by a small number of decisions made much earlier in the project lifecycle:
How work is packaged
Who is engaged during market sounding and industry engagement
What prequalification standards are applied
What evaluation criteria are used
How value for money is defined
Whether broader economic and social outcomes are considered alongside cost, risk and delivery
By the time a tender is released, many of the decisions that shape local participation have already been made.
That is why alignment between industry participation and procurement matters.
The objective is not to choose one policy over the other.
It is to ensure both policy lenses inform the decisions that ultimately determine the outcome.
Why it gets harder across jurisdictions
Commonwealth and state industry participation frameworks often operate alongside one another, each with different definitions, thresholds, reporting requirements and policy objectives.
Many state-based frameworks go beyond participation opportunity to explicitly pursue broader economic and social outcomes through public expenditure. These commonly include employment creation, workforce retention, industry capability development, regional economic growth, training, skills development, First Nations participation and social procurement outcomes.
On projects that cross state boundaries, receive funding from multiple levels of government, or must satisfy several policy frameworks simultaneously, project teams can find themselves managing multiple definitions of "local" at the same time.
Without a coherent strategy, compliance can become fragmented, reporting requirements can multiply, and local content risks being treated as an administrative obligation rather than a delivery outcome.
What alignment looks like
Aligning industry participation and procurement policy does not mean lowering standards or favouring local suppliers regardless of capability.
It means making informed decisions with both policy objectives in mind.
In practice, alignment often involves:
Understanding market capability and capacity before procurement strategies are finalised
Testing contract packaging against actual supplier capability rather than assumptions
Setting prequalification requirements informed by market intelligence
Providing suppliers with sufficient visibility to prepare for opportunities
Considering broader economic and social benefits alongside traditional procurement outcomes
Establishing shared accountability between procurement and industry participation leaders
Formal industry participation plans can provide a useful framework, but only if they influence procurement and contracting decisions while options are still available.
Once procurement strategies, packaging approaches and evaluation methodologies are locked in, many local content opportunities have already been constrained.
Hughes et al Point of View
Industry participation policy and procurement policy are not opponents.
One establishes the opportunity.
The other determines how that opportunity is translated into project decisions.
When they are developed separately, local content often becomes late, limited and largely symbolic.
When they are considered together, projects can reduce supply chain risk, strengthen relationships with government and communities, improve competition and leave lasting capability in the regions that host them.
At Hughes et al, we help project teams bring these perspectives into the same conversation early, practically and in a way that withstands scrutiny from both a procurement and policy perspective.
Because local content outcomes are not created when performance is reported.
They are created when procurement, contracting and delivery decisions are made.
Reporting merely reveals the result.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.