The devil you know: why large multinationals keep winning work in Canberra

People often ask why Government continues to buy from large multinationals, even after very public delivery issues, cost overruns, and schedule blow-outs. In most cases, the answer is familiarity.

In Government sales, familiarity reduces perceived risk. If an agency has never heard of you before a tender is released, you are already starting from behind. That does not mean the system is corrupt or outcomes are predetermined. It reflects how Government actually operates. Buyers are accountable for their decisions, cautious by design, and far more focused on managing risk than backing the technically strongest response on paper.

It is an unpopular take, but brand recognition matters. Agencies know how large multinationals operate, how they handle scrutiny, and how they behave when things go wrong. That predictability often outweighs technical strength once a risk-based lens is applied to procurement.

We see this play out regularly. A technically strong supplier submits a better response on paper, receives positive feedback, and scores well during evaluation. But the work still goes to the organisation the agency already knows.

A written response does not create that confidence on its own. This is why brand positioning and familiarity need to be established well before an opportunity hits procurement.

The tender is the final step in a long process, but many organisations treat it as the beginning. They are not positioned, they did not see it coming, and they assume that presenting a better solution in a merit-based system should be enough. By the time an RFQ is released, buyers usually already have a view of the market and a sense of who they feel comfortable backing.

If your strategy relies on being discovered for the first time during evaluation, you are asking the most unforgiving part of the process to carry all the risk.