Public Interest Context and Relevance

This request seeks information about facilities management contracts at Waiouru Camp, Ohakea Air Base, and the Waiouru Army Museum, including procurement, performance management, and oversight arrangements. The subject matter raises important issues of public accountability, value for money, and integrity in defence estate contracting.

Why this information matters

Facilities management contracts in the defence estate involve:
• significant and ongoing public expenditure;
• safety-critical infrastructure supporting Defence personnel, heritage assets, and public-facing facilities; and
• reliance on contractor self-reporting, certification, and performance assurance.

Across FYI.org.nz and other public oversight material, there is a recurring pattern of OIA requests seeking clarity on:
• how large, multi-year service contracts are monitored in practice;
• how KPIs and deliverables are defined, verified, and enforced;
• how complaints, non-conformances, or integrity concerns are recorded and escalated; and
• how agencies ensure value for money where contracts span multiple sites and years.

This request aligns with those wider transparency concerns by focusing not only on contract existence and value, but also on how oversight and assurance mechanisms operate.

Waiouru and Ohakea as sites of public interest

Waiouru and Ohakea are not ordinary facilities:
• Waiouru Camp is a major training and operational site with long-standing facilities contracts and a complex mix of operational, residential, and support infrastructure.
• The Waiouru Army Museum is a public-facing national heritage institution, creating additional public interest in how facilities contracts are managed, certified, and audited.
• Ohakea Air Base is a critical Defence installation with infrastructure that must meet strict operational and safety standards.

Facilities management arrangements at these sites therefore have implications beyond routine contract administration.

Scope refinement and proportionality

The Ministry of Defence has indicated that the original request raised concerns about scope and collation. The requester has clarified and narrowed the request to the specific sites of Waiouru and Ohakea, including associated facilities such as the Army Museum.

This refinement is consistent with Ombudsman guidance encouraging agencies and requesters to:
• identify key document classes (e.g. contract instruments, KPI frameworks, performance reports, audit or non-conformance records); and
• focus on material oversight records, rather than raw operational data.

Usefulness for public understanding

Information released in response to this request may assist the public to understand:
• how Defence facilities contracts are structured and governed;
• how contractor performance is measured and assured over time;
• how complaints or integrity concerns are handled within Defence procurement systems; and
• whether oversight arrangements are consistent with good public-sector contracting practice.

This request therefore contributes to informed public debate about defence estate management, procurement governance, and accountability for public funds, without seeking personal or classified information.

⸻

Note

Further contextual material may be added to this thread as additional publicly releasable information becomes available. This annotation is provided solely to explain the public-interest relevance of the request.

Related Requests (FYI.org.nz)

Defence / NZDF Facilities and Contracting

1. Information Re: facility contracts — Sam Brown’s current request to the Ministry of Defence for Spotless/Downer facilities maintenance contracts, KPIs, tendering processes, and oversight documentation (Ohakea, Waiouru, Waiouru Army Museum).

2. NZDF Base Emergency Vehicles — A request to NZDF on emergency vehicle assets at bases, illustrating how equipment and service provisioning across bases is tracked under OIA.

3. NZDF Medical Officers — A request for medical staffing information at NZDF, showing historical base-related information requests.

4. Summary of NZDF Annual Report Information For FY2012/13–FY2016/17 — A request to NZDF for annual report data, relevant to longitudinal analysis of performance and reporting trends.

5. P-8A Maintenance Locations and Plan — A recent NZDF request about maintenance planning for a defence asset, demonstrating the breadth of defense service provisioning OIAs.

(Note: Items 2–5 are shown under “Similar requests” on the facility contracts request page; these may not directly involve facilities contract performance but contextualise how NZDF estate and services are subject to information requests.)

⸻

Related Publicly Available Contract Information

6. NZDF Facilities Maintenance Contracts (ROI) — A procurement notice (NZDF estate facilities maintenance services) showing that NZDF seeks Prime Providers for maintenance across nine camps, including Ohakea and Waiouru, and that facilities contracts are bundled and regionally segmented.

7. OIA-2023-4850.1 NZDF Facility Management Contracts (Spotless/PAE) — A previously released NZDF OIA response detailing facility management contracts and expiry timelines for Spotless (Central/Southern Region) and the structure of regional contracts.

⸻

Why these are relevant
• Contract segmentation and suppliers: NZDF estate maintenance contracts are structured by region and provider (e.g., Spotless/PAE), with specific expiry and RIP/RFT cycles, directly relevant to understanding the history of the contracts addressed in Sam Brown’s request.
• Public procurement pipeline: The 2025 ROI for future FMS contracts (spanning nine bases/camps) suggests NZDF is moving toward renewed facilities maintenance arrangements.
• OIA patterns: Other NZDF requests linked on FYI demonstrate the breadth of property/operations information that citizens pursue under the Official Information Act, underscoring the public interest in transparency around facilities and service provision.