Senior public servants have complained about PwC “spamming” them with unsolicited bids for work, internal emails reveal, with department managers told to be vigilant about the potential misuse of government information and the importance of protecting taxpayer money.
The emails, released by the department of agriculture, provide more detail about a practice criticised by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and demonstrate the level of discomfort within the public service about PwC’s methods of trying to land new contracts.
In November 2021, a PwC partner sent an unsolicited email to a public servant spruiking the firm’s IT solutions. The pitch relied on information the partner had received from a colleague who was also working for the department.
“Our PwC strategic partner team has let me know that the [ICT] session on Tuesday spent some time talking about grants management and a view that the overall capability, process, involvement of other agencies as well as tech needs to be reviewed,” the partner wrote.
The PwC partner was familiar with a need to replace existing ICT software and offered the public servant a demonstration of her proposal and a briefing with more information.
Internal emails show the unsolicited approach set off alarm bells within the department and was referred to senior management for consideration.
“Obviously this is poor form,” wrote the public servant who received the pitch. “[They are] using knowledge from PwC’s unique engagement with [us] and our programs, both which they have undertaken maturity assessments of and are currently supporting”.
In reply, another senior bureaucrat wrote “there have been similar things in the past like spamming the senior executive service with invites to PwC future of work seminars and drafted scopes of work turning up that were not requested”.
Another public servant warned of “a perception that PwC is exploiting the knowledge gained from its unique position as strategic partner to gain commercial advantage through the targeting of delivery partner engagements, often unsolicited by the department”.
“A further issue identified was the apparent sharing of discussions more broadly across the firm for purposes not envisaged, i.e. to develop an offering that had not been requested by the department,” the public servant said. “In addition, the issue involving PwC offering an ICT solution to the department in the absence of a more competitive process is concerning.”
In response, the department emailed its senior executive service to reinforce its procurement policies and highlight “the critical importance of delegates obtaining assurance that each engagement delivers a value for money outcome for the department”.
The department briefed a PwC manager in person about its concerns, which was summarised in a formal letter. The department briefly considered warning all partners about their procurement obligations and “appropriate models of engagement with the department”.
“It is now considered that this would unnecessarily draw attention to the issue of cold calling and create distracting interest from partner firms,” an internal email said. “On this basis, it is recommended that any issues are addressed on a case-by-case basis with firms where issues arise.”
As a result of the unsolicited proposals, the department also changed its processes to reduce and monitor direct sourcing levels.
A PwC spokesperson said the firm “acknowledges the feedback from our client”.
“When the matter was raised by the client we addressed the feedback immediately and the engagement continued,” the spokesperson said.
The ANAO report described “high levels of direct sourcing and concerns around the strategic partner using confidential information to make unsolicited proposals”.
PwC has faced intense scrutiny in recent months with the misuse of confidential tax policy information prompting multiple parliamentary investigations, referrals to police and the national anti-corruption commission, sackings and the divestment of its government services division for $1.
The scandal has also increased scrutiny on other big four consultancy firms, which have been forced to disclose conflict of interest breaches before parliamentary inquiries.
