Executive Summary

The Defense Department (VBS) is spending significantly more money on external consultants and services than it did just a few years ago. The internal audit office warns of structural dependencies and recommends building necessary expertise more strongly in-house. Politicians across the political spectrum have been criticizing the practice for some time – particularly the outsourcing of core tasks such as quality and risk management to external contractors.

People

Topics

  • Public finances & budget efficiency
  • Administrative reforms
  • Corruption prevention & conflicts of interest
  • Project management & outsourcing

Clarus Lead

The Defense Department (VBS) is employing an increasing number of external consultants and service providers – despite existing internal expertise. Spending rose from 145 million francs (2022) to over 186 million francs (2023), according to a report from the VBS audit office. The internal control office criticizes not only the costs but also the risk of long-term dependencies on external providers. Particularly problematic: the VBS has completely outsourced its quality and risk management tasks – a core responsibility of the administration – to external partners (costs: 5.7 million francs).

Detailed Summary

The VBS internal audit office documents in its report – published on Tuesday by Swiss television (SRF) – a systematic problem: external consultants are not only brought in during skill shortages, but also used for tasks that the department could handle itself. These include training in digitalization, diversity management, and generational management – competencies that are considered core administrative functions of modern government. The auditors warn that strong dependency on external specialists leads to economic inefficiencies and lack of accountability.

A particular point of criticism is the outsourcing of quality and risk management for the largest projects. The VBS justifies this with the desire for "the highest possible independence" – an argument rejected by parliament and the audit office. Instead, they demand that the department take responsibility itself.

Additionally, the report documents governance risks: individual contracts show signs of conflicts of interest or "favoritism" in contract awards. This warning comes as no surprise – former VBS head Viola Amherd was criticized multiple times for costly consulting contracts, including assignments to the Zurich law firm Homburger in connection with the F-35 procurement.

Current VBS head Martin Pfister has pledged to implement the recommendations by end of June 2026. However, several offices are already signaling that a reduction will only be "partially possible" – such as the Federal Office of Civil Protection, which sees certain politically mandated projects as not feasible without external resources.

Key Points

  • Cost explosion: Spending on external consultants rose from 145 million (2022) to over 186 million francs (2023) – despite assurances that these would only be used during personnel shortages
  • Structural dependency: External consultants create long-term dependencies and prevent the development of internal expertise
  • Outsourcing of core tasks: Quality and risk management was completely delegated to external partners (5.7 million francs), although these are core administrative functions
  • Governance weaknesses: Individual contracts show signs of conflicts of interest or "favoritism" in awards
  • Political pressure: National Council demanded review with clear majority (144:25 votes); Council of States rejected it

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence: How does the audit office validate its finding that internal expertise exists for the tasks currently outsourced? Were concrete competency audits conducted?

  2. Data quality: How complete is the capture of all external contracts in the reported 186 million francs? Are indirectly awarded contracts (via framework agreements, subcontractors) also included?

  3. Conflicts of interest: The audit office mentions contracts that "could create the impression" of favoritism – how many concrete cases? What control mechanisms existed to prevent such awards?

  4. Causality: Does outsourcing quality control really lead to "the highest possible independence," or does it merely create the appearance of it? What empirical evidence supports the VBS's claim?

  5. Alternatives: Could cost reduction have been achieved through in-house training, staff expansion, or better project planning instead of the proposed reduction in contracts?

  6. Implementation risks: Several offices signal they can only "partially" implement the recommendations – how binding are the ordered measures without legal foundation or budget consequences?

  7. Side effects: Could overly strict limits on external consultants for short-term specialized tasks (e.g., IT security, legal matters) actually lead to delays or quality deficiencies?

  8. Control deficits: How could this cost explosion happen when VBS leadership repeatedly emphasized using external consultants only during bottlenecks?

Source List

Primary source: Excessive costs for external consultants: VBS spends over 186 million francs – NZZ, 17.02.2026

Supplementary sources:

  1. VBS audit office report (17.02.2026, published via SRF)
  2. Letter from VBS head Martin Pfister to department heads (17.02.2026)
  3. Parliamentary debate: National Council vote on VBS contract review (144:25)

Verification status: ✓ 17.02.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-check: 17.02.2026