‘A Contract of Substance’

If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll surely all admit – at one time or another – to expressing ‘mock horror’ when hearing about a security contractor that has placed an officer on site without having afforded him or her any formal induction training. A contractor that has signed off on an individual’s vetting proforma without having completed the checks prescribed by BS 7858. A contractor that has paid an officer an embarrassingly low wage in comparison with the market rate in that area, and allowed its officers (under ordinary circumstances) to work back-to-back shifts.

Why is it ‘mock horror’? Simple. Most contractors have been guilty at one time or another of having to follow one or all of these ‘routes to market’.

Neither can the clients avoid censure in this scenario. The contractors don’t carry out such misdemeanours voluntarily. They have only done so in order to escape the unreasonable wrath of the end user, if and when such situations should come to the fore.

It’s usually the case that we have to track back to the source of the contract to find out where everything has gone awry. Quite simply, good security comes at a price. Purchasing departments do their company a real disservice in buying the cheapest option, while security companies compound the error by agreeing to provide a service which, given the circumstances, is impossible to guarantee.

Guaranteeing a quality service

‘A Contract of Substance’ cuts out that option. It goes to the very heart of what the contractor should be providing, and what the client should be paying for. It means that the contract manned guarding industry is at last able to guarantee a quality service which, in certain circumstances, is more effective in terms of performance and cost than anything that could be provided by an in-house security team or, indeed, the police service.

Ultimately, the Contract will give respectability to the industry where previously there was little. It will attract good quality personnel into the industry who would previously have walked away.

In publicising those clients and contractors who have attained the standard – or, hopefully, better – of ‘A Contract of Substance’, it also exposes those who have previously talked a good fight but have actually been willing to do little else. The days of those parties from either side of the house who have publicly criticised the industry – but, in truth, have contributed to its malaise by discreetly buying or selling the security service at rates which have no hope of a successful outcome – should now be over.

The detail of ‘A Contract of Substance’ was published in the April edition of Security Management Today (‘A Contract of Substance’, pp20-23), and can be viewed on the Journal’s web site at www.smtdirect.co.uk, so I’m not going to re-examine the minutiae here.

We do need to consider, however, how you – as client or contractor – may take all of your security contracts to this level of respectability. In our view, security contracts fall into two distinct categories. First, those contracts which give both parties a real chance of providing and receiving a first class service. Such contracts will have already attained – or require some minor fine tuning to attain – the standard of ‘A Contract of Substance’.

If security officers are paid a low wage without any benefits, have to work excessive hours and suffer from minimal amounts of training then the service to the end user can only be dangerously inconsistent for all

Second, those contracts which have been bought or sold purely on price and which, in all likelihood, will have a very considerable distance to travel to reach the standard. The only way that these contracts may enter the frame is if they are completely re-shaped.

The manpower-technology mix

For years the industry has talked and talked about a reduction in manpower at the expense of increased technology. Now is the time to act on those discussions. Arrange for the whole contract to be re-assessed, embracing the concept of a truly integrated security solution. The end result is likely to be a significant saving in annual costs, and the employment of fewer – but much higher quality – security officers to cover a given contract. In this way, a good many of the problems inherent in a poor manned guarding contract will disappear overnight.

You will probably have concerns over the cost of the annual audit to first attain and then retain the standard of ‘A Contract of Substance’. At its maximum, the cost is £1,000 (the breakdown of which is detailed in SMT’s April feature). It’s vital that the promotion of this standard is accompanied by open book accounting, so in each case the cost will be broken down into elements (which may or may not be deemed necessary).

There are distinct hidden advantages in holding ‘A Contract of Substance’. For example, we see recruiting problems being significantly reduced as security officers learn of such vacancies in their local area. We also envisage individuals applying for such jobs who’ve already been well trained and boast considerable degrees of experience.

Quite simply, there would – at last – be real and genuine competition for security officer vacancies. Only the best would survive.

We also believe that ‘A Contract of Substance’ will shake up the in-house security sector. Individuals will join the contract security industry knowing that they have good terms and conditions of employment besides genuine career prospects. Those already working within the in-house sector may then start to view the industry in a whole new light.

Further to that, certain clients may well consider substituting the use of the police with security officers in certain specific roles. For instance, at sporting functions where the cost of extra policing may be prohibitive.