Making sense of selection

Purchasers of electronic security systems have never had it so good. Major developments in technology have realised considerable advances, both in terms of system performance and the range of capabilities now available. However, increased choice also leaves greater scope for making the wrong decisions in relation to both systems and supplier selections.

Alas, the type of negative outcome that commonly arises suggests that decision-making processes haven’t advanced across the board at the same rate as the technology.

A number of fundamental weaknesses commonly emerge in the tendering process. One that has remained a constant is the fixation on lowest price at all costs. This is exacerbated when there are individuals involved in – or sometimes leading – the selection process who have either incomplete or no knowledge of security matters. Those individuals would include accountants, purchasing departments and, increasingly, facilities managers who, despite frequently taking on the role of ‘security manager’, may well have limited experience of the discipline.

That lack of experience doesn’t encourage a systematic approach to first determining a company’s security requirements and then undertaking the selection process. For example, it wouldn’t be uncommon for a facilities department to call in a preferred contractor and allow them to proceed with a major project without any attempt being made to specify what’s needed.

Alternatively, a purchaser may first seek advice but from the wrong source (for example, a consultant who has expertise in a great many areas but not the one required). A common practice is to take a generic specification (or one that’s out-of-date) and amend it, rather than go through the time-consuming process of creating a site-specific document.

Don’t rely on one supplier

Relying on a sole supplier to determine the desirable nature and scope of a security installation should also be viewed with caution. The purchaser’s contact is quite likely to be a member of the sales force whose focus on targets and commission doesn’t make them ideal as an objective advisor on what the client actually needs. Even where a supplier is totally responsible and highly knowledgeable, it’s still desirable to have a choice rather than assuming that the recommendations of one company provide the best way of meeting the purchaser’s specific requirements.

Where tenders are produced, the return date may often be unrealistically short – meaning that suppliers are more likely to make mistakes. Tendering parties will invariably be aware that cost is the biggest issue, so they will look for ways in which to cut costs. They may provide an inferior product that doesn’t meet the specification, and at the same time exaggerate its capabilities. Alternatively, they

might omit certain items from the quotation knowing full well that once they’ve been awarded the contract, they’ll be able to add items and call them ‘Variations’.

Purchasers inadvertently encourage this kind of behaviour by providing insufficiently detailed specifications. The supplier can then claim that they weren’t afforded all the necessary information at the outset, or that it was ambiguous, which puts the client in a weak position as regards rejecting additional costs.

Such approaches to system selection greatly increase the likelihood of the contract not running to time or budget, quite apart from the very serious issue that the client may not actually receive the systems they need (and wanted in the first place).

The selection process explained

A common practice is to take a generic specification (or one that's out of date) and amend it, rather than go through the time-consuming process of creating a site-specific document

What elements, then, does the security manager need to include in the selection process? The purchaser should use their in-house security department (if there is one) to undertake a full and thorough risk assessment of the site(s) to be covered. Alternatively, they ought to employ a reputable and suitably qualified consultant to complete that very same task for them.

A site survey should also be carried out, and a detailed specification drawn up which exactly reflects the organisation’s needs. In doing this, it’s essential that all interested parties are consulted to ensure that all the security issues have been considered and that stated requirements are also in keeping with the culture of the organisation. For example, a given company may take security very seriously indeed (and rightly so), but also wish to avoid staff or visitors feeling too constrained. This could preclude, for instance, having access control on the main entrance doors to the organisation during the daytime.

Specifications should require the proposed security system(s) to have been installed on other sites for a minimum of two years, and be proven technology. It should also be made clear that the tendering party will be required to provide a detailed compliance statement wherein compliance, partial compliance or non-compliance is annotated against each point (with full explanations given if required).

Conditions of tender should be noted, understood or accepted. Requests for information should be made on a formal basis, and responses carefully documented.

Purchasers must select the suppliers they’re going to invite to tender with care, eliciting views from other organisations on the services that a range of companies provide before coming up with the final shortlist. Three suppliers is ample to ensure a fair and competitive tendering process, while significantly more companies on top of that number is likely to make the thorough evaluation of submissions pretty difficult.

Tendering parties on site

Suppliers should have at least one month for tender returns which, apart from offering enough time to prepare a quality submission, also makes for a much more practical site visit.

Tendering organisations should also be invited to attend site as this represents the perfect opportunity to ask questions and observe the kind of details that don’t feature on site plans (for example, the types of lock that certain doors will require, or if access readers might be accommodated in the vicinity).

It must also be made clear that the lowest tender may not win. Suppliers ought to be encouraged to make additional proposals wherever they may benefit the client.

Finally, tendering parties should also be invited to make a presentation on their proposals. Given that purchasers may find themselves having, say, a ten-year relationship (or more) with the successful company, the presentation is an important opportunity to gauge whether or not the supplier is competent and trustworthy.

Patricia Knight is managing director of Receptors Security Systems, chairman of ASIS Chapter 208 and a Council Member of The Security Institute (www.security-institute.org)