Interviews

Need for fair price

by Mark Rowe

Steve Kennedy of Officer Connect says there is a direct correlation between the price paid for manned guarding contracts and the quality of service delivered.

‘You get what you pay for in life’ is a phrase often used, but seldom is it more appropriate than in the manned guarding sector, where the price paid is directly correlated to the standard of service received. Officers, and the companies who employ them, are increasingly being asked to do more for less in an unedifying race to the bottom that threatens the very essence of what we do. So how have we got to this position, who is to blame, and what needs to be done to turn the industry around?

Historically, it has been easy and convenient to blame the larger manned guarding providers for effectively ‘buying’ contracts in order to improve their market share and ultimately their bottom line, by driving increased efficiencies. In pricing to win and accepting a lower margin however, companies are not cutting their cloth accordingly; they are still offering a premium service without any real hope of being able to deliver on their promise. Many do not have the financial or managerial resources to cope and as such, the contract quickly fails and reputations are damaged.

Clients, however, must also take responsibility for their procurement decisions. Whereas it is understandable to demand ‘the best price’, it must also be obvious when a quote is so ridiculously low that the quality of service has to be impacted. In buying cheap, they will ultimately get what they pay for in terms of poor service and disaffected staff. They are, in effect, condoning poor standards.

This is borne out by the facts: we recently audited a contract in central London where the officers are being paid as little as £8 an hour, and the client – without any hint of irony – is complaining about the quality of staff he receives! It is especially ironic when the client stresses the importance of security to his stakeholders (directors, tenants etc) and yet is prepared to compound the issue by skimping on costs.

Falling margins

Falling margins are a common threat. They have decreased in the last 15 years by at least a third, and in some cases even lower on contracts that aren’t deemed to be sufficiently ‘high profile’. This means that clients are receiving a quality of staff that reflects the low rates they are prepared to pay.

And it is not just about raw salaries: failing to pay the provider a fair price leads to cuts having to be made elsewhere. Training is usually the first casualty, which not only impacts the quality of service but also the motivation of the Officers employed. Operational management also becomes spread too thinly across multiple contracts, not affording them the time to effectively support their employees or clients and predictably therefore, contracts churn.

Much has been made recently of the need to recruit more talent into our the manned guarding industry. Unfortunately, quality seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Anyone that can get through the SIA licensing process can become a ‘professional’ security officer and be placed in a high-risk building with absolutely no experience of security other than what they learnt during their ‘training’. Given the increased demands placed on such officers, this is not only wrong, but irresponsible. Service providers are obliged to place such staff onto clients’ sites as they struggle to recruit high quality people into the industry. Such is the challenge, and such is the nadir that we appear to have reached.

The outcome of low margins, poor training, minimal employee engagement, and a total lack of investment in staff, means that more often than not, a security ‘presence’ is being provided, but one that falls well short of a professional security ‘operation’. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Best practice

We recently audited a major site in London that recruits over 50 officers across a portfolio of buildings. What was evident from the start, was that client had actually listened to the service provider on what costs were required to manage the contract efficiently. Officers were paid realistic rates, had dedicated site supervisors and security managers, dedicated contract management and excellent reporting streams at all levels.

The client was advised to invest in pay rates and training, and the results were the best we have ever come across. Staff turnover (churn) was close to zero, the knowledge of the officers was second to none, and their appearance and attitude were exemplary. Perhaps more importantly, they were all clearly motivated to provide the client with the best service possible. There was an evident pride in what they did – a pride that is sadly lacking in the vast majority of contracts we come across.

So there are examples of best practice out there and it is certainly not all bad news. What is required above all, is a mind shift. Service providers have to stand tall, and pay their Officers a fair wage. But they need to be able to do so without fear of being irresponsibly undercut. Clients need to stop thinking of Security Officers as second-rate employees that don’t add value to their business; they have an important job to do in securing your property, your people and to a certain extent, the reputation and integrity of your business. And that requires paying a fair price.

Related News

Newsletter

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to stay on top of security news and events.

© 2024 Professional Security Magazine. All rights reserved.

Website by MSEC Marketing