SECURITY 41
As the use of private security services grows in supporting the operation of many government functions it would be reasonable to expect that there would be commensurate focus on quality service provision .
However , with the growth of competitive tendering the procurement of security contracts has led to standards and prices largely being set by buyers regarding the price paid for services . In many instances this has led to the awarding of contracts to the lowest bidder and the gradual lowering of standards .
The delivery of quality security services is not compatible with the lowest price . Value for money does not necessarily follow .
Private Security Contractors are becoming increasingly frustrated having to compete with sham contracting arrangements and others underpaying employees . They do it to get your business . They do it because some users of security services push the price down so low that to get the work they have to break workplace laws .
Many customers know this happens but either don ’ t think it ’ s their problem or just turn a “ blind eye ”. Whilst some think that “ market rates ” are what they are and that is what you pay .
Market rates are not always a good guide – particularly when the market is skewed to the lowest price and driven by unlawful or questionable practices .
The risk of lowest price competition needs to be considered in the overall context of an organisation ’ s security needs , public image , governance and compliance obligations .
Among some of the risks of choosing a provider on the lowest price alone include :
• compromised performance - this can result in early termination of the contract as the original contractor finds that the costs of fulfilling the contract is unsustainable ;
• compromised quality – choosing a low quality bidder not only compromises quality , but also impacts on the pool of quality providers ;
• non-compliance with regulatory requirements – in order to keep prices low , some providers resort to practices which are at odds with good governance practices .
• Damage to your public image and reputation .
Low cost providers often cannot justify necessary training and employment conditions . When choosing a security provider it is important to check the quality of screening , vetting , recruitment and selection of security personnel performing duties can be compromised . Likewise users should audit the providers contract management expertise ; operational planning and support ; contract infrastructure and equipment ; not to mention their track record , ethics , philosophy and capability . Many of these might appear
GOVLINK » ISSUE 1 2017