SIR – We are an Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)-listed security company that has tackled the processes required to obtain accreditation, sustaining ourselves in the belief that the time, effort and cost involved would all be justified by our increased ability to win contracts.

In particular, we had been encouraged to believe that, in terms of national and local Government security contracts, only ACS-listed contractors would be allowed to tender for them.

We found much with which to empathise in the excellent Letter To The Editor from Wilson James’ Stuart Lowden (‘Adapting to our Brave New World’, SMT, May 2006 ) and discussed his comments at length. Our hope then was that Stuart’s closing sentimentregarding the time taken for the ACS to ‘kick-in’ would actually be measured in weeks rather than months.

Imagine our anger, disgust and total disappointment to find that, some six months down the line, of the tenders we have recently submitted for contracts it has invariably been the case that work is won by non-ACS companies. These contracts are being put out to tender by local and national Government-related clients.

While this may not be the correct place to name and shame, interested parties with a bona fide reason for wanting to see more details are welcome to contact our managing director, David Jones, who would be only too keen to share his thoughts on this matter.

At present, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) appears either unable or unwilling to answer the following questions:

  • How long is it going to be before the criminality criteria applying to members of staff working in unlicensed operations – and those employers allowing them to do so – is applied to clients in equal measure?
  • If a client awards a security contract to a non-ACS company using unlicensed officers, are they then seen as aiding and abetting the offences being committed?
  • What if any guidance has been sent to national and local Government purchasers with regard to the deployment of only ACS-listed security companies?
Why can’t the Regulator inaugurate a ‘HelpLine’ allowing ACS companies to submit full details on every occasion when they lose out to a non-ACS company at tender stage? We note that, in BS 7858:2006, the British Standards Institution advocates a ‘whistle blowing’ policy in respect of vetting. Why not extend this policy across all aspects of licensed security guarding? Surely, by these means the SIA’s Investigators would be handed invaluable and irrefutable evidence of such practises, together with full details of the perpetrators?

Whether or not you agree with Stuart’s comments in the same Letter To The Editor that the size of the security company doesn’t matter, we would wish to assure you that, for a company of our scale, seeing a £400,000 contract awarded to ‘solutions providers’ who either cannot – or cannot be bothered to put in the hard miles and investment on behalf of the end user is galling in the extreme.

Clients who award contracts to such ‘service providers’ can have no excuse. The SIA’s list of Approved Contractors is easily accessed (at www.the-sia.org.uk). In every instance when we have lost out to a non-ACS company we have then found with ease, and via Google the relevant web sites, establishing that no secret is made of these companies’ lack of approval. It beggars belief that this procedure is being allowed to continue unchecked.

Despite all of the aforementioned ‘issues’, we still cling to the belief that, eventually, regulation will benefit all players within our industry. However, we do fear that, unless matters such as these are urgently and firmly addressed, ‘minnows’ like ourselves operating in the security business sector will have failed to survive despite our best efforts to conform.

Derek Woodham Health and Safety and Compliance Manager 1SC Guarding

Source

SMT