security industry authority acs review 2011 · snap surveys – sia – acs strategic review 2011...
TRANSCRIPT
Security Industry Authority
ACS Review 2011
Final Report
May 2011
Prepared by
Snap Surveys
Alex Green
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 2
CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS ........................................................................... 3
1.2 APPROVED CONTRACTORS .................................................................................. 7
1.3 BUYERS OF SECURITY ....................................................................................... 11
2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 13
2.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 13
2.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ..................................................................................... 13
2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................. 15
3 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY ............................................................ 16
3.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 16
3.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY .............................................................. 22
3.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................ 27
3.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS) ...................................................... 29
3.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS ........................................................... 33
4 APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY .................................................................... 36
4.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 36
4.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY .............................................................. 43
4.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................ 48
4.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS) ...................................................... 51
4.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS ........................................................... 58
5 BUYERS’ SURVEY ................................................................................................. 61
5.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 61
5.2 THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY AND CLIENTS ................................................. 64
5.3 YOUR SECURITY PROVIDERS .............................................................................. 68
5.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS) ...................................................... 73
6 MERGED FILES ..................................................................................................... 77
6.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 77
6.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY .............................................................. 84
6.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................ 89
6.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS) ...................................................... 91
6.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS ........................................................... 93
7 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX 1: Questionnaires
APPENDIX 2: Approved contractor’s comments
APPENDIX 3: Security contractor’s comments
APPENDIX 4: Buyer’s comments
APPENDIX 5: Approved contractor tabulations
APPENDIX 6: Security contractor tabulations
APPENDIX 7: Buyer tabulations
APPENDIX 8: Merged tabulations
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 3
1 SUMMARY
1.1 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS
1.1.1 Company profile
The most commonly covered sector was security guarding (71%), followed by
door supervision (54%), key holding (35%), and CCTV (25%).
Over half of the non-approved contractors said that they work for micro sized
firms (56%), 22% for small, 19% for medium and only 3% for large
organisations.
Security contractors were most likely to describe their organisation as regional
(35%) or local (30%). Around a fifth (19%) described their firm as international.
37% of approved contractors said that they were based in London or South East
England, 16% were based in central England, and 24% were based in the North
East or North West.
Security contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010
financial year; 40% of respondents said that their turnover was between
£100,000 and £500,000, 10% between £500,000 and £999,999 and 10% £1m or
more. 40% said that their turnover or amount of business had increased since
March 2010, while 43% said it had decreased and 17% said it had stayed the
same.
Nearly a fifth of contractors (17%) said that their approximate profit margin for
the last tax year was 0%, while 39% said that it was between 1 and 20% and
another third (33%) said that their margin lay between 21 and 40%.
42% of the non-approved contractors questioned said that the number of staff
employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010; a quarter (24%)
said it had decreased, while around a third (34%) stayed the same.
Average hourly wages for frontline staff varied; but the most common wage was
between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (16%), although the same proportion said
they would prefer not to disclose their frontline staff wage (16%). 32% said that
their frontline staff received between £7.50 to £9.99 per hour.
There were large variations in terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline
staff; but the most common rates were between £10.00 and £12.99 per hour
(23%). 14% said that their charge rate was less than £7.00, while 20% said it
was £13.00 or more. Again, a fifth (20%) of the contractors questioned preferred
not to disclose their charge rate.
In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, contractors were most
likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage (83%),
were paid for time off to receive work related training (38%), had access to
special leave for emergencies (38%), or received holiday entitlement above the
minimum (33%).
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 4
In terms annual leave for front line staff; similar proportions of respondents said
that their staff received between 16-20 days holiday (26%), 21-25 days (23%)
and 26-30 days (26%).
1.1.2 Clients and the security industry
The majority of contractors (68%) said that they provide security for 10 or less
clients, 14% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 10% for 51 to 300 clients,
and 8% to over 300 clients.
Around half (51%) of the contractors questioned said that they never gained work
from approved contractors during 2010; 33% said that they did so seldom or
occasionally, and 14% did so frequently or consistently. Similarly, the majority of
the contractors questioned (60%) said that they never lost work to approved
contractors during 2010; 19% said that they did so seldom or occasionally, and
13% did so frequently or consistently.
When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security
business, respondents were most likely to say networking (40%) and advertising
or marketing (22%). 10% said that they didn’t use any of the methods listed.
Contractors were asked what they thought were the most important factors to
potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers. They were most likely
to say:
o Total cost of service (95% important)
o Recommendation from other buyers (90% important)
o Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (79% important)
o Well known or established company (79% important)
o Suppliers existing client base (77% important)
Security contractors were asked how important they thought various methods
were for differentiating between security suppliers:
o 98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was
important
o 97% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
o 74% said a tender exercise was important
o 65% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
o 64% said that some other method of differentiating between security
suppliers was important
o 54% said examination of company website or promotional material was
important.
When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, over half of
the non-approved contractors (54%) said that they had experienced greater
emphasis being placed on cost. Almost half (46%) said that that had experienced
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 5
delays in payment of monies owed, while around a quarter (24%) had seen a
move from manned security to security systems buying.
The vast majority (84%) of contractors said that their organisation had a positive
relationship with the Police, while 10% said that their relationship was mixed.
38% of security contractors said that they felt cash-flow problems could threaten
their business over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said they
may suffer due to market contraction. 18% of non-approved contractors said that
they felt their business may be threatened by something else.
1.1.3 Accreditations and certifications
22% of security contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of
Commerce, while much fewer were associated with ASIS, BSIA or the Security
Institute (8% each). Over half of those questioned (56%) said that they weren’t
affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.
Similarly; the majority of non-approved contractors said that they didn’t hold any
of the accreditations or certifications listed. Those that did hold an accreditation
were most likely to hold ISO9001:2008 (19%), SAFE Contractor (17%) or
Investors in People (11%).
Nearly a third of respondents (32%) said that they intended to achieve the SAFE
Contractor accreditations over the next twelve months to two years, while 30%
said they would apply for ISO9001 certification and a quarter (24%) said they
intended to achieve Investors in People accreditation. Over a quarter (27%) said
that their organisation didn’t intend to achieve any of the accreditations listed.
Almost half of the non-approved suppliers questioned (44%) said that the ACS
was the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with 22%
specifying ISO9001:2008 instead.
1.1.4 The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Nearly half of the non-approved suppliers (43%) said that they were considering
applying for ACS status, while 32% were not and 25% were unsure.
44% agreed that the ACS had helped to raise standards in the private security
industry overall, and 56% disagreed.
When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 44% said
new business opportunities, 35% said use of the ACS mark and 24% said
differentiation from other security suppliers. 29% said that they didn’t consider
any of the factors listed as benefits of the SIA ACS.
In terms of benefits to the private security industry as a whole; security suppliers
were likely to say that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard
being introduced (35%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry
(35%), the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (33%) and an improved industry image
(33%). 27% said that they hadn’t seen any benefits to the private security
industry overall.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 6
1.1.5 Customer requirements and the ACS
Only 13% of contractors said they had central government contracts. Of these the
majority (75%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed.
25% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Of these the
majority (63%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed.
62% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, just over
half (56%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed. Almost a fifth (18%) said that these
contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, and 15% SAFE
Contractors certification.
The vast majority of non-approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central,
regional or local government to approved contractors in the last 2 years, while
14% said they had lost work.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 7
1.2 APPROVED CONTRACTORS
1.2.1 Company profile
The most commonly covered sector was security guarding (91%), followed by key
holding (51%), door supervision (37%) and CCTV (28%).
Over half of the approved contractor respondents said that they work for medium
sized firms (56%), 14% for small, 22% for large and 8% work for micro sized
firms.
Almost half of those questioned (43%) described their organisation as national,
34% as regional, 14% as local and only 9% as international.
43% of approved contractors said that they were based in London or South East
England, 21% were based in the North East or North West, and 17% were in
central England.
38% said that their company turned over £1m or more, 18% said £500-£999,999,
and 23% said they turned over between £50,000 and £499,999. Half (52%) of the
approved contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount of business
had increased since March 2010, while 31% said it had decreased and 17% said it
had stayed the same.
Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin
for the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 19% said that it was
more than 20%.
When asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their change in turnover has
been influenced by their ACS status; 47% agreed, but over half (53%) disagreed.
Around half (48%) of the approved contractors questioned said that the number
of staff employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, while
34% said it had decreased and 17% stayed the same.
The most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%), while
21% said that they paid over £8.00 per hour. In terms of average hourly charge
rate for frontline staff, the most common rates were between £8.50 to £9.99 per
hour (28%) and £10.00 to £12.99 per hour (29%).
In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, contractors were most
likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage (88%),
had access to special leave for emergencies (65%), were paid for time off to
receive work related training (57%), or had access to a pension with company
contributions (41%).
Almost half (46%) of approved contractors said that their front line licensable staff
currently received between 16 and 20 days annual paid leave (excluding paid
bank holidays), and a further 37% said they received between 26 and 30 days.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 8
1.2.2 Clients and the security industry
20% of approved contractors said that they provide security for 10 or less clients,
34% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 32% for 51 to 300 clients, and
14% to over 300 clients.
Almost half (47%) of the approved contractors questioned said that they never
gained work from non-approved contractors during 2010; 41% said that they did
so seldom or occasionally, and 6% did so frequently or consistently. Similarly,
42% of the approved contractors questioned said that they never lost work to
non-approved contractors during 2010; 29% said that they did so seldom or
occasionally, and 22% did so frequently or consistently.
When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security
business, respondents were most likely to say networking (28%) and responding
to tender notices (28%).
Approved contractors were asked what they thought were the most important
factors to potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers:
o Total cost of service (98% important)
o Recommendation from other buyers (85% important)
o Suppliers existing database (80% important)
o Well known or established company (77% important)
o Local offices and or local management (76% important)
Approved contractors were asked how important they thought various methods
were for differentiating between security suppliers:
o 98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was
important
o 94% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
o 83% said a tender exercise was important
o 81% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
o 66% said examination of company website or promotional material was
important
o 57% said that some other method of differentiating between security
suppliers was important.
41% of approved contractors said that the issue most threatening their business
over the next two years is likely to be market contraction, 24% said that they
would be threatened by cash-flow problems, and 10% said that inflations would
be an issue.
When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, three
quarters of approved contractors (74%) said that they had experienced greater
emphasis being placed on cost, almost half (48%) said that they had experienced
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 9
delays in payment of monies owed, while 41% had seen a move from manned
security to security systems buying.
The vast majority (81%) of approved contractors said that their organisation had
a positive relationship with the Police, while 15% said that their relationship was
mixed and only 1% (1 respondent) said that they had a negative relationship.
1.2.3 Accreditations and certifications
39% of approved contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of
Commerce, 37% with Project Griffin and 31% with BSIA. 23% said that they
weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.
ISO9001:2008 was the most commonly held accreditation among SIA approved
contractors; held by three quarters of respondents (76%). Over half (57%) said
they held the SAFE Contractors accreditation, and around a quarter (24%) held
NSI Gold. 28% said that they held some other accreditation or certification.
A third of respondents (33%) said that their organisations’ didn’t intended to
achieve any of the accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years.
14% said they intended to achieve ISO 9001, 13% Investors in People and 12%
SAFE Contractors certifications.
The majority of respondents (57%) said that the ACS was the most important
accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with a quarter (26%) specifying
ISO9001:2008 instead.
1.2.4 The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Approved contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their
company standards are higher as a result of the ACS; 68% agreed and 32%
disagreed.
The majority (72%) of respondents agreed that the ACS has helped to raise
standards in the private security industry overall; while 28% disagreed. Again,
those who were planning on renewing their ACS status (79%) were more likely to
agree than those planning not to (0%), or those who were unsure (48%).
When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 46% said
differentiation from other security suppliers, 44% said new business opportunities,
and 43% said use of the ACS mark. Respondents were least likely to cite easier
recruitment of staff (9%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.
In terms of the private security industry as a whole, respondents were most likely
say that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard being
introduced (62%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry (59%),
and the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (53%).
The vast majority of approved contractors (84%) said that they were planning to
renew their ACS status, while 3% disagreed and 13% were unsure.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 10
1.2.5 Customer requirements and the ACS
When asked what overall proportion of their clients require ACS status, the most
common response was between 1 and 20% of clients (35%). 13% said that none
of their clients require ACS, and 21% said between 81 and 100% require it.
19% said they had central government contracts. Of these 43% said that over
80% of their clients required ACS status, while only 11% said that none of them
do. The majority (86%) said that these contracts required them to hold an
ISO9001 accreditation, 29% SAFE Contractors and 23% NSI Gold.
50% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Of these, over a
third (36%) said that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, 32% said that
over 80% did, while only 11% said that none of them did. The majority (70%)
said that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 30%
SAFE Contractors and 24% NSI Gold.
91% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, 29% said
that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, less than a fifth (18%) said that
over 80% did, and 15% said that none of them did. The majority (68%) said that
these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 40% SAFE
Contractors and 16% NSI Gold.
Two thirds of approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central, regional or
local government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years. 14% said they
had lost work, and 20% were unsure.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 11
1.3 BUYERS OF SECURITY
1.3.1 Company profile
When asked about their organisation, 21% of buyers said that their company is in
the retail sector, 16% said other public sector and 14% said local government.
31% classified their organisation as ‘other services’.
The majority of buyers interviewed were from large companies (61%), and around
a quarter were from medium sized firms (26%). 31% worked for international
companies, 25% for national firms, with 31% described their organisation as
‘local’.
Responses were received from buyers across the UK, but they were most likely to
be from security buyers based in London and the South East (43%). Around a fifth
were based in central England (19%), with the same proportion located in the
North West or North East (20%).
Buyers were most likely to say that they used Security guarding services (61%),
CCTV (46%) and cash and valuables in transit (45%). Vehicle immobilisation and
Close protection services were the least commonly used (2% and 3%
respectively).
1.3.2 The Private Security Industry and Clients
Buyers were asked what they considered important when selecting and buying
from security suppliers. The five most important factors were:
o Total cost of service (98% important)
o Compliance with Security industry act (92% important)
o SIA ACS status (88% important)
o British standards (87% important)
o Security operative conditions (85% important)
Buyers were asked what they saw as the most appropriate method for
differentiating between security suppliers:
o 98% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
o 94% said face to face meeting with company representatives was
important
o 91% said a tender exercise was important
o 90% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
o 60% said examination of company website or promotional material was
important
o 44% said that some other method of differentiating between security
suppliers was important.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 12
1.3.3 Your Security Providers
Over half (60%) of the buyers questioned said that they only use one security
provider. 31% said that they use two or three security providers and 9% use four
or more.
When asked what proportion of their security providers are SIA approved, the
majority of buyers (87%) said that over 80% were. Only 3% said that none of
their suppliers were SIA approved.
The majority (85%) of buyers said that they require contractors to be SIA
approved suppliers. Those who said that their suppliers should be SIA approved
were then asked why that was the case. The most common response was that SIA
approval provided buyers with reassurances in terms of quality and management
(76%), that it excludes ‘rogue’ and criminal companies (66%), it denotes a higher
standard of contractor (65%) and indicates increased the professionalism of
security operatives (63%).
Buyers were asked whether they required their security suppliers to hold any
accreditations other than ACS status. 34% said that they stipulated IS09001, 25%
BSIA, 17% Investors in People and 17% SAFE Contractor accreditations, whereas
43% didn’t require their suppliers to hold any of the certifications listed.
When asked what they felt was the single most important accreditation that a
security supplier could hold; over half (57%) said that the SIA Approved
Contractor Scheme was the most important.
When respondents were asked who in their organisation makes the major
decisions on security buying, they were most likely to say a director or board of
directors (27%) or a procurement manager (20%).
91% of respondents said that they were satisfied with their security suppliers,
while only 4% were dissatisfied.
Buyers were most likely to say that the security guards provided to them change
occasionally (48%) or seldom (32%), while 9% said that they never change and
2% said that they are constantly changing.
1.3.4 The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
72% of buyers said that they were aware of the ACS and 28% were not.
The majority of respondents (68%) agreed that approved contractors had higher
standards than non-approved contractors, while 8% disagreed and 24% were
unsure.
Buyers were asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS to the
private security industry overall. The most popular responses were; common
standard for use throughout the industry (71%), promotes good practice in the
industry (55%) excludes ‘rogue’ companies (55%), and excludes companies with
poor practices (51%). 9% of buyers said that they saw no benefits of the ACS to
the private security industry.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 13
2 INTRODUCTION
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) commissioned Snap Research Services to
conduct a review of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) in 2011.
The objective of the SIA's Approved Contractor scheme is to raise performance
standards and to assist the private security industry in developing new opportunities.
The scheme is voluntary and was developed in consultation with representatives from
across the industry; it only covers those parts of the industry that are regulated by
the SIA and the Private Security Industry Act.
The purpose of this research was to capture a snapshot of the current characteristics
of the industry, to provide a valuable benchmark from which to measure any future
changes to the scheme and to regulation.
2.1 METHODOLOGY
Data was collected via three online surveys, one for approved security contractors,
one for non-approved contractors and one for buyers of security.
Approved contractors – 1,516 ACS companies contacted
Non-approved contractors - 750 security contractors contacted
Buyers - approx 1,954 buyers of security contacted
In addition, all surveys were publicised through press releases, directs emails, e-
newsletters and the SIA website. It should also be pointed out that ACS companies
were asked to share and raise awareness of the survey among their clients in order to
increase response rates, and as such the sample base of buyers may be partially
skewed. This could have an effect in terms of buyer respondents’ ACS awareness and
use of ACS companies, so results should be interpreted with this in mind.
The three surveys were closed on Tuesday 26th April. There were 143 respondents to
the approved contractor survey (9% response rate), 63 to the non-approved
contractor (8% response rate), and 232 to the buyers’ survey (12% response rate).
The data was then analysed by Snap Surveys. The principal contacts for this project
were Siana Bretherton at the SIA and Alex Green at Snap Surveys.
Snap Surveys certify that this research was conducted in accordance with
ISO9001:2008 and ISO20252:2006.
2.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figures in this report are generally calculated as a proportion of respondents who
answered each question – that is, excluding "No Reply". "No Opinion" and "Don't
Know" responses have been excluded from the base when calculating most results.
The data has been Z-tested at 95% confidence level. The Z-test is a statistical test
which determines if the percentage difference between subgroups is large enough to
be statistically significant or whether the difference is likely to have occurred by
chance.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 14
Base sizes for some questions are low – particularly those in the non-approved
contractors’ survey – so results should be interpreted with caution.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 15
2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The main body of the report is divided into the following sections, which look at the
survey results in detail:
Non-approved contractors’ survey
Company profile
Clients and the security industry
Accreditations and certifications
The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Customer requirements and the ACS
Approved contractors’ survey
Company profile
Clients and the security industry
Accreditations and certifications
The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Customer requirements and the ACS
Buyers’ survey
Company profile
The private security industry and clients
Your security suppliers
The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Merged surveys
Company profile
Clients and the security industry
Accreditations and certifications
The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)
Customer requirements and the ACS
The appendices contain a copy of the questionnaires, listings of comments, and data
tabulations.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 16
3 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY
This section of the report looks at the questionnaire for security contractors’ who are
not SIA approved. Due to the low base sizes for most questions in this section, there
are few mathematically significant differences between subgroups, so results should
be interpreted with caution.
3.1 COMPANY PROFILE
This section of the report profiles non-approved security contractors by sectors
covered and company size. It also asks contractors about changes in company
turnover during the last financial year.
3.1.1 Sectors covered
Security contractors were asked which sectors their business covered. The most
commonly covered sector was security guarding (71%), followed by door supervision
(54%), key holding (35%), and CCTV (25%).
Security Guarding
Door Supervision
Key Holding
Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
Close Protection
Vehicle Immobilisation
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Other
25%
35%
54%
71%
17%
2%
27%Base: All respondents (63)
QA. Sector(s) covered by your business
3.1.2 Company size and type
Over half of the non-approved contractor respondents said that they work for micro
sized firms (56%), 22% for small, 19% for medium and only 3% for large
organisations.
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-25 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees
56%
22%
19%
3%
Base: All respondents (63)
QB. Your company size
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 17
Security contractors were most likely to describe their organisation as regional (35%)
or local (30%). Around a fifth (19%) described their firm as international.
International
National
Regional
Local
19%
16%
35%
30%
Base: All respondents (63)
QC. Your organisation type
3.1.3 Location
37% of approved contractors said that they were based in London or South East
England, 16% were based in central England, and 24% were based in the North East
or North West England.
England - London and SE
England - Central
England - NW
England - NE
Scotland
England - SW
Wales - South
Wales - North
Northern Ireland 2%
2%
5%
6%
10%
37%
16%
14%
10%
Base: All respondents (63)
QD. Where in the country are you based?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 18
3.1.4 Turnover
Security contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010
financial year – due to the potentially intrusive nature this question it was made
optional, and as such has a very low base size. Responses were very varied, but 40%
of respondents said that they turned over between £100,000 and £500,000, 10%
between £500,000 and £999,999 and 10% £1m or more.
0
£1 - £9,999
£10,000 - £24,999
£25,000 - £49,999
£50,000 - £99,999
£100,000 - £249,999
£250,000 - £499,999
£500,000 - £999,999
£1m or more 10%
10%
20%
20%
10%
10%
15%
5%
Base: All respondents (20)
Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010financial year?
40% of the contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount of business had
increased since March 2010, while 43% said it had decreased and 17% said it had
stayed the same.
Increased a lot
Increased a little
Stayed the same
Decreased a little
Decreased a lot 22%
12%
28%
17%
21%
Base: All respondents (58)
Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount of businessincreased or decreased?
Contractors who said that they were considering applying for ACS status (24%) were
significantly less likely than those who said they wouldn’t be applying for ACS status
(60%) to say that their turnover or amount of business had decreased over the last
year.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 19
Nearly a fifth of contractors (17%) said that their approximate profit margin for the
last tax year was 0%, while 39% said that it was between 1 and 20%. Another third
(33%) said that their margin was between 21 and 40%. However, these results
should be interpreted with caution as the question received a very low number of
replies (18 responses).
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 6%
6%
17%
39%
33%
Base: All respondents (18)
Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?
3.1.5 Staff pay and benefits
42% of the non-approved contractors questioned said that the number of staff
employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, a quarter (24%) said
it had decreased, while around a third (34%) stayed the same.
As above, contractors who said that they were considering applying for ACS status
(12%) were significantly less likely than those who said they wouldn’t be applying for
ACS status (47%) to say that their staff levels had decreased over the last year.
Increased a lot (since March 2010)
Increased a little (since March 2010)
Stayed the same (no differencesince March 2010)
Decreased a little (since March2010)
Decreased a lot (since March 2010) 10%
14%
29%
34%
14%
Base: All respondents (59)
Q7. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by your organisationincreased or decreased?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 20
Average hourly wages for front line staff appeared to vary by organisation, but the
most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (16%), although the
same proportion said they would prefer not to disclose their frontline staff wage
(16%). 32% said that their frontline staff received between £7.50 to £9.99 per hour.
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say 16%
4%
12%
11%
11%
11%
5%
16%
9%
7%
Base: All respondents (57)
Q8. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensable staff?
There were large variations in terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline staff;
but the most common rates were between £10.00 and £12.99 per hour (23%). 14%
said that their charge rate was less than £7.00, while 20% said it was £13.00 or
more. Again, a fifth (20%) of the contractors questioned preferred not to disclose
their charge rate.
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say 20%
13%
7%
23%
16%
4%
4%
5%
5%
4%
Base: All respondents (56)
Q9. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensable staff?
In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, contractors were most
likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage (83%),
were paid for time off to receive work related training (38%), had access to special
leave for emergencies (38%), or received holiday entitlement above the minimum
(33%). 10% of respondents said that their front line staff didn’t receive any of the
benefits listed.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 21
Paid above national minimum wage
Paid time off for work-related training
Access to special leave for emergencies etc
Holiday entitlement above the minimum
Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security guards
Bonus scheme
Access to a pension with company contributions
Access to death in service benefit
Other
None of the above
33%
38%
38%
83%
15%
13%
12%
6%
10%
10%Base: All respondents (52)
Q11. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front linelicensable staff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?
There were no significant differences between subgroups, due to low base sizes.
3.1.6 Annual leave
Responses were very varied in terms annual leave for front line licensable staff.
Similar proportions of respondents said that their staff received between 16-20 days
holiday (26%), 21-25 days (23%) and 26-30 days (26%).
0
15 or less
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
Over 35 3%
26%
17%
6%
23%
26%
Base: All respondents (35)
Q10. How many days paid annual leave do your front line licensable staffcurrently have as a minimum (excluding paid bank holidays)?
There were no meaningful differences between the amounts of paid leave received by
front line staff across the different sectors covered by the private security industry.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 22
3.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
This section of the report looks at the relationship between security contractors and
their clients; how many clients they have and what they think is important to clients
when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained to approved
contractors, their relationship with the Police and general trends in security buying.
3.2.1 Number of clients
The majority of contractors (68%) said that they provide security for 10 or less
clients, 14% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 10% for 51 to 300 clients, and
8% to over 300 clients. As expected, larger companies were more likely to provide
security for larger numbers of clients.
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300 8%
3%
6%
6%
25%
29%
14%
8%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q1. How many clients do you provide security for?
3.2.2 Work lost and gained
Around half (51%) of the contractors questioned said that they never gained work
from approved contractors during 2010; 33% said that they did so seldom or
occasionally, and 14% did so frequently or consistently.
Similarly, the majority of the contractors questioned (60%) said that they never lost
work to approved contractors during 2010; 19% said that they did so seldom or
occasionally, and 13% did so frequently or consistently. There were no clear patterns
across subgroups for either question.
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know 8%
5%
60%
5%
14%
8%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q6. How often during 2010 has your company lost work to a contractor that is anSIA Approved Contractor?
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know
51%
3%
30%
11%
3%
2%Base: All respondents (63)
Q5. How often during 2010 has your company gained work from a contractor thatis an SIA Approved Contractor?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 23
When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business,
respondents were most likely to say networking (40%) and advertising or marketing
(22%). 10% said that they didn’t use any of the methods listed.
Networking was most commonly used in the close protection sector (82%), compared
to 33% to 44% of those in other sectors.
Networking
Advertising/marketing
Cold-calling
Responding to tender notices
Buying out contracts/firms
Other
None of the above 10%
8%
2%
40%
22%
10%
10%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q14. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOST often?
3.2.3 Important factors when selecting security suppliers
Contractors were asked what they thought were the most important factors to
potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers. They were most likely to
say:
Total cost of service (95% important)
Recommendation from other buyers (90% important)
Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (79% important)
Well known or established company (79% important)
Suppliers existing client base (77% important)
Total cost of service (62)
Recommendation from other buyers (62)
Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (63)
Well-known/established company (61)
Supplier's existing client base (60)
Local offices and/or local management (62)
Security operative conditions (e.g. hours, wages, training) (61)
British Standards (62)
Other (42)
Other accreditations (52)
ISO9001 certification (59)
SIA Approved Contractor (ACS status) (59)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (59)
Additional services offered (e.g. cleaning, technical services etc) (60)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment report (59)
68 27 32
53 37 10
56 24 13 8
36 43 20 2
28 48 22 2
32 39 24 5
31 33 20 16
23 34 27 16
33 17 24 26
15 29 27 29
15 25 32 27
19 20 31 31
10 25 25 39
15 18 37 30
12 20 32 36%
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q12. In your experience, how important do you think the following are to client/potential clients whenselecting security suppliers?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 24
Non-approved contractors were least likely to think that clients would rate the SIA
Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (36% important), additional services
offered (33% important), and ACS assessment report (32% important) as important
when selecting security suppliers.
Due to the low bases size there were very few significant differences between
subgroups, although non-approved contractors who said that they were considering
applying for ACS status were more likely than those not applying to say that
compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001, ACS status, ACS assessment
score, ACS assessment report and additional services offered were all important.
3.2.4 Differentiating between security suppliers
Security contractors were asked how important they thought various methods were
for differentiating between security suppliers:
98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was important
97% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
74% said a tender exercise was important
65% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
64% said that some other method of differentiating between security suppliers
was important
54% said examination of company website or promotional material was important.
Face to face meeting with companyrepresentatives (63)
Comparison of quality of service offered forprice (63)
A tender exercise (62)
Examination of Accreditations/certifications
held (63)
Other (33)
Examination of company website orpromotional material (63)
34 40 18 8
17 37 40 6
42 21 27 9
60 37 22
27 38 27 8
71 27 2
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q13. How important are the following methods for differentiating between security suppliers?
There were no significant differences between subgroups due to low base sizes.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 25
3.2.5 Trends in security buying
When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, over half of the
non-approved contractors (54%) said that they had experienced greater emphasis
being placed on cost. Almost half (46%) said that that had experienced delays in
payment of monies owed, while around a quarter (24%) had seen a move from
manned security to security systems buying.
8% said that they hadn’t experienced any of the trends listed.
More emphasis on cost
Delay in payment of monies owed
A move from manned security to security systems buying
Change to shorter contracts
More emphasis on added value
Demand for integrated services, e.g security and cleaning
Change to longer contracts
Other
None of the above
Don't know 6%
8%
5%
2%
21%
13%
54%
46%
24%
22%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q20. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during 2010?
3.2.6 Relationship with the Police
The vast majority (84%) of contractors said that their organisation had a positive
relationship with the Police, while 10% said that their relationship was mixed and no
respondents said that they had a negative relationship with the Police.
Positive relationship
Negative relationship
Mixed relationship
Don't know
84%
10%
6%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q25. Would you say that your organisation has a positive, negative or mixedrelationship with the Police?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 26
3.2.7 Issues threatening your business
38% of security contractors said that they felt cash-flow problems could threaten
their business over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said they may
suffer due to market contraction.
Cash-flow
Market contraction
Interest rate rise
Inflation
Staff turnover
Credit rating
Other
Don't know 3%
18%
2%
38%
30%
5%
5%
Base: All respondents (61)
Q19. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelve monthsto two years?
18% of non-approved contractors said that they felt their business may be threatened
by something else over the next two years. These respondents were asked to specify
what they thought this might be. A selection of these responses is shown below:
"The costs of accreditation for compliance to ACS... if a company does not have
contracts then they can't get ACS, if a company does not have ACS, they cannot
obtain contracts"
"Larger national companies undercutting smaller companies"
"Clients NOT paying invoices be it government run or Subcontracted"
"Cheap Security with poor standards being acceptable to some security buyers"
"SIA goalposts and the cost of the courses and cost of keeping the SIA in business will
put me out of business"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 27
3.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS
This section of the report looks at what current accreditations or certifications security
contractors hold, which ones they plan to hold in the future, and what they think is
the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold.
3.3.1 Current affiliations and accreditations
22% of security contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of
Commerce, while much fewer were associated with ASIS, BSIA or the Security
Institute (8% each). However, over half of those questioned (56%) said that they
weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.
Chambers of Commerce
ASIS
BSIA
Security Institute
British Institute of Facilities Management
Project Griffin
Institute of Risk Management
Security Watchdog
British Parking Association
Security Benevolent Fund
UKCMA
IPSA
Other
None of the above 56%
8%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
6%
6%
22%
8%
8%
8%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q15. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your companybelong to or have affiliation with?
8% said that they were affiliated with some other organisation or initiative; these
respondents were asked to specify what they associated with. Their responses are
shown below:
"ACIEA, IFL, BBA"
"Ex Police in Industry & Commerce"
"NASDU"
As above the majority of non-approved contractors said that they didn’t hold any of
the accreditations or certifications listed. Those that did hold an accreditation were
most likely to hold ISO9001:2008 (19%), SAFE Contractor (17%) or Investors in
people (11%).
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
Investors in People
ISO170001
Contract Quality Marque
NSI Gold
Other
None of the above
Don't know 5%
59%
19%
8%
3%
3%
17%
11%
6%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q16. What other accreditations/certifications does your organisation hold?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 28
8% said that they held some other accreditation or certification; these respondents
were asked to specify what they associated with. Their responses are shown below:
"ACIEA, BBA, AIFL, Skills for Security, CHAS, UKAS(applied) Investors in People"
"CITY AND GUILDS AND INVEST NI ACCREDITATION"
"Construction Line - Achilles"
"Link Up, CHAS, Construction line"
"REC"
3.3.2 Future accreditations and certifications
Nearly a third of respondents (32%) said that they intended to achieve the SAFE
Contractor accreditations over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said
they would apply for ISO9001 certification and a quarter (24%) said they intended to
achieve Investors in People accreditation.
Over a quarter (27%) said that their organisation didn’t intend to achieve any of the
accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years.
SAFE Contractors
ISO9001: 2008
Investors in People
ISO17001
Contract Quality Marque
NSI Gold
Other
None of the above
Don't know 14%
27%
16%
5%
6%
32%
30%
24%
10%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q17. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend to achieveover the next 12 months to 2 years?
3.3.3 Most important accreditations
Almost half of the non-approved suppliers questioned (44%) said that the ACS was
the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with 22%
specifying ISO9001:2008 instead.
Approved Contractor Scheme
ISO9001:2008
SAFE Contractors
National Security Inspectorate Gold
Investors in People
ISO17001
Other 13%
3%
3%
44%
22%
10%
5%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q18. In your view what is the single most important accreditation/certification thata security supplier should hold?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 29
3.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS)
This section of the report focuses on evaluating the Approved Contractor Scheme
itself and whether contractors were considering applying. It also asks non-approved
security suppliers to consider what benefits the ACS may bring to security contractors
and to the industry as a whole.
3.4.1 Applying for ACS status
Nearly half of the non-approved suppliers (43%) said that they were considering
applying for ACS status, while 32% were not and 25% were unsure.
Yes
No
Don't know
32%
25%
43%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q30. Are you considering applying for the ACS status?
Respondents who said that they were considering applying for ACS status were asked
why. Most suggested that ACS status would make them more attractive to security
buyers, and that it would improve internal company standards:
"Because ACS is becoming more important in the eyes of buyers"
"Because it increases business opportunities"
"Because we now cannot find work without it but as a small business it is proving to
be a very hard process"
"Credibility and as an indicator of compliance, standards and quality of work"
"Licensing recommending only ACS approved companies in one region we cover"
"So we can generate more work"
"To improve our image and status in the public sector and security industry."
"To promote professionalism"
"To strengthen our brand image and make us more appealing to potential customers."
"Improved standards - tender opportunities"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 30
Respondents who said that they were not considering applying for ACS status were
also asked why this was the case – their responses generally mentioned the costs
involved in applying for approved status:
"Cannot afford the additional cost"
"Only 2 employees"
"I don’t agree this is the way to better the industry"
"I don’t see a benefit"
"Uncertainty over the future of the sia and our clients of many many years will NEVER
require ACS.
They are all very happy with our own vetting and licensed status."
"It’s another tax. I've seen all that needs to be done to get approved status. The
majority of it is a complete joke and waste of time. Why make everything so difficult.
There is no need."
"Cost, yet another assessment for a dubious return - logo ha we do not even use SIA
logos due to their policy on its alleged misuse."
3.4.2 Standards in the private security industry
Responses were split when non-approved contractors were asked whether the felt the
ACS had helped to raise standards in the private security industry overall; 44%
agreed and 56% disagreed.
There were no clear differences between the contractors of different sizes or those
working in different industry sectors.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
16%
28%
28%
28%
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know (50)
Q21. To what extent do you agree or disagree that ACS has helped to raisestandards in the private security industry overall?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 31
Contractors were asked to explain the reasons for their answer. Those who agreed
were likely to mention common standards across the industry. Although responses
were very mixed:
"It provides a minimum in the standards and this will help to promote our industry."
"ACS encourages companies to provide a more comprehensive service."
"Most tenders have the question are we an ACS approved company? I feel that it has
raised standards, increased trust and made companies easier to work with rather than
against."
"It has required some businesses to look at their standards, documents processes,
follow procedures etc. Good businesses did this already though. ACS makes NO
allowance for small businesses with an ebb and flow of contracts or allows those that
have lost all ongoing contracts / that are just starting out to attain ACS status"
Those who disagreed were more likely to say that the ACS still has work to do in
terms of removing all illegal companies, or that it benefits larger companies more
than small firms.
"Because it has stopped the smaller companies from operating on there own and have
to sub contact from other companies at lower rates of pay."
"Has not affected my business"
"All ACS has done is alienate smaller concerns in favour of national providers with
often very little local presence beyond sales and marketing activity. They are
contractual in as much yes we can deliver the earth but woe betide anyone who asks
for more - it will cost you dear."
"I don’t think it has achieved anything, I know good companies that are not in the
ACS and awful companies that are in it."
"I think any system where you buy into accreditation is wrong. Work should be gained
by merit and reputation. The ACS has simply enabled the bigger companies to ride
roughshod over smaller companies in many instances and is not about the client at
all."
"The smaller companies such as ourselves struggle with cash/profits already and I
think it is another unnecessary expense. As long as all staff are licensed that should
be enough."
"We are aware of a number of very poor quality organisations that have gained ACS"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 32
3.4.3 Benefits of the ACS
When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 44% said new
business opportunities, 35% said use of the ACS mark and 24% said differentiation
from other security suppliers. Respondents were least likely to cite easier recruitment
of staff (6%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.
29% said that they didn’t consider any of the factors listed as benefits of the SIA
ACS. Respondents who said that they weren’t planning to apply for ACS status were
the most likely to say that this was the case.
New business opportunities (e.g. clients require ACS)
Use of ACS mark
Differentiation from non approved contractors
Use of licence dispensation
ACS assessment highlights areas to improve
Improved operational performance
Reduced insurance premiums
Improved management control
ACS forums and newsletters
Easier recruitment of staff
Reduced turnover
Other
None of the above 29%
3%
2%
6%
8%
10%
14%
14%
16%
44%
35%
24%
17%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q23. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a securitysupplier?
In terms of benefits to the private security industry as a whole, responses were very
mixed. Security suppliers were likely to say that it had benefited from the ACS
through a common standard being introduced (35%), good practice being promoted
throughout the industry (35%), the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (33%) and an
improved industry image (33%).
27% said that they hadn’t seen any benefits to the private security industry overall
from the Approved Contractor Scheme. As above, respondents who said that they
weren’t planning to apply for ACS status were more likely to say this was the case.
Common standard for use throughout the
industry
Promotes good practice in the industry
Excludes ‘rogue’ companies
Improved image of the industry
Excludes companies with poor practices
Improved standard of security services
Increased buyer confidence in the industry
Increased professionalism of security operatives
Increased public confidence in the industry
Other
None of the above 27%
5%
22%
24%
25%
25%
25%
35%
35%
33%
33%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q24. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the privatesecurity industry overall?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 33
3.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS
This section asks non-approved security contractors whether they have any central
government, local government or private sector contracts, and if these contracts
require contractors to hold any specific certifications or accreditations.
3.5.1 Central government contracts
Only 13% of contractors said they had central government contracts. Of these the
majority (75%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed.
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
None of the above 75%
13%
25%
13%
13%
13%
Base: All respondents with central gvt. contracts (8)
Q26b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
3.5.2 Local government contracts
25% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Again, of these the
majority (63%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed.
ISO9001: 2008
BSIA
Investors in People
SAFE Contractors
Other
None of the above 63%
13%
13%
6%
6%
6%
Base: All respondents with local gvt. contracts (16)
Q27b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 34
3.5.3 Private sector contracts
62% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, just over half
(56%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or
accreditations listed. Almost a fifth (18%) said that these contracts required them to
hold an ISO9001 accreditation, and 15% SAFE Contractors certification.
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
Other
None of the above
3%
10%
15%
13%
56%
10%
18%
Base: All respondents with private sector contracts (39)
Q28b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
3.5.4 Central, regional and local government contracts lost
The vast majority of non-approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central,
regional or local government to approved contractors in the last 2 years, while 14%
said they had lost work. There were no significant differences between those working
in different sectors or in different sized firms.
Yes
No 86%
14%
Base: All respondents (63)
Q29. Have you lost any central, regional or local government contracts to anapproved contractor in the last 2 years?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 35
3.5.5 Further comments
Security contractors were given the opportunity to submit further observations or
feedback. A wide range of responses were received; a selection of which is shown
below:
"Approved Contractorship should be mandatory in the security industry and business
registration scheme that may take place, it should be mandatory that hey have
quality assurance."
"ACS is like any other management system and using it to assess performance is
missing the main point. It's how motivated and focused the security operatives as
well as how well they are trained that will improve performance but not how much
paperwork a company shows to have. Customers are interested in securing their
businesses and if a company can provide this, it does not matter if they have ACS or
not."
"I think it sometimes hard for small companies to reach the ACS mark without a huge
cost. Even if there standards are sometimes higher than the SIA's. Would like to see
more help for new businesses gain the ACS without such a large cost."
"I think licensing is good but do not think that ACS is fair it is creating a rich man
poor man situation and putting un necessary pressure on the small companies"
"Rogue companies still exist as does poor practice and this occurs within ACS
companies as well as non ACS. Training and licensing of security managers and
owners should be a priority so they have the knowledge to lead people at least to a
Level 3 qualification. The requirement that the companies are licensed maybe not
through ACS but through another scheme with a registered owner see point above on
training."
"The sia is totally unaware of the reality of some companies they ""approve"" as
contractors. Companies known to myself operate without any conscience towards
their obligations to staff clients or rules they must adhere to until an assessment is
due when they suddenly spend several weeks bringing paperwork up to date and
displaying a professional front for the sole purpose of seeming legitimate often
""losing"" staff so they are not found to be substandard"
"There should be an easier way for MICRO businesses to gain the ACS, but with
regular checks to the growth and adjustments made as and when the company grows
in size"
"We do not believe the SIA is in touch with the needs of the smaller security
contractor. As with other security organisations they seem to concentrate on the
larger companies to the exclusion of the smaller ones."
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 36
4 APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY
This section of the report looks at the approved contractors’ questionnaire.
4.1 COMPANY PROFILE
This section of the report profiles SIA approved contractors (ACS companies) by
sectors covered and company size. It also asks contractors about changes in company
turnover during 2010 and whether respondents feel ACS status influences their
turnover.
4.1.1 Sectors covered
Approved contractors were asked which sectors their business covered. The most
commonly covered sector was security guarding (91%), followed by key holding
(51%), door supervision (37%) and CCTV (28%).
Security Guarding
Key Holding
Door Supervision
Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
Close Protection
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Vehicle Immobilisation
Other
28%
37%
51%
91%
11%
5%
2%
3%Base: All respondents (180)
QA. Sector(s) covered by your business
Respondents from large firms were significantly more likely to say that they cover the
CCTV and door supervision sectors, than those in medium, small or micro firms.
4.1.2 Company size and type
Over half of the approved contractor respondents said that they work for medium
sized firms (56%), 14% for small, 22% for large and 8% work for micro sized firms.
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-25 employees)
Medium (26-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees
56%
8%
14%
22%
Base: All respondents (180)
QB. Your company size
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 37
Almost half of those questioned (43%) described their organisation as national, 34%
as regional, 14% as local and only 9% as international. Those who cover the key
holding sector (42%) were more likely than others (6% to 33) to describe their firm
as international.
International
National
Regional
Local
9%
43%
34%
14%
Base: All respondents (180)
QC. Your organisation type
4.1.3 Location
43% of approved contractors said that they were based in London or South East
England, 21% were based in the North East or North West England, and 17% were in
central England.
England - London and SE
England - Central
England - NW
Scotland
England - NE
England - SW
Wales - South
Wales - North
Northern Ireland
1%
1%
43%
17%
13%
8%
2%
7%
8%
Base: All respondents (180)
QD. Where in the country are you based?
Large companies were the most likely to be based in London or the South East
England (74%), compared to those working in smaller organisations (27% to 42%).
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 38
4.1.4 Turnover
Approved contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010
financial year – due to the potentially intrusive nature this question it was made
optional, and as such has a very low base size. 38% said that the company turned
over £1m or more, 18% said £500-£999,999, and 23% said they turned over
between £50,000 and £499,999.
As expected large (67%) and medium sized firms (42%) were significantly more likely
than small or medium companies (both 0%) to say that they turned over £1m or
more.
0
£1 - £9,999
£10,000 - £24,999
£25,000 - £49,999
£50,000 - £99,999
£100,000 - £249,999
£250,000 - £499,999
£500,000 - £999,999
£1m or more 38%
18%
12%
8%
3%
21%
Base: All respondents (66)
Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010financial year?
Half (52%) of the approved contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount
of business had increased since March 2010, while 31% said it had decreased and
17% said it had stayed the same.
There were very few differences between subgroups, although respondents who
described their organisation as international (75%) or national (59%) were more
likely than those in regional (48%) or local firms (28%) to say that their turnover or
business had increased, while those in local firms were the most likely to say it had
decreased.
Increased a lot
Increased a little
Stayed the same
Decreased a little
Decreased a lot 11%
16%
36%
17%
20%
Base: All respondents (178)
Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount of businessincreased or decreased?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 39
Following this, contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their
change in turnover has been influenced by their ACS status; 47% agreed, but over
half (53%) disagreed.
Contractors who said that they were planning on renewing their ACS status next year
were more likely to agree that it influenced their change in turnover, whereas those
who were unsure whether to renew their status were the most likely to disagree that
ACS affected changes in turnover.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree strongly
9%
37%
35%
18%
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know (158)
Q5. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your ACS status has influencedany change in your turnover?
Respondents were given the opportunity to explain their response to this question.
Those who agreed generally mentioned a requirement for ACS status in tenders, and
the fact that being approved provided opportunities to work for a wider range of
clients.
"ACS status tends to be mandatory in most large tenders"
"Local authorities are now demanding ACS contractors only in the tendering process."
"Many public sector contracts are awarded to only ACS companies."
"A small number of tenders have asked for ACS membership"
"Our clients expect us to have ACS approval"
"Without Approved Contractor Status I don't think we'd be have been asked to
tender, never mind considered."
"We use ACS and explain the benefits to our Customers of using an ACS company.
Always give the ACS Brochure"
Those who disagreed that ACS status affected their turnover generally mentioned a
lack of awareness of the ACS from clients
"ACS has had no impact to us and no one seems to know what it is."
"It has not really improved turnover but more helped keep existing work"
"No evidence to suggest that ACS status has had any influence on our ability to
secure new business or retain what we already have."
"No new clients have asked about ACS"
"Not enough companies are aware of ACS"
"The public is not aware or interested in ACS"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 40
"Too many companies have ACS status so seen by most buyers as a tick box
therefore cheaper companies take the work"
"With 700 approved contractors, it is difficult to demonstrate a competitive edge. Too
much business is price driven"
Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin for
the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 19% said that it was more than
20%. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as the question
received a low number of responses.
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
2%
6%
75%
17%
Base: All respondents (64)
Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010financial year?
4.1.5 Staff pay and benefits
Around half (48%) of the approved contractors questioned said that the number of
staff employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, while 34% said
it had decreased and 17% stayed the same.
Respondents covering the cash and valuables in transit sector were the most likely to
say that their staff number had decreased (22%), compared to those covering other
sectors (51% to 60%).
Increased a lot (since March 2010)
Increased a little (since March 2010)
Stayed the same (no differencesince March 2010)
Decreased a little (since March2010)
Decreased a lot (since March 2010) 8%
11%
37%
17%
27%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q9. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by your organisationincreased or decreased?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 41
Average hourly wages for frontline staff appeared to vary by organisation, but the
most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%), while 21% said
that they paid over £8.00 per hour.
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say 7%
1%
6%
10%
4%
10%
3%
31%
16%
12%
Base: All respondents (162)
Q10. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensable staff?
In terms of average hourly charge rate for front line staff, the most common rates
were between £8.50 to £9.99 per hour (28%) and £10.00 to £12.99 per hour (29%).
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say
28%
14%
3%
14%
3%
29%
5%
1%
2%
Base: All respondents (152)
Q11. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensable staff?
In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, approved contractors
were most likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage
(88%), had access to special leave for emergencies (65%), were paid for time off to
receive work related training (57%), or had access to a pension with company
contributions (41%). 5% of respondents said that their front line staff didn’t receive
any of the benefits listed.
Paid above national minimum wage
Access to special leave for emergencies etc
Paid time off for work-related training
Access to a pension with company contributions
Access to death in service benefit
Bonus scheme
Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security
guards
Holiday entitlement above the minimum
Other
None of the above 5%
9%
21%
23%
24%
30%
88%
65%
57%
41%
Base: All respondents (164)
Q13. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front linelicensable staff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?
Respondents covering the cash and valuables in transit sector were the most likely to
offer front line staff access to death in service benefits (88% vs 20-50%). Along with
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 42
those in CCTV (74%), those covering the cash and valuables in transit (88%) were
also most likely to offer paid time off for work-related training.
4.1.6 Annual leave
Almost half (46%) of approved contractors said that their front line licensable staff
currently received between 16 and 20 days annual paid leave (excluding paid bank
holidays), and a further 37% said they received between 26 and 30 days.
0
15 or less
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
Over 35
2%
37%
1%
1%
14%
46%
Base: All respondents (130)
Q12. How many days paid annual leave do your front line licensable staffcurrently have as a minimum (excluding paid bank holidays)?
There were no meaningful differences between the amounts of paid leave received by
front line staff across the different sectors covered by the private security industry.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 43
4.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
This section of the report looks at the relationship between approved contractors and
their clients; how many clients they have and what they think is important to clients
when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained to non-approved
suppliers, approved contractors’ relationship with the Police and general trends in
security buying.
4.2.1 Number of clients
20% of approved contractors said that they provide security for 10 or less clients,
34% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 32% for 51 to 300 clients, and 14% to
over 300 clients.
As expected, larger companies were much more likely to provide security for larger
numbers of clients. Those in the cash and valuables in transit and CCTV sectors were
also more likely to have more clients, but this is probably linked to the fact that
companies in those sectors were the most likely to be large or medium sized.
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over 300 14%
16%
16%
13%
3%
6%
11%
21%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q1. How many clients do you provide security for?
4.2.2 Work lost and gained
Almost half (47%) of the approved contractors questioned said that they never
gained work from non-approved contractors during 2010; 41% said that they did so
seldom or occasionally, and 6% did so frequently or consistently.
Similarly, 42% of the approved contractors questioned said that they never lost work
to non-approved contractors during 2010; 29% said that they did so seldom or
occasionally, and 22% did so frequently or consistently. There were no clear patterns
across subgroups for either question.
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know 8%
7%
42%
12%
17%
15%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q8. How often during 2010 has your company lost work to a contractor that is notan SIA Approved Contractor?
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know 7%
3%
47%
26%
16%
2%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q7. How often during 2010 has your company gained work from a contractor thatis not an SIA Approved Contractor?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 44
When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business,
respondents were most likely to say networking (28%) and responding to tender
notices (28%).
Tender notices were most commonly used by large companies (54%), compared to
27% of medium, 8% of small and 7% of micro sized firms.
Networking
Responding to tender notices
Cold-calling
Advertising/marketing
Buying out contracts/firms
Other
None of the above 6%
6%
1%
28%
28%
17%
14%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q16. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOST often?
4.2.3 Important factors when selecting security suppliers
Contractors were asked what they thought were the most important factors to
potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers:
Total cost of service (98% important)
Recommendation from other buyers (85% important)
Suppliers existing database (80% important)
Well known or established company (77% important)
Local offices and or local management (76% important)
Total cost of service (179)
Recommendation from other buyers (175)
Supplier's existing client base (177)
Well-known/established company (178)
Local offices and/or local management (178)
Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (177)
ISO9001 certification (178)
British Standards (179)
Other accreditations (145)
SIA Approved Contractor (ACS status) (179)
Security operative conditions (e.g. hours, wages, training) (178)
Other (94)
Additional services offered (e.g. cleaning, technical services etc) (169)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (174)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment report (173)
92 6 2
35 49 13 2
18 62 18 2
24 53 22 1
25 51 23 1
42 29 20 9
28 38 23 12
26 34 25 15
15 38 30 17
23 30 28 18
11 35 42 12
19 22 40 18
9 33 41 17
7 12 40 40
7 8 44 42
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q14. In your experience, how important do you think the following are to client/potential clients whenselecting security suppliers?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 45
Approved contractors were least likely that clients would rate additional services
(41% important), ACS assessment score (20% important), and ACS assessment
report (14% important).
Responses were fairly consistent across subgroups, but a few differences were
apparent:
Respondents in large companies (and as a result, often those covering the CCTV
and cash and valuables in transit sectors) were more likely than others to say that
compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001, ACS status, ACS
assessment score, ACS assessment report, British Standards, ISO9001
certification and other accreditations were all important to clients or potential
clients.
Predictably, respondents who said they weren’t planning on renewing their ACS
status were significantly less likely to think that supplier valued the ACS, than
those who were planning on renewing.
4.2.4 Differentiating between security suppliers
Approved contractors were asked how important they thought various methods were
for differentiating between security suppliers:
98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was important
94% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
83% said a tender exercise was important
81% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
66% said examination of company website or promotional material was important
57% said that some other method of differentiating between security suppliers
was important.
Face to face meeting with companyrepresentatives (179)
Comparison of quality of service offered forprice (179)
A tender exercise (179)
Examination of Accreditations/certifications
held (178)
Examination of company website or
promotional material (178)
Other (76)
71 27 11
30 26 30 13
55 39 6 1
37 46 14 3
14 52 28 6
31 50 15 4
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q15. How important are the following methods for differentiating between security suppliers?
Contractors from large companies (92%) were more likely than those in medium
(84%), small (73%) and micro sized firms (73%) to say that a tender exercise is an
important way of differentiating between security suppliers. Similarly, respondents
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 46
from small companies (65%) were less likely than others (80% to 90%) to say that
accreditations and certifications are important for differentiation.
4.2.5 Issues threatening your business
41% of contractors said that the issue most threatening their business over the next
two years is likely to be market contraction, 24% said that they would be threatened
by cash-flow problems, and 10% said that inflations would be an issue.
Market contraction
Cash-flow
Inflation
Staff turnover
Interest rate rise
Credit rating
Other
Don't know 7%
13%
1%
2%
41%
24%
10%
3%
Base: All respondents (175)
Q21. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelve monthsto two years?
13% of respondents said that they would be threatened by some other issue, and
were asked to specify what that might be. An example of their comments is shown
below.
"Being under cut by cash paying competitors"
"Large organisations forcing the price down by using ridiculous tender prices"
"Market prices being forced downwards"
"Non payments by clients"
"Under cutting by very large companies"
"Low standard companies offering below market rates, clients squeezing rates even
further, further regulation, disbandment of the SIA"
"Being undercut by non sia companies"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 47
4.2.6 Trends in security buying
When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, three quarters
of approved contractors (74%) said that they had experienced greater emphasis
being placed on cost. Almost half (48%) said that they had experienced delays in
payment of monies owed, while 41% had seen a move from manned security to
security systems buying.
More emphasis on cost
Delay in payment of monies owed
A move from manned security to security systems buying
More emphasis on added value
Demand for integrated services, e.g security and cleaning
Change to shorter contracts
Change to longer contracts
Other
None of the above
Don't know 2%
1%
4%
3%
24%
18%
74%
48%
41%
33%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q22. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during2010?
Respondents from large companies (56%) were significantly more likely than those in
medium (30%), small (27%) or micro sized firms (7%) to say that they had seen
clients put greater emphasis on added value.
4.2.7 Relationship with the Police
The vast majority (81%) of approved contractors said that their organisation had a
positive relationship with the Police, while 15% said that their relationship was mixed
and only 1% (1 respondent) said that they had a negative relationship with the Police.
Respondents from large companies (95%) were the most likely to say that their
relationship with the police was positive, compared to 78% of medium, 77% of small
and 73% micro sized organisations.
Positive relationship
Negative relationship
Mixed relationship
Don't know
81%
1%
15%
3%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q30. Would you say that your organisation has a positive, negative or mixedrelationship with the Police?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 48
4.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS
This section of the report looks at what current accreditations or certifications
approved contractors hold, which ones they plan to hold in the future, and what they
think is the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold.
4.3.1 Current affiliations and accreditations
39% of approved contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of
Commerce, 37% with Project Griffin and 31% with BSIA. 23% of those questioned
said that they weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.
Large companies were more likely than smaller ones to say that they were affiliated
with the majority of the initiatives listed, including; Project Griffin, BSIA, Security
Institute, Security Watchdog, Institute of Risk Management and Security Benevolent
Fund. Instead, micro sized firms (40%) were more likely to say that they were not
affiliated with any of the initiatives listed, compared to 35% of small, 25% of medium
and 3% of large organisations.
Chambers of Commerce
Project Griffin
BSIA
Security Institute
Security Watchdog
British Institute of Facilities Management
IPSA
ASIS
British Parking Association
Institute of Risk Management
Security Benevolent Fund
UKCMA
Other
None of the above 23%
16%
3%
4%
6%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
39%
37%
31%
16%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q17. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your companybelong to or have affiliation with?
16% said that they were affiliated with some other organisation or initiative; these
respondents were asked to specify what they associated with. A selection of
responses is shown below:
"British Security Association"
"BSI"
"EPIC"
"NSI"
"Safe Contractor"
"Pacesetters"
"Operation Trident, Operation Argus, BII"
"NASDU, NTIPDU,"
"Institute of Directors"
"FSB"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 49
ISO9001:2008 was the most commonly held accreditation among SIA approved
contractors; held by three quarters of respondents (76%). Over half (57%) said they
held the SAFE Contractors accreditation, and around a quarter (24%) held NSI Gold.
As with the previous question, large firms were significantly more likely than smaller
companies to hold the majority of the accreditations listed, including; ISO9001, SAFE
Contractors, NSI Gold and Investors in People. Smaller firms were much more likely
to say that they didn’t hold and of the certifications listed.
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
Investors in People
ISO17001
Contract Quality Marque
Other
None of the above
Don't know 3%
11%
28%
1%
2%
76%
57%
24%
18%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q18. What other accreditations/certifications does your organisation hold?
28% said that they held some other accreditation or certification; these respondents
were asked to specify what they associated with. A selection of responses is shown
below:
"CHAS"
"14001 and 18001"
"Achilles"
"Contractor Plus"
"ISO 14001"
"Link Up"
"NSI Silver"
"OHSAS18001"
"Trading Standards 'Buy with Confidence'"
"SSAIB ACPO Registered"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 50
4.3.2 Future accreditations and certifications
A third of respondents (33%) said that their organisations’ didn’t intended to achieve
any of the accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years. 14% said
they intended to achieve ISO9001, 13% Investors in People and 12% SAFE
Contractors certifications.
16% said that they intended to achieve registration to ‘other’ accreditations, most
commonly ISO 14001 or ISO 8001.
ISO9001: 2008
Investors in People
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
Contract Quality Marque
ISO17001
Other
None of the above
Don't know 19%
33%
16%
3%
4%
14%
13%
12%
10%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q19. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend to achieveover the next 12 months to 2 years?
4.3.3 Most important accreditations
The majority of respondents (57%) said that the ACS was the most important
accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with a quarter (26%) specifying
ISO9001:2008 instead.
Approved Contractor Scheme
ISO9001:2008
National Security Inspectorate Gold
Investors in People
SAFE Contractors
ISO17001
Other 4%
2%
57%
26%
8%
3%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q20. In your view what is the single most important accreditation/certification thata security supplier should hold?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 51
4.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS)
This section of the report focuses on evaluating the Approved Contractor Scheme
itself, and asks contractors to consider what benefits the ACS may bring to security
contractors and to the industry as a whole. Approved contractors were also asked
how the ACS has changed the way their company operates and whether they would
be renewing their ACS status.
4.4.1 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates?
Approved contractors were asked how the ACS had changed the way their company
operates. Comments were varied, but respondents mentioned the idea that ACS has
increased their professionalism and accountability and that it encourages organisation
of procedures. Other respondents suggested that the ACS hasn’t changed their
procedures because they were already operating at a high level.
"ACS has made the company focus more on accountability, service level, and staff
training and development. In conjunction with NSI Gold Passport programme we have
seen a year on year improvement in our operations which has lead to stream lining of
our business."
"Better quality procedures and some awareness of how we operate"
"Benchmarking and continuous improvement on ACS score/compliance each audit."
"Encouraged us to develop set standards and work in a systematic manner."
"Harder to employee new staff in fact it’s a nightmare"
"Improved business compliance, more focus for the middle management level, helps
promote
"Increase in cost owing to ACS costs and additional staffing to ensure compliance"
"It has developed our processes and quality system/manual"
"It has highlighted that companies must monitor its own processes."
"It has made us more professional"
"It has not"
"Just more time needed to collate data for the ACS audit"
"More paperwork, more costs"
"Processes and procedures are more formalised"
"The company can now prove it operates at a high level"
"Very little has actually changed in this respect"
"We follow the correct procedures and are far more organised"
"We have not changed"
"We were already operating quite a number of the procedures that are part of the
ACS accreditation, however, being audited on those procedures has ensured that they
are met, and gives accountability to those Managers responsible."
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 52
4.4.2 Company standards and the ACS
Approved contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their
company standards are higher as a result of the ACS; 68% agreed and 32%
disagreed.
As expected, those who said they were planning to renew their ACS status next year
(74%) were significantly more likely than those planning not to (0%), and those who
were unsure (40%), to agree that the ACS has raised their company standards.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
32%
36%
25%
7%
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know(165)
Q24. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your company standards arehigher as a result of being an ACS company?
Approved contractors were asked to explain their reasons and indicate in which areas
standards were higher. Those who agreed that their standards had been raised
mentioned the fact that they now have formalised procedures in place, that general
areas for improvement are highlighted, and that work and quality is standardised.
"ACS has set us targets and made us look at the business in a different way and we
enjoy the challenge of audit. Our audits have been very useful and we have found our
auditors approach to have helped us/encouraged us to develop (Bill Gray NSI). We
believe this to be a massive positive."
"Administration and generally the whole operating of the company has risen to
another level and the results are quite transparent"
"As above. Standardised our systems of work and procedures etc"
"Better policies and procedures implemented"
"Company procedures are uniform and staff have adapted well to these on all our
sites. We promote ACS in every quarterly staff newsletter and remind staff on a
regular basis that a professional Company is an ACS Company. Most Clients
appreciate the personal touch they receive and we survey both Clients and staff every
quarter and implement changes based on this feedback. Our documentation has
significantly improved as we near our Year Three assessment."
"I don’t , the standard is simply measured now"
"It has targeted area of operation within our business and in doing so has aided us in
improving in these areas."
"More attention to detail in the recruitment process."
"Our standards have improved greatly i.e.: vetting and screening and risk
assessments"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 53
"Procedures in place, inspections and checks and audits are done on a regular basis."
"Helped us to achieve and maintain tighter processes and control. Tighter key control-
management meetings-performance monitoring"
"It has targeted area of operation within our business and in doing so has aided us in
improving in these areas."
"We are able to identify improvement areas which we normally would not have
identified if we were not following ACS standard."
4.4.3 Standards in the private security industry
The majority (72%) of respondents agreed that the ACS has helped to raise standards
in the private security industry overall; while 28% disagreed. Again, those who were
planning on renewing their ACS status (79%) were more likely to agree than those
planning not to (0%), or those who were unsure (48%).
Companies describing themselves as local (57%) were less likely than others (69%
international, 83% national and 67% regional) to agree that the ACS has raise
industry standards.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
22%
50%
22%
6%
Base: All respondents (167)
Q25. To what extent do you agree or disagree that ACS has helped to raisestandards in the private security industry overall?
Contractors were asked to explain the reasons for their answer. Those who agreed
were likely to mention improved training for staff, a reduction in illegally operating
companies, and common standards across the industry.
"ACS Companies are able to demonstrate compliance with the Law"
"ACS has helped focus a number of companies on the benefits to be gained from a
structured quality service"
"All staff have now received the required training and companies have to work within
clear guidelines and standards which has filtered down to the officers on the front
line"
"As most customers now insist on using ACS approved Contractors it means that
companies operating illegally have reduced in number."
"By showing that you are an approved contractor identifies that you taken the
commitment of security seriously."
"Everyone now has a common standard"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 54
"I totally agree that we must have a standard to operate to, but I do not believe that
the ACS has been able to flex its full power and remove some of the more
questionable operations."
"We have nearly eradicated the cowboys"
Those who disagreed were more likely to say that the ACS still has work to do in
terms of removing all illegal companies, or that it benefits larger companies more
than small firms.
"Although ACS encourages companies to raise their standards, there are still 'rogue'
security companies operating within the industry - most rogue companies don't pay
taxes, don't have any overheads, sometimes they might not have company
insurances and there are a whole heap of other stuff, I could go on and on! - My
company which has held ACS approval since 2007 have to compete against these
companies and that is unfair and there by lowers the standards"
"It appears to be a paper work exercise which does not require confirmation by
potential clients"
"It has made very little difference as there are still companies that flaunt the rules we
have to follow"
"It was going to make a 'level playing field' for all security suppliers. Our sized
businesses are still not getting a look in, because the huge multi million pound
companies are simply cutting our throats and are even preparing to make losses on
jobs, as long as they win them. We cannot compete with their prices."
"The licensing of staff has changed the industry, not ACS"
"We are still seeing company's win contracts in my opinion that do not have the same
standards and certifications that our company hold."
"The ACS accreditation, which is extremely costly, does nothing that ISO:9001 does.
There should be a separation between SIA and ACS and any 'respect' the ACS may
have gained in recent times is now being eroded by its continuous reluctance to
properly disassociate itself from the pacesetters organisation that continues to use
ACS in their name. Further, companies should either 'pass' or 'fail'."
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 55
4.4.4 Benefits of the ACS
When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 46% said
differentiation from other security suppliers, 44% said new business opportunities,
and 43% said use of the ACS mark. Respondents were least likely to cite easier
recruitment of staff (9%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.
Differentiation from non approved contractors
New business opportunities (e.g. clients require ACS)
Use of ACS mark
Use of licence dispensation
Improved operational performance
Improved management control
ACS assessment highlights areas to improve
ACS forums and newsletters
Reduced insurance premiums
Easier recruitment of staff
Reduced turnover
Other
None of the above 13%
1%
2%
9%
13%
23%
32%
34%
34%
46%
44%
43%
39%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q27. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a securitysupplier?
Approved contractors covering the cash and valuables in transit (78%) and vehicle
immobilisation sectors (100%, but only 3 respondents) were the most likely to say
that the use of license dispensation was a benefit, compared to those in other sectors
(32% to 55%). Those in close protection were the most likely to say that the ACS
highlighting areas to improve was a benefit, while those in CCTV were more likely to
cite the ACS forums and newsletters as beneficial.
In terms of the private security industry as a whole, respondents were most likely say
that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard being introduced
(62%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry (59%), and the
exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (53%). Contractors were least likely to cite increased
buyer confidence in the industry (39%) and increased pubic confidence in the industry
(24%) as benefits of the Approved Contractor Scheme.
Common standard for use throughout the industry
Promotes good practice in the industry
Excludes ‘rogue’ companies
Excludes companies with poor practices
Improved image of the industry
Improved standard of security services
Increased professionalism of security operatives
Increased buyer confidence in the industry
Increased public confidence in the industry
Other
None of the above 9%
2%
24%
39%
41%
43%
44%
62%
59%
53%
44%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q28. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the privatesecurity industry overall?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 56
Large companies (69%) were the most likely to say that the industry had benefited
through the exclusion of rogue companies, when compared to smaller companies
(35% to 52%).
4.4.5 Renewing ACS status
The vast majority of approved contractors (84%) said that they were planning to
renew their ACS status, while 3% disagreed and 13% were unsure.
Large companies (95%) were more likely than medium (86%), small (65%) or micro
sized organisations (73%) to say that they would renew their AC status. Those in the
close protection sector (40%) were the least likely to say yes, compared to 67% to
100% of those in other sectors.
Yes
No
Don't know
3%
13%
84%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q29. Do you intend to renew your Approved Contractor Scheme status when itnext comes up for renewal?
Respondents were asked to explain the reasons for their decision. Those who were
intending to renew their status suggested that ACS is becoming the minimum
standard within the industry, and as such is becoming vital to security contractors.
"ACS is the norm for us and as I have said before it should become mandatory."
"As one of the market leaders we feel it is our responsibility to support the scheme."
"Essential to remain at the forefront of the industry"
"Good business practise"
"If you do not go along with the 'Crowd' then you get left behind.....It is easier to
conform (And here I mean we want to and are not being driven elsewhere)...."
"Improvements in industry standards and to be recognised as the symbol of quality
supplier."
"In some tenders is a requirement"
"It's a must have to help to grow and retain business."
"This is the only way forward. Companies are aware of the ACS and now demand it as
a minimum."
"We cannot afford to not be ACS approved because we do not know how many of our
potential new customers or indeed our existing customers regularly check the website
for evidence of ACS qualification"
"Vital to our continued success"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 57
One approved contractor responded who wasn’t planning on renewing their ACS
status:
"Until it is made compulsory we will not renew"
Those who were unsure whether to renew or not generally questioned whether the
cost and effort required maintaining their status was repaid by the benefits.
"Been an approved contractor for several years now and have really seen any
advantages, contracts still being gained by non approved contractors undercutting
costs. ACS needs marketing by the SIA to security buyers as many have no idea
what it is when you explain you hold ACS status."
"Expense and triviality of some sections...doesn't reflect operational output. Still
hasn't tackled the issue of ACS approved contractors utilising large scale sub
contracted staff."
"Not sure the cost is worth the benefits"
"The time and effort associated with the scheme has so far not been rewarded by a
related increase in work as a result of being ACS as it seems that the vast majority of
buyers (certainly those who would consider a small company like ours) have very
little interest or knowledge of ACS."
"Not sure of its worth for the price- too many companies paying to be approved with
no previous track record of good customer service"
"Still hoping for a benefit but unless recession ends the costs will not be worth it"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 58
4.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS
This section asks approved contractors whether they have any central government,
local government or private sector contracts, and if these contracts require
contractors to hold any specific certifications or accreditations.
4.5.1 Overall proportion of clients requiring the ACS
When asked what overall proportion of their clients require ACS status, the most
common response was between 1 and 20% of clients (35%). 13% said that none of
their clients require ACS, and 21% said between 81 and 100% require it.
Small companies were the most likely to say that none of their clients require ACS
status, whereas large firms were the most likely to say that it was required by 81-
100% of their clients.
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 21%
12%
12%
13%
35%
8%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q31. What proportion of your clients overall require the ACS?
4.5.2 Central government contracts
19% said they had central government contracts. Of these 43% said that over 80% of
their clients required ACS status, while only 11% said that none of them do.
The majority (86%) of contractors with central government contracts said that these
contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 29% SAFE Contractors and
23% NSI Gold. 11% said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the
certifications or accreditations listed.
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
Investors in People
BSIA
IPSA
ISO170001
Other
None of the above 11%
11%
3%
3%
9%
86%
29%
23%
14%
Base: All respondents with central gvt contracts (35)
Q32b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 43%
9%
11%
29%
6%
3%
Base: All respondents with central gvt contracts (35)
Q32a. What proportion of your central government contracts require ACS?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 59
4.5.3 Local government contracts
50% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Larger companies
were more likely than small organisations to say that this was the case.
Of these, over a third (36%) said that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, 32%
said that over 80% did, while only 11% said that none of them did.
When asked whether these contracts required them to hold any specific certifications,
responses were very similar to those for central government contracts, with the
majority (70%) saying that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001
accreditation, 30% SAFE Contractors and 24% NSI Gold. 21% said these contracts
didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or accreditations listed.
4.5.4 Private sector contracts
91% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, 29% said that
1-20% of the clients required ACS status, less than a fifth (18%) said that over 80%
did, and 15% said that none of them did.
Once again, the majority (68%) of contractors with central government contracts said
that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 40% SAFE
Contractors and 16% NSI Gold. 23% said these contracts didn’t require them to hold
any of the certifications or accreditations listed.
Those in the smallest companies were the most likely to say that these contracts
didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or accreditations listed.
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
IPSA
Other
None of the above
12%
24%
30%
70%
10%
3%
1%
10%
21%Base: All respondents with local gvt contracts (90)
Q33b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
8%
2%
36%
11%
11%
32%
Base: All respondents with local gvt contracts (90)
Q33a. What proportion of your local government contracts require ACS?
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 18%
15%
15%
29%
12%
11%
Base: All respondents with private sector contracts (163)
Q34a. What proportion of your private sector contracts require ACS?
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
IPSA
Other
None of the above 23%
10%
2%
5%
68%
40%
16%
12%
Base: All respondents with private sector contracts (163)
Q34b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 60
4.5.5 Central, regional and local government contracts lost
Two thirds of approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central, regional or local
government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years. 14% said they had lost
work, and 20% were unsure. There were no significant differences between those
working in different sectors or in different sized firms.
Yes
No
Dont know
66%
20%
14%
Base: All respondents (180)
Q36. Have you lost any central, regional or local government contracts to a non-approved contractor in the last 2 years?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 61
5 BUYERS’ SURVEY
This section of the report looks at the questionnaire for buyers of security.
5.1 COMPANY PROFILE
This section of the report profiles buyers of security by type of organisation, security
services used, company size and location.
5.1.1 Type of organisation
When asked about their organisation, 21% of buyers said that their company is in the
retail sector, 16% said other public sector and 14% said local government. 31%
classified their organisation as ‘other services’.
Other services
Retail
Other public sector
Local Government
Manufacturing
Financial services
Construction
Central Government
Night time economy 1%
1%
5%
8%
8%
31%
21%
16%
14%
Base: All respondents (232)
QB. Type of organisation
As expected, large companies (20%) were significantly more likely than medium
(5%) and small firms (4%) to say that they work in local government.
Buyers who classified their organisation as ‘other’ were asked to specify their
company type. The majority of responses were based around facilities and property
management. A selection of responses is shown below:
"Area management"
"Charity"
"Education"
"Facilities Management"
"Leisure"
"Property Management"
"Hospitality"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 62
5.1.2 Company size and type
The majority of buyers interviewed were from large companies (61%), and around a
quarter were from medium sized firms (26%).
As expected, buyers working for local or central government were the most likely to
work for large organisations (89%), while those working in other public sector (51%),
retail (50%) and other services were the least likely.
These results were reflected when buyers were asked what type of company they
worked for; with 31% working for international companies and 25% for national
firms. 31% described their organisation as ‘local’.
Those working in the manufacturing (74%) and financial services sectors (72%) were
the most likely to describe their firm as international, when compared to all other
sectors (3 to 35%).
5.1.3 Location
Responses were received from buyers across the UK, but they were most likely to be
from security buyers based in London and South East England (43%). Around a fifth
were based in central England (19%), with around the same proportion located in the
North West or North East England (20%).
England - London and SE
England - Central
England - NW
England - NE
Scotland
England - SW
Wales - North
Wales - South
Northern Ireland 2%
2%
2%
5%
8%
43%
19%
12%
9%
Base: All respondents (232)
QE. Where in the country are you based?
International
National
Regional
Local
31%
25%
13%
31%
Base: All respondents (232)
QD. Your organisation type
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-25 employees)
Medium (25-250 employees)
Large (over 250 employees)
3%
10%
26%
61%
Base: All respondents (232)
QC. Your organisation size
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 63
5.1.4 Security services used
Buyers were most likely to say that they used security guarding services (61%), CCTV
(46%) and cash and valuables in transit (45%). Vehicle immobilisation and close
protection services were the least commonly used (2% and 3% respectively).
Security Guarding
CCTV
Cash and Valuables In Transit
Key Holding
Door Supervision
Close Protection
Vehicle Immobilising
Other 6%
2%
3%
46%
45%
17%
28%
61%
Base: All respondents (232)
QG. What type of security services do you use?
Differences apparent at the subgroup level included:
Buyers in the manufacturing (95%) and construction sectors (92%) were
significantly more likely than those in other sectors (38% to 68%) to use security
guarding services.
Those working in retail were the most likely to use CCTV services (60%)
Buyers in financial services (72%), central or local government (60%), and other
public sectors (59%) were more likely than others (17% to 52%) to use cash and
valuables in transit services.
International (81%) and national firms (73%) were more likely than regional
(52%) and local organisations (35%) to use security guarding, whereas local
(65%) and regional firms (55%) were more likely to use cash and valuables in
transit services.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 64
5.2 THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY AND CLIENTS
This section asks security buyers which factors are most important to them when
selecting security suppliers, what they feel is the most appropriate method for
differentiating between suppliers and what proportion of their supplier are SIA
approved. Buyers were also asked about supplier accreditations, and whether they
are happy with their current suppliers.
5.2.1 Factors important when selecting security suppliers
Buyers were asked what they considered important when selecting and buying from
security suppliers. The five most important factors were:
Total cost of service (98% important)
Compliance with Private Security Industry Act 2001 (92% important)
SIA ACS status (88% important)
British Standards (87% important)
Security operative conditions (85% important)
Total cost of service (231)
Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (215)
SIA Approved Contractor (ACS status) (210)
British Standards (218)
Security operative conditions (e.g. hours, wages, training) (220)
Well-known/established company (230)
Local offices and/or local management (228)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment report (198)
Recommendation from other buyers (226)
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (196)
ISO9001 certification (202)
Supplier's existing client base (220)
Other accreditations (138)
Other (102)
Additional services offered (e.g. cleaning, technical services etc) (210)
60 39 1
65 27 6 2
58 30 9 4
44 42 10 4
39 46 12 3
37 45 16 2
29 51 18 3
36 40 19 5
22 54 21 4
36 39 20 5
34 41 21 4
10 54 32 4
13 25 41 21
20 17 42 22
7 16 48 29
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q1. Please indicate how important the following are to you when selecting security suppliers.
Buyers were least likely to say that suppliers existing client base (65% important),
other accreditations (38% important), ‘other’ (36% important) and additional services
offered (23% important) were important.
Responses were fairly consistent across subgroups, but a few differences were
apparent:
Buyers in the retail sector were the least likely to say that local offices or local
management were important
Respondents working in manufacturing were the most likely to say that
recommendations from other buyers (42%) were unimportant, compared to those
in other sectors (17% to 33%)
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 65
Those who said they were aware of the ACS (91%) were significantly more likely
than those unaware (70%) to say that security operative conditions were
important
Those not aware of the ACS (92%) were more likely to stress the importance of a
well know company and established reputation, compared to 78% of those aware
Large and medium sized firms (84% and 85%) were more likely than small (70%)
or micro sized companies (50%) to say that using a well know or established
company was important.
Larger firms were also more likely than smaller companies to say that ACS status,
ACS assessment score and the ACS assessment report were all important factors
to consider when selecting security suppliers
5.2.2 Differentiating between security suppliers
Buyers were asked what they saw as the most appropriate method for differentiating
between security suppliers:
98% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important
94% said face to face meeting with company representatives was important
91% said a tender exercise was important
90% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important
60% said examination of company website or promotional material was important
44% said that some other method of differentiating between security suppliers
was important.
Comparison of quality of service offered forprice (229)
Face to face meeting with companyrepresentatives (227)
A tender exercise (223)
Examination of Accreditations/certificationsheld (221)
Examination of company website orpromotional material (220)
Other (94)
69 29 2
68 26 51
58 33 7 2
42 48 8 1
11 49 33 7
21 22 44 13
Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)
Base: All respondents excl. Don't know
Q2. How important are the following methods for differentiating between security suppliers?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 66
There were very few differences between subgroups for this question, although
buyers working in large or medium firms were the most likely to value accreditations
and certifications held by suppliers, or some ‘other’ method of differentiation. Those
who said other were given the opportunity to specify the methods they used:
"Accreditations"
"Local Knowledge"
"Customer Focus and Management Account Handling"
"Relevant experience of provider in our field"
"Promptness and suppliers internal controls"
"Quality and dedication of guards supplied"
5.2.3 Reference sources
Buyers were asked what reference sources they used to keep informed about issues
and developments that would affect the use of security in their company. Almost half
(49%) said that they used word of mouth or personal recommendations, and 30%
used trade associations. 33% said that they don’t use any of the sources listed.
Word of mouth/personalrecommendation
Trade association
Security publication
Facilities Management publications
Business support organisations
Other
None of the above 33%
6%
13%
49%
30%
22%
21%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q3. What reference sources do you use to keep informed about issuesand developments that would affect the use of security in your company?
There were no significant differences between respondents from different sized firms,
but buyers who were aware of the ACS were significantly more likely than those who
weren’t aware to say that they use word or mouth, trade associations, security
publications and facilities management publications as reference sources; while those
unaware of the ACS were significantly more likely to say that the didn’t use any of the
resources listed.
Respondents working in the financial sector were the most likely to say they use word
of mouth/personal recommendations (67% vs 31-56%) and also security publications
like Professional Security, Security Management Today and Infologue (50% vs 11 –
25%). Buyers in the manufacturing industry were the most likely to say that they use
‘other’ reference sources (26%), compared to 2% to 8% of those in other sectors.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 67
Respondents were asked to name exactly which reference sources they use to keep
up to date with security information. A selection of responses is shown below:
"BIFM information"
"BSIA Website; Professional Security; SMT; Infologue"
"BSSA and Suffolk Trade Association"
"Facilities UK"
"FMUK"
"Networking with other company's"
"Other venues in the same industry"
"Purchasing Consortia"
"SIA"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 68
5.3 YOUR SECURITY PROVIDERS
This section of the report looks at the security providers used by buyers of security.
Buyers were asked how many providers they use, what proportion of them are SIA
approved, and how satisfied they are with their current providers.
5.3.1 Number of security providers
Over half (60%) of the buyers questioned said that they only use one security
provider. 31% said that they use two or three security providers and 9% use four or
more.
There were no significant differences between firms of different size in terms of the
number of security providers used.
1
2
3
4
5+ 6%
60%
23%
8%
3%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q4. How many security providers do you use?
5.3.2 Supplier certifications and accreditations
When asked what proportion of their security providers are SIA approved, the
majority of buyers said that over 80% were (87%). Only 3% said that none of their
suppliers were SIA approved.
0%
1-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100% 87%
1%
3%
6%
1%
3%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q5. What proportion of your security providers are SIA approved contractors?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 69
The majority (85%) of buyers said that they require contractors to be SIA approved
suppliers. SIA approval was most likely to be required in large (90%) and medium
sized companies (84%), than in small (63%) or micro firms (67%).
Buyers who said that their suppliers should be SIA approved were then asked why
that was the case. The most common response was that SIA approval provided
buyers with reassurances in terms of quality and management (76%), that it excludes
‘rogue’ and criminal companies (66%), it denotes a higher standard of contractor
(65%) and indicates increased the professionalism of security operatives (63%).
Security buyers who said that they don’t require their contractors to be SIA approved
were asked why they don’t require their contractors to be approved. A selection of
their responses is shown below, but there were no clear themes among responses:
"Because in certain situations experience and reliability are more important and the
SIA does not cover certain areas where specialists operate - e.g pit security at gigs."
"I had no idea such an organisation existed"
"Not a lot of faith in SIA"
"We have a relationship that has lasted over 10 years, the subject of SIA approval
has never been raised although I know they have it."
"I have never seen any benefit in SIA. There should be legal regulations which the
company should achieve. The quality of the SIA approved guards has never really met
our standards and it is easy for us to carry out a CRB check on people we are using. I
would rather not have SIA as a licensing body but have them more as an inspection
body, a bit like HMRC. Have the regulations and if you are caught flouting them then
there is a big price to pay. All my staff complains about the length of time it takes SIA
to do anything and the lack of support and contact they have during any application
process. It has been sistered to the CSA"
"All I want is good quality security staff that do the job required of them, and to do it
to the best of there ability"
They were also asked if there was anything that would convince them to specify ACS
as a requirement for their contractors. There were very few responses, the majority
of which said ‘No’ or ‘Not really’.
Yes
No
85%
15%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q6. Do you require that your security provider is an SIA approved contractor?
Provides reassurance on quality and management
Excludes 'rogue' and criminal companies
Higher standard of contractor
Increased professionalism of security operatives
Excludes companies with poor practices
Reduces liability
Other
None of the above
66%
62%
6%
63%
65%
1%
40%
76%
Base: Respondents who require suppliers to be SIA approved (197)
Q6c. Why do you require your security provider to be an SIA approved contractor?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 70
Buyers were asked whether they required their security suppliers to hold any
accreditations other than ACS status. 34% said that they stipulated IS09001, 25%
BSIA, 17% Investors in People and 17% SAFE Contractor accreditations, whereas
43% didn’t require their suppliers to hold any of the certifications listed.
ISO9001: 2008
BSIA
Investors in People
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
ISO17001
IPSA
Other
None of the above 43%
7%
6%
11%
13%
34%
17%
25%
17%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q7. Do you require that your security provider holds any other certification,accreditation or membership?
There were few differences between subgroups for this question, although buyers in
the construction sector were the most likely to specify ISO9001:2008 (67% vs 22 –
47%) and SAFE Contractor accreditations (50% vs 3 – 31%). Similarly buyers in
financial services (28%) and construction (26%) were more likely than those in other
sectors (3% to 17%) to require NSI Gold certification from their suppliers.
Buyers who said that they work in ‘other public sector’ roles (59%) were significantly
more likely than most other respondents (17% to 47%) to say that they didn’t
require their contractors to hold any of the accreditations or certifications listed.
Those respondents who said they require other accreditations or certifications were
asked what these accreditations were. These responses are shown below:
"ISO14001"
"Not sure, this is covered by procurement"
"CHAS"
"CHAS, NICEIC"
"ACS Pacesetters"
"Relevant codes of practice"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 71
Security buyers were asked what they felt was the single most important
accreditation that a security supplier could hold; over half (57%) said that the SIA
Approved Contractor Scheme was the most important.
SIA Approved Contractor Scheme
ISO9001: 2008
NSI Gold
Investors in People
SAFE Contractors
ISO17001
Contract Quality Marque
Other
None of the above 21%
3%
1%
2%
57%
11%
3%
2%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q8. What is the single most important accreditation/certification that your securitysupplier should hold?
5.3.3 Decisions on security buying
When respondents were asked who in their organisation makes the major decisions
on security buying, they were most likely to say a director or board of directors
(27%) or a procurement manager (20%).
Buyers working in the central or local government sectors (37%) were the most likely
to say that a procurement manager made decisions on security buying, compared to
11% to 28% of other buyers. Conversely, those working in the manufacturing (42%)
and financial services sectors (39%) were more likely to say it was the responsibility
of a security manager, (compared to 3 to 19% of those in other sectors)
Director/Board of Directors
Procurement Manager
Security Manager
Facilities Manager
Specifier
Consultant
Other
Don't know 3%
15%
1%
27%
20%
17%
17%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q9. Who in your organisation makes the major decisions on security buying?
15% said that someone other that those listed made decisions on security buying. An
example of their responses is shown below:
"Business Manager"
"Business Unit Heads of Security"
"Centre Manager"
"Chief Financial Officer"
"Head of Finance"
"Head of Service"
"Project Manager"
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 72
"Senior Facilities Manager"
"Site Manager"
5.3.4 Satisfaction with current security suppliers
91% of respondents said that they were satisfied with their security suppliers, while
only 4% were dissatisfied.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied 1%
50%
41%
3%
5%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q10. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your current security providers?
Respondents across all sectors were very positive, with those in the retail and other
public services sectors the least likely to be satisfied. Respondents using vehicle
immobilisation services (80%) were slightly less likely to say that they were satisfied
then other buyers (87% to 100%).
5.3.5 Security guard turnover
Buyers were most likely to say that the security guards provided to them change
occasionally (48%) or seldom (32%), while 9% said that they never change and 2%
said that they are constantly changing.
There were no significant differences between the responses of buyers from different
organisation types or sizes.
Constantly
Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never 9%
2%
48%
9%
32%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q11. How often do the security guards provided to you change?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 73
5.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS)
This section of the report focuses on the Approved Contractor Scheme, and asks
buyers whether they are aware of the ACS, how it affects the standards of security
suppliers, what benefits the ACS may bring to the industry as a whole. Buyers were
also asked for any further observations or feedback on the scheme in general.
5.4.1 Awareness of the ACS
72% of buyers said that they were aware of the ACS and 28% were not.
Buyers in ‘other public sector’ roles were significantly more likely than most to say
that they were unaware of the scheme (54% vs 8 – 34%), as were buyers from
Wales (63%) when compared to those from other areas (17% to 41%).
Predictably, firms who described themselves as international (92%) or national (75%)
were more likely to be aware of the ACS than those working in local (51%) or
regional firms (66%).
Yes
No
72%
28%
Base: All respondents (232)
QF. Are you aware of the SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)?
5.4.2 Standards of security contractors
The majority of respondents (68%) agreed that approved contractors had higher
standards than non-approved contractors, while 8% disagreed and 24% were unsure.
Strongly agree
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Strongly disagree
32%
36%
6%
24%
2%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that approved contractors havehigher standards compared to non-approved contractors?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 74
Respondents were asked to explain their answers to the above question and to
indicate in what areas standards are higher. Buyers who agreed that approved
contractors have higher standards highlighted differences in standards in a number of
areas, including quality of service, reliability and the level of training and experience:
"All areas, professionalism, training, the ability to carry out their duties"
"Approved contractors are not ex-convicts as was the case most of the time in the
past"
"Better trained staff"
"Good paper trail (or electronic) to see where money has gone. Efficient banking
procedures"
"Approved contractors should have to meet minimum standards."
"Better service"
"It has been proved that training is better, as is H&S knowledge and safe working"
"More professional, rigorous quality standards"
"Reliable guards, regular, very few changes"
"Training, Management ability, professionalism"
Respondents who disagreed that approved contractors have higher standards were
more likely to suggest that quality still varies from company to company, regardless
of accreditation, and that non-approved firms may still be reliable:
"There are vast differences in the ways that approved contractors work, treat their
staff and commit to a job which means that you can have an approved contractor who
has excellent standards and one that does not but no ability to differentiate on these.
This indicates that the regulation is good but there is no added value to the
accreditation system"
"We frequently use a company who are not SIA approved due to the costs involved
but the quality of work, their experience, advice and their reputation and reliability
are all as good if not better than the approved contractor."
"There are some excellent non ACS approved suppliers available"
"We used to employ our own on site Security staff but are now not able to due to
licensing"
"Never used non-approved so nothing to compare to"
"All security companies are the same; they employ BODIES at cheap rates. You
only get decent staff if you pay the right rate; it has nothing to do with training,
approved. Pay peanuts and get monkeys."
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 75
5.4.3 Benefits of the ACS
Buyers were asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS to the
private security industry overall. The most popular responses were; common standard
for use throughout the industry (71%), promotes good practice in the industry (55%)
excludes ‘rogue’ companies (55%), and excludes companies with poor practices
(51%). 9% of buyers said that they saw no benefits of the ACS to the private security
industry.
Common standard for use throughout the industry
Promotes good practice in the industry
Excludes ‘rogue’ companies
Excludes companies with poor practices
Improved standard of security services
Increased professionalism of security operatives
Improved image of the industry
Increased buyer confidence in the industry
Increased public confidence in the industry
Other
None of the above 9%
26%
35%
3%
38%
47%
71%
55%
46%
55%
51%
Base: All respondents (232)
Q14. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the privatesecurity industry overall?
Large (75%) and medium sized companies (74%) were more likely than small (46%)
or micro sized firms (33%) to say that the ACS has helped create a common standard
for use throughout the industry, as well as increase the professionalism of security
operatives (48% of large and 49% of medium firms, compared to 25% of small and
33% of micro firms).
Buyers in the financial services sector (17%) were the least likely to say that the ACS
improves the standards of security services, compared to 66% of central/local
government buyers and 75% of those in construction.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 76
5.4.4 Further comments
Respondents were given the opportunity to submit further observations or feedback.
A wide range of responses were received; a selection of which is shown below:
"Being happy with my supplier and their services is the most important thing to me"
"Concerned the withdrawal of the SIA will create a vacuum which will draw rogue
companies back into the industry which would be extremely disappointing situation."
"If you want buyers to use the SIA standard as a benchmark then you need to issue a
guide on how to identify and select a good security company."
"It would be a complete waste of effort and time if the current system was not
continued. The industry would be set back 20 years."
"My experience is that the more local the security office is to the site, the better the
service and the more efficient the back-up. The guards supplied need to be familiar
with the type of operation / location / type of business / familiar with the local
community / surroundings that they are guarding and they should not be changed
unless at the request of the purchaser."
"Officers that hold a licence could commit an offence and it would not be picked up
until licence renewals. More stringent vetting processes required, i.e. all officers
licences should be annually checked by service providers."
"Standards of professionalism and accountability within this industry require to be
driven to a very high level in order for it to sustain the confidence and credibility, both
of buyers and the public."
"The SIA could do far more to promote the benefits of the ACS scheme"
"We are very small company but still need people we can trust."
"Would like to see the minimum requirement level raised to ensure a higher level of
achievement."
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 77
6 MERGED FILES
Some questions appeared in two or more of the surveys, and as such, the responses
are comparable. Responses to the three surveys have been merged, and where
appropriate are compared in this section of the report.
6.1 COMPANY PROFILE
This section of the report compares the profiles of approved contractors, non-
approved contractors and buyers of security. It asks respondents about sectors
covered, company size, and changes in company turnover during 2010.
6.1.1 Type of organisation
Looking at overall responses, around half were from buyers (49%), 38% were from
approved contractors and 13% were from non-approved contractors. As such, results
would be skewed towards the opinions of buyers and approved contractors when
looking at results as a whole.
Buyers
ACS
Non-ACS
49%
38%
13%
Base: All respondents (475)
B1. Organisation type
6.1.2 Sectors covered
Approved and non-approved contractors were both asked which sectors they covered.
The results show a few significant differences between their responses.
Security Guarding
Key Holding
Door Supervision
Public Space Surveillance(CCTV)
Close Protection
Cash and Valuables in Transit
Vehicle Immobilisation
Other
71%
35%
54%
25%
17%
2%
27%
91%
51%
37%
28%
11%
5%
2%
3%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents
QA. Sector(s) covered by your business
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 78
Approved firms were significantly more likely than non-approved contractors to
say that they cover the security guarding (91 vs 71%) and key holding (51% vs
35%).
Non-approved contractors (54%) were significantly more likely than ACS firms
(37%) to say that they cover the door supervision sector.
Non-approved contractors (27%) were also more likely to say that they covered
some other sector of the private security industry to those listed, when compared
to approved firms (3%).
6.1.3 Company size and type
Respondents to all three surveys were asked to specify their company’s size.
Non-approved contractors (56%) were more likely than approved contractors (8%)
and buyers (3%) to classify their company as micro sized. Approved contractors were
the most likely to say that they work in a medium sized company, while buyers were
the most likely to work in a large firm.
Micro (up to 10 employees)
Small (11-25 employees)
Medium (26-250employees)
Large (over 250 employees61%
26%
10%
3%
3%
19%
22%
56%
8%
14%
56%
22%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)
Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents
QB. Your company size
Reflecting this, buyers (31%) were the most likely to classify their organisation as
international, compared to 19% of non-ACS and 9% of ACS firms. Whereas approved
contractors (43%) were significantly more likely to classify their firm as national;
compared to 16% of non-ACS companies and 25% or buyers.
International
National
Regional
Local
31%
25%
13%
31%
19%
16%
35%
30%
14%
34%
43%
9%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)
Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents (475)
QC. Your organisation type
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 79
6.1.4 Location
Responses were very similar across all three respondent groups, with respondents
most likely to say that their organisation was based in London or South East England.
England - London and SE
England - Central
England - NW
England - NE
Scotland
England - SW
Wales - South
Wales - North
Northern Ireland
43%
19%
12%
9%
8%
5%
2%
2%
2%
37%
16%
14%
10%
10%
6%
5%
2%
2%
8%
13%
17%
43%
8%
7%
2%
1%
1%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)
Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents (475)
QD. Where in the country are you based?
6.1.5 Turnover
Approved and non-approved contractors were asked for their approximate turnover
for the 2009-2010 financial year – these questions were made optional, and as such
have a low base size.
Responses were quite different across the two respondent groups, with approved
contractors more likely to say that they achieved higher a turnover than non-
approved firms – however, this may be due more to the fact that ACS respondents
were significantly more likely to work for medium or large organisations, while non-
approved contractors were more likely to work for small or micro sized firms.
0
£1 - £9,999
£25,000 - £49,999
£50,000 - £99,999
£100,000 - £249,999
£250,000 - £499,999
£500,000 - £999,999
£1m or more
10%
15%
5%
10%
20%
20%
10%
10%
3%
21%
8%
12%
18%
38%
ACS (66)
Non-ACS (20)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (86)
Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 80
Responses from approved and non-approved contractors were not significantly
different when asked whether their firm’s turnover or amount of business had
changed since March 2010; 52% of approved firms said that it had increased,
compared to 40% of non-approved firms.
Increased a lot
Increased a little
Stayed the same
Decreased a little
Decreased a lot
12%
28%
17%
21%
22%
20%
17%
36%
16%
11%
ACS (178)
Non-ACS (58)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (236)
Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount ofbusiness increased or decreased?
Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin for
the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 39% or non-ACS companies
said this was the case. There was a much larger variation in the responses received
from non-approved firms. However these results should be interpreted with caution as
the question received a low number of responses.
0%
1-20%
21-40%
61-80%
81-100%6%
6%
33%
39%
17%
6%
75%
17%
2%
ACS (64)
Non-ACS (18)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (82)
Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 81
6.1.6 Staff pay and benefits
Overall, 48% of approved companies said that their staff had increased since March
2010, compared to 42% of non-approved firms.
Non-approved companies (34%) were more likely than approved (17%) to say that
their staff numbers had stayed the same since March 2010.
Increased a lot (since March 2010)
Increased a little (since March 2010)
Stayed the same (no differencesince March 2010)
Decreased a little (since March2010)
Decreased a lot (since March 2010)
14%
29%
34%
14%
10%
27%
17%
37%
11%
8%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (59)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (239)
Q9. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by yourorganisation increased or decreased?
Average hourly wages for frontline staff at non-ACS companies appeared to vary
greatly by organisation, while the most common wage in SIA approved companies
was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%).
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say
5%
16%
9%
7%
11%
11%
11%
12%
4%
16%
12%
16%
31%
3%
10%
4%
10%
6%
1%
7%
ACS (162)
Non-ACS (57)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (219)
Q10. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensablestaff?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 82
In terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline staff, responses from both groups
of respondents were very mixed, and there were no clear patterns in results.
£5.93 or less per hour
£5.94 - £6.49
£6.50 - £6.99
£7.00 - £7.49
£7.50 - £7.99
£8.00 - £8.49
£8.50 - £9.99
£10.00 - £12.99
£13.00 - £14.99
£15.00 or more
Prefer not to say
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
16%
23%
7%
13%
20%
2%
1%
3%
14%
28%
29%
5%
3%
14%
ACS (152)
Non-ACS (56)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (208)
Q11. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensablestaff?
While responses from ACS and non-ACS respondents were fairly similar in terms of
the welfare and benefits available to front line staff, there were still a few differences.
Approved contractors were significantly more likely than non-approved contractors to
say that staff had access to special leave for emergencies, were paid for time off to
receive work related training, had access to a pension with company contributions,
and had access to death in service benefit.
Paid above national minimum wage
Access to special leave for emergencies etc
Paid time off for work-related training
Access to a pension with company contributions
Access to death in service benefit
Holiday entitlement above the minimum
Bonus scheme
Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security guards
Other
None of the above 10%
10%
15%
13%
33%
6%
12%
38%
38%
83%
5%
9%
23%
24%
21%
30%
88%
65%
57%
41%
ACS (164)
Non-ACS (52)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (216)
Q13. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front line licensablestaff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 83
6.1.7 Annual leave
Both approved and non-approved contractors were asked how many days paid annual
leave their front line licensable staff received. Responses were very mixed, with no
clear differences between the two respondent groups.
0
15 orless
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
Over 35
17%
6%
26%
23%
26%
3%
14%
46%
1%
1%
37%
2%
ACS (130)
Non-ACS (35)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (165)
Q12. How many days paid annual leave do your front line licensable staffcurrently have as a minimum (excluding paid bank holidays)?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 84
6.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
This section of the report looks at the relationship between contractors and their
clients; how many clients contractors have and what they think is important to clients
when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained during 2010,
relationships with the Police and general trends in security buying.
6.2.1 Number of clients
In terms of the number of clients they provide security for, non-approved contractors
(54%) were significantly more likely than approved firms (21%) to serve 5 or less
clients, whereas approved firms were more likely to provide security for larger
numbers of clients. However, this difference is likely to be related to the fact the ACS
firms were generally larger than non-ACS companies, rather than due to their ACS
status.
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-300
Over300
25%
29%
14%
8%
6%
6%
3%
8%
11%
21%
6%
3%
13%
16%
16%
14%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (243)
Q1. How many clients do you provide security for?
6.2.2 Work lost and gained
SIA approved contractors were asked how often during 2010 they had gained work
from non-approved firms, while non-approved contractors were asked the same about
approved firms. Results were very similar, although approved companies (45%) were
slightly more likely to say that they had gained work from non-approved contractors
in the last year, than the other way around (33%).
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know 8%
5%
8%
14%
5%
60%
8%
7%
42%
12%
17%
15%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (243)
Q8. How often during 2010 has your company lost work?
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Consistently
Don't know 2%
3%
11%
30%
3%
51%
7%
3%
47%
26%
16%
2%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (243)
Q7. How often during 2010 has your company gained work?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 85
Approved contractors were then asked how often they had lost work to non-approved
contractors in 2010, while non-approved firms were asked the equivalent. In this
case, non-approved firms (60%) were significantly more likely to say that they ever
lost work to approved contractors in 2010, than the other way around (42%).
When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business
the results were varied. However, the statistically significant difference was in terms
of responding to tender notices; which approved contractors were (28%) were
significantly more likely to use than non-approved firms (10%).
Networking
Responding to tender notices
Advertising/marketing
Cold-calling
Buying out contracts/firms
Other
None of the above 10%
8%
2%
10%
22%
10%
40%
6%
6%
1%
28%
28%
14%
17%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q16. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOSToften?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 86
6.2.3 Important factors when selecting security suppliers
Buyers of security were asked how important the various factors are to them when
selecting security suppliers, while approved and non-approved contractors were asked
how important they thought these various factors were to clients.
The table below shows how important respondents considered the various factors.
The three most and least important factors cited by each respondent group have been
highlighted:
% Important Approved Non-
approved Buyers
Total cost of service 98% 95% 98%
Compliance with Security Industry Act 71% 79% 92%
Recommendation from other buyers 85% 90% 76%
Well know/established company 77% 79% 82%
Local offices and/or local management 76% 71% 79%
British Standards 60% 56% 87%
Supplier’s existing client base 80% 77% 65%
Security operative conditions 47% 64% 85%
SIA approved contractor (ACS status) 53% 39% 88%
ISO9001 certification 65% 41% 74%
SIA ACS assessment score 20% 36% 75%
Other accreditations 53% 44% 38%
SIA ACS assessment report 14% 32% 76%
Other 41% 50% 36%
Additional services offered 41% 33% 23%
The most important factor for all groups appeared to be the total cost of the service;
which was deemed important by 98% of respondents overall, while additional services
offered (e.g. cleaning and technical services) was the least important overall (32%
important).
Buyers (88%) were significantly more likely than approved (53%) or non-approved
contractors (39%) to consider ACS status as important. The same applied for the
importance of ISO9001, compliance with the Private Security Industry Act, British
Standards, security operative conditions, the ACS assessment score and ACS
assessment report; which all appeared to be undervalued by contractors.
Conversely, buyers (76%) were the least likely to say that recommendations from
other buyers was important, compared to 90% of approved and 85% of non-approved
contractors.
Approved contractors (41%) were more likely than non-approved (33%) and buyers
(23%) to think that additional services offered were important.
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 87
6.2.4 Differentiating between security suppliers
All three respondent groups were asked how important they thought various methods
were for differentiating between security suppliers.
The table below shows how important respondents considered the various factors.
The three most and least important factors cited by each respondent group have been
highlighted:
% Important Approved Non-
approved Buyers
Face to face meeting 98% 98% 94%
Comparison of quality of service offered for price 94% 97% 98%
A tender exercise 83% 74% 91%
Examination of accreditations/ certifications held 81% 65% 90%
Examination of website or promotional material 66% 54% 60%
Other 57% 64% 44%
Respondents across all three groups rated the same three methods as the most
important, and as such there were few differences between subgroups.
Buyers of security were more likely than either group of contractors to say that they
thought examination of certifications held or tender exercises were important.
6.2.5 Issues threatening your business
Approved and non-approved contractors’ responses were similar when asked what
issues they thought would threaten their business over the next two years, although
non-approved firms were slightly more likely to expect to suffer from cash flow
problems. Both agreed that cash-flow problems and market contraction were likely to
be the biggest threats.
Market contraction
Cash-flow
Inflation
Staff turnover
Interest rate rise
Credit rating
Other
Don't know
30%
38%
5%
2%
5%
18%
3%
3%
10%
24%
41%
2%
1%
13%
7%
ACS (175)
Non-ACS (61)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (236)
Q21. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelvemonths to two years?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 88
6.2.6 Trends in security buying
Again, responses from the two groups of contractors were very similar when asked
about trends in security buying during 2010, as both agreed that they had seen
greater emphasis on costs and experienced delays in payment of monies owed.
However, SIA approved respondents were more likely than those from non-approved
firms to say that they had seen a move from manned security to security system
buying, and also more emphasis on supplier cost.
More emphasis on cost
Delay in payment of monies owed
A move from manned security to security systems buying
More emphasis on added value
Demand for integrated services, e.g security and cleaning
Change to shorter contracts
Change to longer contracts
Other
None of the above
Don't know 6%
8%
5%
2%
22%
13%
21%
24%
46%
54%
2%
1%
4%
3%
18%
24%
74%
48%
41%
33%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q22. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during 2010?
6.2.7 Relationship with the Police
The vast majority of both approved (81%) and non-approved contractors (84%) said
that their organisation had a positive relationship with the Police.
Positive relationship
Negativerelationship
Mixed relationship
Don't know6%
10%
84%
81%
1%
15%
3%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q30. Would you say that your organisation has a positive, negative or mixedrelationship with the Police?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 89
6.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS
This section of the report looks at approved and non-approved suppliers’ current
accreditations, as well as those they hope to hold in the future. Along with security
buyers, they were also asked what they felt was the single most important
certification that a supplier can hold.
6.3.1 Current affiliations and accreditations
SIA approved suppliers were more likely than those non-approved to say that they
were affiliated with the Chambers of Commerce, Project Griffin and with BSIA.
Conversely, non-approved firms were more likely to say that they weren’t affiliated
with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.
Chambers of Commerce
Project Griffin
BSIA
Security Institute
ASIS
British Institute of Facilities Management
Security Watchdog
IPSA
British Parking Association
Institute of Risk Management
Security Benevolent Fund
UKCMA
Other
None of the above
22%
6%
8%
8%
8%
6%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
8%
56%
16%
31%
37%
39%
7%
8%
8%
8%
6%
6%
4%
3%
16%
23%
ACS (180) Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q17. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your company belongto or have affiliation with?
Approved contractors were significantly more likely than non-approved firms to say
that they hold ISO9001, SAFE Contractor, NSI Gold, and ‘other’ accreditations or
certifications, while non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that they
didn’t hold any of the certifications listed (59% vs 11%).
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
Investors in People
ISO17001
Contract Quality Marque
Other
None of the above
Don't know 5%
59%
8%
3%
6%
11%
3%
17%
19%
3%
11%
28%
1%
2%
76%
57%
24%
18%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q18. What other accreditations/certifications does your organisation hold?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 90
6.3.2 Future accreditations and certifications
Non-approved firms were more likely than approved companies say that they
intended to achieve ISO9001, SAFE Contractor, Investors in People or ISO17001
certification. However, this is likely to be due to the fact that approved firms were
more likely to hold these accreditations already.
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
Investors in People
NSI Gold
Contract Quality Marque
ISO17001
Other
None of the above
Don't know
30%
32%
24%
5%
6%
10%
16%
27%
14%
10%
13%
12%
14%
4%
3%
16%
33%
19%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q19. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend toachieve over the next 12 months to 2 years?
6.3.3 Most important accreditations
Buyers, approved, and non-approved contractors were all asked what they thought
was the most important accreditation or certification a security supplier could hold.
There appeared to be a gap between the views of contractors and buyers:
Buyers (73%) were significantly more likely than approved (57%) and non-
approved contractors (44%) to say that the SIA Approve Contractor Scheme was
the most important accreditation a supplier could hold.
Conversely, approved (26%) and non-approved contractors (22%) were
significantly more likely than security buyers (14%) to say that ISO9001:2008
was the most important accreditation.
Approved Contractor Scheme
ISO9001:2008
National Security InspectorateGold
SAFE Contractors
Investors in People
ISO17001
Other
73%
14%
3%
3%
3%
1%
3%
44%
22%
5%
10%
3%
3%
13%
2%
8%
26%
57%
3%
4%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)
Buyers (182)Base: All ACS, non ACS and buyer respondents (425)
Q20. In your view what is the single most importantaccreditation/certification that a security supplier should hold?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 91
6.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS)
This section looks at contractors’ views on whether the ACS has raised industry
standards, as well as comparing contractors view with buyers in terms of the benefits
the ACS had brought to the private security industry.
6.4.1 Standards in the private security industry
As expected, approved contractors (72%) were significantly more likely than non-
approved firms (44%) to agree that the ACS has helped to raise industry standards.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
16%
28%
28%
28%
6%
22%
50%
22%
ACS (167)
Non-ACS (50)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (217)
Q25. To what extent do you agree or disagree that ACS has helped to raisestandards in the private security industry overall?
6.4.2 Benefits of the ACS
While both approved and non-approved contractors agreed that the ACS provided
benefits to security suppliers in terms of new business opportunities (both 44%),
approved suppliers were significantly more likely than non-approved suppliers to
suggest that the ACS provided benefits in terms of; differentiations from non-
approved firms, use of licence dispensation, improved operational performance,
improved management control, the ACS assessment highlighting areas to improve,
and ACS forums and newsletters.
New business opportunities (e.g. clients require ACS)
Use of ACS mark
Differentiation from non approved contractors
Use of licence dispensation
Improved operational performance
Improved management control
ACS assessment highlights areas to improve
ACS forums and newsletters
Reduced insurance premiums
Easier recruitment of staff
Reduced turnover
Other
None of the above 29%
3%
2%
6%
14%
8%
16%
10%
14%
17%
24%
35%
44%
13%
1%
2%
9%
13%
23%
32%
34%
34%
44%
43%
46%
39%
ACS (180) Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q27. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a security supplier?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 92
As above, non-approved contractors were significantly less likely than approved
contractors to say that they had seen benefits of the ACS to the private security
industry overall. Buyers tended to agree with approved contractors that there had
been benefits to the industry overall particularly in terms of:
- Common standards throughout the industry
- Promoting good practice in the industry
- Excluding ‘rogue’ companies
- Excluding companies with poor practices
- Improved standard of security standards
- Increased professionalism of security operatives
Common standard for use throughout theindustry
Promotes good practice in the industry
Excludes ‘rogue’ companies
Excludes companies with poor practices
Improved standard of security services
Increased professionalism of security operatives
Improved image of the industry
Increased buyer confidence in the industry
Increased public confidence in the industry
Other
None of the above9%
3%
26%
35%
38%
46%
47%
51%
55%
55%
71%
27%
5%
22%
25%
33%
24%
25%
25%
33%
35%
35%
9%
2%
24%
39%
44%
41%
43%
62%
59%
53%
44%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)
Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non ACS and buyer respondents (475)
Q28. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the private securityindustry overall?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 93
6.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS
This section of the report looks at the client profiles of both approved and non-
approved security contractors, and whether their contracts require them to hold any
accreditations or certifications.
6.5.1 Central government contracts
Similar proportions of approved (19%) and non-approved suppliers (13%) said that
they had central government contracts.
Both groups of contractors were then asked whether these contracts required them to
hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Approved
contractors (86%) were more likely than non-approved (13%) to say that these
contracts required them to hold ISO9001:2008, whereas non-approved firms were
significantly more likely to say that no accreditations were required (75% vs 11%).
6.5.2 Local government contracts
SIA approved suppliers (50%) were twice as like as non-approved firms (25%) to say
that they held local government contracts.
Both groups of contractors were then asked whether these contracts required them to
hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Approved
contractors were more likely than non-approved to say that these contracts required
them to hold ISO9001:2008, SAFE Contractors, or NSI Gold certification, whereas
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
Investors in People
BSIA
ISO170001
IPSA
Other
None of the above
13%
13%
13%
25%
13%
75%
14%
23%
29%
86%
9%
3%
3%
11%
11%ACS (35)
Non-ACS (8)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with central gvt contracts (43)
Q32b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
Yes
No
87%
13%
81%
19%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q32. Do you have any central government contracts?
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
IPSA
Other
None of the above
6%
6%
13%
63%
13%
6%
21%
10%
1%
3%
10%
70%
30%
24%
12%
ACS (90)
Non-ACS (16)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with local gvt contracts (106)
Q33b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
Yes
No
75%
25%
50%
50%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q33. Do you have any local government contracts?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 94
non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that no accreditations were
required (63% vs 21%).
6.5.3 Private sector contracts
Approved contractors (91%) were significantly more likely than non-approved
suppliers (62%) to say that they held private sector contracts.
Both groups of contractors were then asked whether these contracts required them to
hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Again,
approved contractors were more likely than non-approved to say that these contracts
required them to hold ISO9001:2008, SAFE Contractors, or NSI Gold certification,
whereas non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that no
accreditations were required (56% vs 23%).
6.5.4 Central, regional and local government contracts lost
While two thirds of approved contractors (66%) said that they hadn’t lost central,
regional or local government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years, an even
larger proportion of non-approved contractors (86%) said that they hadn’t lost these
contracts to approved firms. Instead, approved contractors were more likely to say
that they were unsure (20% vs 0%).
Yes
No
Dont know
14%
86%
66%
20%
14%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q36. Have you lost and central, regional or local government contracts in thelast 2 years?
ISO9001: 2008
SAFE Contractors
NSI Gold
BSIA
Investors in People
ISO170001
Other
None of the above 56%
13%
3%
10%
10%
15%
18%
23%
10%
2%
5%
68%
40%
16%
12%
ACS (163)
Non-ACS (39)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with private sector contracts (202)
Q34b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?
Yes
No
62%
38%
9%
91%
ACS (180)
Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)
Q34. Do you have any private sector contracts?
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 95
7 CONCLUSIONS
Looking at the survey overall there were a few notable trends among responses:
In terms of profile, the main difference between contractors was that approved firms
were more likely to be larger than non-approved firms, and as such generally
provided security to more clients.
Predictably, non-approved contractors were significantly less positive in general about
the Approved Contractor scheme than approved firms and security buyers. They were
significantly more likely to say that they saw no benefits of the ACS to security
suppliers or the industry as a whole, less likely to agree that the ACS has helped to
raise industry standards and also less likely to think that clients consider ACS status
important.
Approved Non-
Approved Buyers
Agree or disagree that the ACS helped to raise
standards in the private security industry overall? 72% 44% -
Saw no benefits of the ACS to security suppliers 13% 29% -
Saw no benefits of the ACS to the security industry 9% 27% 9%
Increase in company turnover during 2010 52% 40% -
Increase in number of staff employed during 2010 48% 42% -
ACS is the most important accreditation a suppler
should hold 57% 44% 73%
SIA ACS is important to clients 53% 39% 88%
ACS assessment score is important to clients 20% 36% 75%
ACS assessment report is important to clients 14% 32% 76%
The other area of difference between contractors and buyers was highlighted when
contractors were asked how important they thought clients considered various
factors. The three factors that were highlighted by buyers as being the most
important were total cost of service, compliance with the Security Industry Act and
ACS status. Approved and non-approved contractors both suggested that cost was
one of the three most important areas, but only non-approved firms agreed with
buyers that clients would value compliance with the Private Security Industry Act
2001.
Buyers also appeared to value ACS status, the assessment score and assessment
report much more than either group of contractors expected.
A difference was also apparent when all three groups were asked about the main
benefits of the ACS to the private security industry, with buyers and approved firms
more likely than non-approved firms to cite; the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies, a
Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 96
common industry standard, the promotion of good practice in the industry, improved
standard of security services and the exclusion of companies with poor working
practice.