Dave Lovell, operation manager at Mayflower Control, a Stafford-based SIA-approved contractor, writes.
Since the ugly head of the SIA appeared over the horizon, we along with other small security companies are finding that being part of the SIA Approved Contractor Register is a cost that small companies cannot afford to sustain as the SIA and registering bodies are doing little, if anything to promote approved companies. The SIA and registering bodies are failing approved contractors in ensuring that these companies are given security contracts over the security companies who cannot, or refuse to register and become approved. It is good that the approved companies are given the literature by the SIA but they seem to get little else. When asked for an explanation there is no reply.
I am sure, that I am not the only security operation manager, along with security company directors who are not satisfied with the lack of promotion from the SIA and Registering bodies. It is up to us approved companies to step up and request a valid answer from the SIA. The only answer you will get at this time is, nothing. It is not a case of being disgruntled at not being successful in the tender, and it is not a case of sour grapes. It is a case of highlighting the problem of being an approved contractor and finding that companies who are not, still, get the contract and nothing is being done by the SIA or registering bodies. Over the last couple of months we have seen development in our area start to pick up and some site work has begun with companies wanting static security cover. We along with other security companies joined in the tendering process. Two contracts local to us were on offer and we were unsuccessful in both, finding that both contracts went to companies who do not appear to be registered as approved contractors.
Both of the security contracts are two of the UK larger construction companies, and you would think that these larger companies would be leading from the front and up to speed with, willing to lead the way in using approved companies. Not so. So what is going wrong? Is it a case of these larger construction companies employing the security contract on the lowest price and be damned with the Approved Contractor Status (ACS). If so why are we bothering to stay approved. Is it a case of the larger companies in the UK not being interested in any of the ACS information and totally disregarding it. If so, once again why are we bothering to ensure we stay approved.
Not only are the SIA and registering bodies failing us in this; insurance companies are doing the same. Why are insurance companies not insisting approved contractors are employed? Possibly because they have little or no information from the SIA, or once again it all comes down to price. Requesting that any of their clients are to ensure that they have security cover and leaving it at that, failing to. Inform companies that they must employ ACS companies.
We all know that all of the companies and businesses in the UK have been through, and are still going through the recession period and some companies are finding it especially difficult. We understand that security is, and will always be at the bottom of the list of priorities. Some will continue to see it as a hindrance. This can not be helped and hopefully in the near future will improve. What does need to improve with haste is the security companies on the approved contractor register being used. If not then security companies who are approved may start to realise that being part of this is not financially viable and by not being approved may save them some considerable expense. In the old days one man and a van could put up his wears as a security officer and go out and tout for business. In these times of the SIA it seems that there is no reason why this cannot still happen. The only difference is anyone wanting to do this must get a security licence, put on their literature that they comply with British Standards and SIA ACS. If this is so, why do we bother?
