The approved contractor scheme could have a streamlined number of assessment bodies from next year. Should it have a streamlined number of contractors? The ACS was among the topics covered at the SIA annual conference in Manchester in May.
The ACS has already been much reviewed by the regulator. Rob Dye, ACS development manager and Andrew Shephard, assistant director ACS, from the SIA described the standards and future of the scheme at the conference. Under an ‘assessor strategy review’, the authority proposes to reduce the number of assessment bodies from seven to four. Some of them have long been associated with the security industry, such as the National Security Inspectorate (under the name Insight Certification) and SSAIB: others, such as BSI, Chamber Certification Assessment Services (CCAS), ISOQAR, Lloyds Register Quality Assurance, and NQA, not so. This is a good example of how difficult it is for any change to please everyone to do with the scheme. The SIA proposed to re-tender with the assessment bodies in September, and decide on who stays by January. The SIA felt that some assessors were not having enough to do with the ACS, and that fewer assessors could do all the work – and who then would be more savvy. However, over lunch one guarding company ops person made the point that, having gone through approval, if their assessor was not one retained, it would mean more work – on top of daily operations. On the other hand, some felt when the ACS came in that the incoming approval bodies threatened the market filled by NSI and SSAIB.
As for standards, buyers surveyed online early this year – though relatively few gave an opinion – seemed to agree that approved contractors have higher standards. Half – 52 per cent – agreed or strongly agreed. Only 11 per cent disagreed, or strongly disagreed. Contractors when surveyed were largely of the opinion that their own company standards were higher as a result of ACS; but seemed less sure that the ACS has helped to raise standards in the private security industry. Andrew Shephard pointed out that the SIA has raised the bar – from the start of the scheme in March 2006, approved contractors had to meet a ‘required achievement level’ on 89 indicators. In April 2008, the SIA required a higher level on 10 of those indicators, and in April 2009, on a further 25 – that is, a total of one in three. Every ACS assessment results in a score, and guard firms can use that score to target improvements.
Arguably the very success of ACS – more than 600 firms are approved, and rising – has led to problems. While the ACS is voluntary, and no-one is quite sure how many guarding firms are still out there, according to the SIA some 59 per cent of licensable staff are within ACS companies. That begs the question – if so much of the sector is approved, how can a good company really stand out? In a word, how to differentiate? It goes to the heart of what the ACS should be about – a mark of excellence, by definition not attained by many; or a basic, gained by many, even most? As Rob Dye said at the conference: "With 600-plus contractors, the question of differentiation does raise its head on a regular basis." The conference heard the SIA’s several options. Should the SIA publish ‘informed choice differentiation’ – in plainer English, tell the industry what’s the difference between the ACS and other standards for companies out there? Should the SIA bring in extra approvals – in other words, gold silver and bronze, like the NSI guarding standard (though it was not named)? As the ACS creates a score for all, should the SIA make more of that – some companies do so already. Should the SIA ‘benchmark’ – that is, refine the scores so that small or large contractors can compare like with like. What about ‘beacon status’ – if you are a specialist in, say, dog handling, might the ACS recognise achievement in specifics, such as investment in training beyond the SIA licence? Underlying all this, the question: is there an ideal number in the ACS? If so, what? And whose voice counts most? Buyer, regulator, contractor, government? The ACS standard is owned by the SIA.
The discussion went on around each table. At Professional Security’s was an SIA man; and managers from a 400-officer guarding company; and a multi-national contractor. Opinion, inevitably, differed. Some spoke of some clients that will not even look for non-ACS guarding contractors. There was talk also of clients who will not pay extra for guarding services though ACS comes at a cost; and if anything clients are looking to cut back in the recession – and companies are losing contracts as a result. Some guarding sector expectations of the ACS – that it would raise pay rates, and conditions – may have been unrealistic. Improvements aren’t happening – but is that because there are too many ACS firms? Someone spoke of ‘deep-rooted practices’ and queried if licence dispensation notices are checked. Briefly, an ACS company can issue LDNs to staff before they get their SIA licence; an unapproved firm cannot use staff in those weeks an officer is awaiting his badge.
Whatever change if any happens to the ACS, it will affect small guard firms. While the top 50 (more or less) all joined the ACS in its first months in 2006, the steady rise to its current 600-plus was due, as Andrew Shephard pointed out, in the years since to small and micro (a term for firms with fewer than ten staff) signing up, and staying.
Among recently-approved firms: in guarding, 1st Guard, of Swindon; Anchor Services (GB), of Croydon; DSI International, of Cardiff; Fallow Management, of Swanley, Kent; Fortune Security UK, of London SE4; Power Distribution Security (trading as On Site Security), of Grantham; Vigilance Security UK, of Luton.
Approved in guarding and door supervision: Accolade UK, of London W1; Apex Risk Management of Basingstoke.
Approved in guarding and keyholding: Pro-Line Securities (UK), of Middlesbrough; and Watchdogs of Hinckley.
Approved in guarding, keyholding and CCTV, Apardion Management of Aberdeen
Approved in door supervision: Atlas Enforcement, of Derby; Events Security Services, of Bury.
For a list of the 600-plus approved contractors, updated weekly, visit –
