If your organization contracts for security officers, there is a good chance the agreement has been renewed several times since anyone read it closely. The invoices arrive, the officers show up, and nothing terrible has happened, so the contract rolls forward. I have reviewed a great many of these agreements over my career, and the pattern is consistent enough that I can describe it before I open the file. The reason your guard contract has never been audited is that nobody in the building was ever assigned to audit it, and the vendor has no incentive to volunteer.
This is not an accusation against your facilities team or your procurement office. Both are doing exactly what they were hired to do, which is keep the building running and keep the paperwork in order. Auditing a security services contract is a different job. It requires someone who knows what a post order should say, what a properly staffed post looks like at two in the morning, and what the difference is between the hourly rate on the invoice and the wage the officer actually takes home. Without that person, the contract becomes a line item that is paid and never examined, and the organization pays for that in ways that never show up on a single invoice.
How Guard Contracts End Up Unexamined
Most guard contracts are signed under pressure. A previous vendor failed, an incident frightened leadership, or a lease required a staffed lobby, and someone had to get officers on site quickly. The proposal that won was the one that came in on time at a reasonable price, and the scope of work was often written by the vendor rather than by the client. That scope then becomes the contract, and the contract becomes the standard against which nothing is ever measured, because the people who signed it were relieved to have solved the immediate problem and moved on.
From there, renewal is administrative. The account manager calls, proposes a modest increase, and the agreement is extended. Turnover on the client side means the person renewing the contract in year four may never have met the person who signed it in year one and has no idea what was originally intended. The vendor, meanwhile, has every reason to keep the relationship quiet and steady. A contract that is never questioned is the most profitable kind of contract in the industry.
What You Are Probably Paying For and Not Getting
When I audit a guard contract, the gaps fall into a few familiar categories. The first is coverage. The contract specifies a number of posts and hours, and the vendor bills for them, but the schedule on site shows uncovered shifts, officers pulled to other clients, or a single officer covering two posts that were priced separately. The second is training. The agreement promises officers who have completed certain certifications and site-specific orientation, and when you ask to see the records, they are incomplete or belong to officers who no longer work at your site. The third is supervision. Most contracts include a supervisor visit schedule, and in my experience it is the single most commonly billed and least commonly delivered item in the agreement.
Then there is the question of what the officers are actually doing. Post orders, the written instructions that tell an officer what to do at a specific post, are frequently years out of date. They reference doors that have been relocated, procedures that were abandoned, and phone numbers for people who have left. The officers do their best with what they have, which usually means they do what the last officer showed them. The organization believes it has a documented security operation. What it has is an oral tradition.
The Real Cost of an Unaudited Contract
The direct cost is the easiest to describe and usually the smallest. Organizations that audit their guard contracts for the first time commonly find they have been billed for hours, posts, or services that were not delivered, and the difference over several years of renewals can be meaningful. That money is recoverable in some cases and simply gone in others. Either way, it is the least of the problem.
The larger cost is what the contract was supposed to buy. An organization pays for officers because it wants a credible response to the situations that keep leadership awake: an aggressive visitor, a terminated employee who returns, a medical emergency in the lobby, a fire alarm at shift change. If the officers on post have not been trained for your site, do not have current post orders, and have never been observed by a supervisor, the response the organization is counting on may not exist. When something goes wrong, the contract will be read closely for the first time by an attorney, and the gap between what it promised and what was delivered becomes the organization’s liability as much as the vendor’s.
How to Audit the Contract You Already Have
Start by reading the agreement and its attachments in full, including the scope of work, the staffing schedule, the training requirements, and the supervision commitments. Write down every promise that can be verified. Then pull three months of invoices and compare the hours billed to the hours the agreement calls for, post by post. Ask the vendor for the daily activity reports and sign-in logs for the same period and compare those to the invoices. Discrepancies at this stage are not proof of bad faith, but they are the first place to look.
Next, go to the posts. Visit at least one overnight or weekend shift without announcing it, and see who is there, whether they can produce current post orders, and whether they know what to do when the alarm panel activates or a visitor refuses to leave. Ask for the training file of every officer currently assigned to your site and check that the certifications listed in the contract are present and current. Ask when a supervisor last visited and compare the answer to the schedule the contract promises. Finally, ask the officers themselves what they need and what does not work. They know more about the weaknesses of the operation than anyone in the vendor’s office.
Turning the Audit Into Leverage
An audit is only useful if it changes something. Bring the findings to the vendor in writing, with the contract language beside each one, and set a deadline for correction. Most reputable providers will fix the problems quickly once they know the client is paying attention, because attention is the thing they were counting on not having to manage. If the response is defensive or slow, you have learned something important before the next renewal rather than after it. Then rewrite the post orders with the vendor, build a monthly review into the relationship, and assign a named person on your side to own it. This is the discipline I describe in Until Tested: Security Is Only Assumed: the contract is only an assumption until someone has checked it against reality, and checking it is a job that belongs to the organization, never to the vendor.
Go Deeper
Auditing and managing the guard contract is one of the first things a fractional security director takes on, and the reasoning behind that is laid out in What Is a Fractional Security Director? The Complete Guide. My book Fractional Security Director covers vendor management in detail, including how to structure the relationship so the audit becomes routine rather than an event.
Commissioner William Epps is a former elected Fire Commissioner, federal law-enforcement supervisor, and firefighter since 2006, with instructor credentials in Hazardous Materials response, Active Shooter preparedness, and Stop the Bleed®. He spent seven years in federal law enforcement in physical security, executive protection, and incident command, and now serves organizations as a Fractional Security Director. He is the author of The Spirit of Saul, The Spirit of Pharaoh, and other practical books on security, leadership, and faith, built around one idea: knowledge should be practical enough to use when it matters.
Leave a Reply