Latest International Security Ligue report into the procurement of security personnel services in Europe finds misalignment between procurement practices and the operational realities of modern security delivery, writes Nicholas Dynon.
Procurement of Security Services – Europe analyses the raw data of 40,000+ bid announcements and contract awards for security personnel services, finding that tender processes continue to prioritise lowest-cost bids over quality, capability, and long-term value. A race to the bottom. Sounds familiar?
“Across Europe, price remains overwhelmingly dominant in procurement decisions for guarding services, with an average weighting of 85% since 2018,” states an International Security Ligue introduction to the report.
“This places security procurement closer to refuse collection and cleaning services than to other professionalised service categories — despite the mission critical nature of security work and the risks associated with contract failure.”
While the report notes that although this approach is often justified under public procurement rules designed to ensure transparency and fairness, it systematically undermines service quality.
“Short-term contracts, often driven by procurement cycles, can discourage investment in training, technology, and workforce development, the report found.”
When contracts are awarded primarily on cost, providers are incentivised to reduce wages, limit training investment, and operate with minimal staffing resilience. This is a particularly perverse outcome for providers of security personnel – a labour-intensive sector highly dependent on training, supervision, and organisational culture.
Unsurprisingly, the report identifies a correlation between low-cost procurement models and higher rates of staff turnover, reduced professionalism, and inconsistent service delivery. In high-consequence environments—such as transport hubs, critical infrastructure, and crowded places—this can translate into degraded situational awareness and slower response times.
Despite this, the report also highlights signs of a growing importance of compliance and professionalisation within Europe’s security sector, with buyers increasingly expected to consider labour conditions, regulatory compliance, and corporate governance.
But they are green shoots only. These considerations are often inconsistently applied, says the report, particularly where procurement teams lack specialist understanding of security operations.
Procurement-security disconnect
One of the report’s more significant insights is in relation to the disconnect between procurement functions and security outcomes.
In many organisations, procurement decisions are made by generalist procurement teams with limited input from security professionals. This invariably results in contracts that are poorly aligned with operational requirements, lack appropriate performance metrics, or fail to account for emerging threats.
Accordingly, the report argues that security procurement should be treated as a strategic function that requires close collaboration between procurement specialists and security leaders in order to be done right.
Role of technology
The role of technology further complicates the procurement landscape, says the report. The integration of advanced surveillance systems, analytics, and automation is reshaping the delivery of security services. However, procurement frameworks have not always kept pace.
Contracts are often structured around traditional guarding models, with limited flexibility to incorporate technology-enabled solutions, inhibiting innovation and locking organisations into outdated service models – the traditional physical security versus electronic security dichotomy.
The report calls for procurement approaches that are outcome-focused rather than input-based, enabling providers to propose integrated solutions that combine personnel, technology, and intelligence. It’s a suggestion whose time has well and truly come.
Contract length
Short-term contracts, often driven by procurement cycles, can discourage investment in training, technology, and workforce development, the report found. Security providers operating under uncertain contract horizons are less likely to invest in long-term capability building.
Longer contract durations coupled with robust performance management frameworks, it points out, can create incentives for continuous improvement and innovation.
Impact on working conditions
The report also examines the impact of procurement practices on workforce conditions. Despite being the backbone of service delivery, security officers’ working conditions are heavily influenced by procurement decisions that aren’t made with them in mind.
Low-cost contracts tend to lead to lower wages, reduced job security, and limited career progression. This, in turn, affects recruitment and retention, exacerbating skill shortages in the sector.
The report positions workforce quality as a critical determinant of security outcomes, arguing – perhaps ambitiously – that procurement models must explicitly account for labour standards and professional development.
Cost, quality, and value
From a policy perspective, the report advocates for a shift towards “most economically advantageous tender” (MEAT) models that balance cost with quality and value. This includes the use of weighted evaluation criteria that consider training, experience, technological capability, and organisational resilience.
Some European jurisdictions have already adopted such approaches, demonstrating that it is possible to reconcile regulatory compliance with higher-quality outcomes.
However, the report is not uncritical of the industry itself, acknowledging that security providers must also adapt, improve transparency, demonstrate measurable value, and invest in capability. Buyers are increasingly demanding evidence of performance, including data on incident response, customer satisfaction, and operational effectiveness.
Providers that can articulate their value proposition beyond cost are better positioned to succeed in more sophisticated procurement environments.
Competition vs collaboration
A key tension identified in the report is the balance between competition and collaboration. While competitive tendering is essential for market efficiency, overly aggressive competition on price can erode the sustainability of the sector.
The report suggests that procurement frameworks should encourage collaboration, knowledge sharing, and long-term partnerships between buyers and providers. This is particularly important in complex security environments where coordination between multiple stakeholders is required.
In summary
The European experience offers insights and takeaways that relevant to the sector closer to home. Many of the dynamics described—price-driven procurement, fragmented standards, and workforce challenges—are persistently evident in the New Zealand market.
For buyers, a key takeaway is that security procurement should be reframed as a risk management function rather than a cost minimisation exercise. This requires a more sophisticated understanding of how security services are delivered, the factors that influence performance, and the trade-offs inherent in procurement decisions. It also requires stronger integration between procurement, security, and executive leadership.
For security providers, competing solely on price is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Providers must demonstrate capability, invest in their workforce, and embrace technology to deliver measurable outcomes. Those that can align their offerings with the evolving expectations of buyers will be better positioned to navigate the changing procurement landscape.
In finding that current procurement models often fail to deliver optimal security outcomes, the report isn’t necessarily breaking new ground. But with more than 40,000 data points, it provides unprecedented evidence that traditional procurement models are indeed failing.
The evidence suggests that a recalibration is required, moving away from price-centric models towards approaches that recognise the complexity and criticality of security services. This is – evidently – easier said than done.
