How SIA ACS approval works when appointing a security contractor

The SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) is a voluntary quality-assurance scheme for private security companies. It can help procurement teams distinguish between a provider that has chosen to undergo formal approval and one that has not, but the ACS mark should never be read as a blanket answer to every procurement question. The useful test is what the approval covers, whether it is current and how the provider applies its controls in the operating environment you need to protect.

Seven checks worth making before contract award

Start with what ACS approval actually means

The Security Industry Authority approves companies under the ACS. That is different from SIA licensing, which applies to individuals carrying out licensable security activity. Participation in the scheme is voluntary, so an approved contractor has chosen to be assessed against the SIA’s requirements rather than simply meeting the minimum condition of employing licensed operatives.

For procurement, that makes ACS a useful assurance signal, but it still needs to be interpreted in the context of the service being purchased.

Questions to ask

• Is the company currently listed on the SIA register of approved contractors?
• Which approved activities cover the exact services included in our requirement?
• How does the provider demonstrate that ACS controls are applied across the contract we would receive?

Check the approved activity, not only the ACS badge

ACS approval is activity-specific. A company may be approved for one or more regulated activities, so procurement teams should check that the published scope aligns with the services in the tender. Security Guarding, Key Holding and Door Supervision, for example, are distinct approved activities and should not be treated as interchangeable simply because the same ACS mark appears on a website or proposal.

Understand what is actually assessed

Under the standard route, an eligible contractor must pass an assessment against the ACS Standard. Current SIA guidance describes a framework of seven criteria, 33 sub-criteria and 78 indicators. The assessment is intended to examine how the business operates in practice rather than relying only on written policies.

Assessment should reach the live operation

Assessors may review head office and control-room arrangements, visit operational sites, examine records and systems, speak with staff and customers and observe security activity where possible. For buyers, this matters because the value of ACS lies in evidence that defined controls are functioning beyond the tender document.

Confirm that approval is current

ACS status is not a one-off award that can be assumed indefinitely. Approved contractors are assessed annually, must re-register each year and renew their approval every three years. Procurement teams should therefore verify the current SIA register entry rather than relying on an old certificate, proposal statement or historic website claim.

Where a procurement exercise runs for several months, it is sensible to check the register again before final award, particularly where the approved activity is central to the requirement.

Look beyond the mark to workforce controls

Company approval does not replace the requirement for individuals to hold the correct SIA licence for licensable activity. Buyers should still understand how the contractor checks licence status, screens and recruits people, trains and briefs them, manages temporary or seasonal workers, and responds when a licensing or workforce issue is identified.

The stronger procurement question is not simply “are your officers licensed?” but “how do you control the workforce that will actually be deployed to our operation?”

Understand the subcontracting model before award

Who actually supplies the people delivering a security contract matters. An SIA approved contractor may normally subcontract the provision of an approved security service only to another approved contractor. In exceptional circumstances, the SIA may permit subcontracting to a non-approved business, but this requires SIA permission and the customer’s agreement.

Labour supply is treated differently. An agency or labour provider supplying workers only is not considered a security subcontractor where the approved contractor retains responsibility for delivering the service and for the induction, training, direction, supervision, performance and welfare of those operatives.

That distinction does not remove responsibility for the workforce or the supply chain. Current ACS requirements place greater emphasis on employment status, PAYE and National Insurance compliance, worker rights and due diligence across labour providers and other suppliers. Approved contractors must be able to demonstrate that these requirements continue to be met where people are sourced from elsewhere, not only among their directly recruited workforce.

Procurement teams should therefore establish who will actually deliver the contract, whether any part of the service will be subcontracted, whether labour providers will be used, who employs and pays the operatives, who supervises them and how the contractor checks that employment, screening and workforce standards are being maintained throughout the supply chain.

Test how ACS assurance translates into your contract

ACS approval provides evidence about the contractor’s wider systems and operating standards; it does not design your site-specific security model. Buyers should still test how the provider will survey the environment, develop assignment instructions, mobilise the workforce, supervise delivery, manage incidents, maintain welfare, report performance and escalate material issues.

This is where ACS becomes most useful in procurement: as a starting point for deeper questions about how an approved business will apply its controls to a real operating requirement.

Use ACS as part of the decision, not the whole decision

A current, relevant ACS approval can strengthen a procurement assessment, but it should sit alongside operational capability, comparable evidence, management structure, mobilisation, commercial credibility and contract-specific risk. The best comparison is not between logos; it is between service models and the evidence that each provider can deliver them reliably.