Service improvement review of guarding

Report: 13
Date: 17 March 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the Project Initiation Document (PID) for the Service Improvement Review of Guarding.

A. Recommendations

That members approve the Project Initiation Document (PID) for the Service Improvement Review of Guarding.

B. Supporting information

Background to the review

1. This service improvement review topic emerged during MPS budget meetings towards the end of 2003. It was nominated as a subject for review as concerns were expressed about the service being provided compared to its cost. Furthermore, Internal Audit carried out an audit of this function in 2000 that highlighted several concerns around guarding services and physical security as a whole. In their follow up work, conducted in early 2003, it was found that the majority of these concerns had yet to be addressed. Accordingly, the topic was selected by Management Board and approved by the MPA’s Planning Performance and Review Committee for review during 2004/05.

The scope of the review

2. The PID attached at Appendix 1 identifies that, in order to make effective recommendations for service improvement, the review will cover the following subject areas:

1. Identification of Guarding Service requirements
   • The identification of business/operational requirements for guarding services, taking into account current and anticipated future needs.
   • The identification of solution options for current and future guarding requirements.
2. Evaluation criteria and selection of a preferred option
   • The evaluation of the identified solution options for the provision of required guarding services, in accordance with agreed criteria.
   • The provision of a cost benefit analysis of the various options for the provision of a guarding services and identification of any preferred solution based on the agreed evaluation criteria.
3. Monitoring of Guarding Services
   • To ensure that the guarding services provide the level of protection required and is monitored and supervised suitably to maintain quality of service provision.
4. Management and integration of guarding services within the Physical Security Portfolio
   • Review to confirm that the current organisational structure, policies and processes are sufficient to link all the elements of physical security coherently and efficiently, and in order to avoid duplication of work.
   • Identification of any key areas and requirements where standard procedures need to be developed in order to ensure that facilities management services are fully cognisant of physical security requirements, for example for specifying requirements for new buildings and when identifying suitable leased sites.
   • Identify where communications may be required between customers (sites on the estate) and facilities management regarding repair requests, security upgrades, new guarding or temporary guarding requirements and feedback on guarding service provision.
   • Assess the need for contingency planning for when guarding services may need to be supplemented at short notice.
5. Strategic view
   • To consider the impact of current programmes of work and professionalisation of guarding services on the provision and cost of future guarding services.
   • To ensure that those responsible for development of the new Total Facilities Management contract (including those responsible for the impact planning around the contract) are consulted during the SIR and informed of any relevant findings.
   • The scope will not include how bids for the Total Facilities Management Contract should be assessed, the content of Form 2110 (Physical Security Log) or other aspects of security not directly relating to guarding services. Also, the marketing and awareness of security issues across the MPS is considered to fall outside the scope of this Service Improvement Review.

Project Management

3. Murad Qureshi is the Lead MPA member for this review, which will be controlled by a project board chaired by Mr David Hill, MPS Director of Resilience, Compliance and Operational Support (RCOS).

4. The Independent Challenge Panel for the review is to be chaired by Assistant Commissioner Ron Dobson of the London Fire Brigade.

Project timescales and reporting

5. The project plan is designed to produce recommendations by the end of May 2005, ready for submission to the Planning Performance Review Committee on 14 July 2005.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The review will meet its equality and diversity obligations by consulting widely with representative groups during its initial phase, and by consulting groups affected by any aspects of its improvement plans during the later phases. The Project Board will include a representative of the MPS’ Diversity Directorate.

2. The Independent Challenge Panel will also play a role in identifying equality and diversity issues for the review to address and will include a member of the MPS’ Disability Independent Advisory Group.

D. Financial implications

A budget of £76,500 has been allocated to cover the staffing and support costs of the review team. These costs fall within the 2004/05 and 2005/06 budgets of the Internal Consultancy Group (DDC2(3)) and allow for 40 days’ effort expended on the scoping study and drafting of the Project Initiation Document (PID) and up to a further 130 days’ effort for completion of the review.

E. Background papers

• None

F. Contact details

Report authors: Michael Boyles, MPS Internal Consultancy Group

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Service Improvement Review for the Guarding of MPS Buildings - Project Initiation Document

February 2005

1. Background and business need

1.1 Background to Service Improvement Reviews

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) took on the duties of a best value authority under the terms of the Local Government Act 1999 when it was established in July 2000. The purpose of best value reviews is to increase effectiveness, efficiency and economy in a specific area of work.

The MPA Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC) took the opportunity to adopt a new approach to best value using Service Improvement Reviews (SIRs) to bring about innovation and excellence in policing London by:

• Thinking afresh about the need for a service and how it is carried out
• Asking service providers and others how improvements could be made
• Assessing performance and learning from others who are doing better
• Considering if other ways of providing the service might be helpful.

1.2 Background to this SIR

This service improvement review topic emerged during MPS budget meetings towards the end of 2003. It was nominated as a subject for review as concerns were expressed over the service being provided compared to its cost. Furthermore, Internal Audit performed an audit in 2000 that highlighted several concerns around guarding services and physical security as a whole. In their follow up work, conducted in early 2003 it was found that the majority of these concerns had yet to be addressed.

The topic was selected by Management Board and approved by the MPA’s Planning Performance and Review Committee for review during 2004/05.

The MPS currently has a contracted guarding service provided by Interserve, who subcontracts staff from several security firms to provide personnel at 30 sites across the MPS estate. Key sites with high-level security guarding requirements, currently New Scotland Yard and Wellington House, have guards provided by SO16.

1.3 Business Needs

The MPS needs to ensure that the estate and all assets within are protected from threats, and the risk introduced by any vulnerabilities at sites are minimised through application of suitable and adequate physical security measures. The provision of a guarding service is a vital part of maintaining physical security at specific sites in the estate.

It is necessary for the MPS to review the current guarding service requirement, delivery and supervision to ensure that the current estate’s needs are met and maintained. The guarding service needs to be sufficiently flexible to enable it to adapt to the continually changing needs of the MPS in the short, medium and longer terms.

A total facilities management (TFM) contract and ‘intelligent customer’ interface has been identified and approved by the MPA as the method through which the MPS will manage its contracted services in the future. Currently, the TFM will include guarding services. The TFM contract, which will come into effect from January 2007, will be flexible enough to permit changes during the life of the contract to meet the MPS’ evolving needs. The tendering and bid assessment processes will benefit from knowledge of the up to date guarding service requirement and operational and management structures and processes that support it. This information will support work currently underway in the MPS to examine the impact and operational implications of the TFM.

The impact on the MPS guarding service of the proposed licensing of all private security guards as part of the professionalisation of the security guarding profession will need to be considered.

2. Objectives and scope

2.1 Objectives

To complete a Service Improvement Review on the provision of a guarding service for MPS buildings by June 2005, and produce recommendations related to its future provision and management within the MPS.

Specifically, the SIR will examine the MPS’ need for the provision of a contracted building guarding service for nominated sites. It will:

• Define the appropriate levels of building security guarding required by the MPS estate
• Determine if appropriate mechanisms exist to monitor and maintain the required levels of security across the estate
• Identify feasible solution options and define suitable evaluation criteria, to include best value / cost benefit analysis, in order to evaluate these options and select a preferred solution
• Review how the guarding services are managed and integrated within the MPS’ physical security portfolio.

2.2 Scope

A scoping study has been performed prior to the review, which highlighted the need for the SIR to consider the following factors:

Identification of Guarding Service requirements

• The identification of business/operational requirements for guarding services, taking into account current and anticipated future needs.
• The identification of solution options for current and future guarding requirements.

Evaluation criteria and selection of a preferred option

• The evaluation of the identified solution options for the provision of required guarding services, in accordance with agreed criteria.
• The provision of a cost benefit analysis of the various options for the provision of a guarding services and identification of any preferred solution based on the agreed evaluation criteria.

Monitoring of Guarding Service

• To ensure that the guarding services provide the level of protection required and is monitored and supervised suitably to maintain quality of service provision.

Management and integration of guarding services within the Physical Security Portfolio

• Review to confirm that the current organisational structure, policies and processes are sufficient to link all the elements of physical security coherently and efficiently, and in order to avoid duplication of work.
• Identification of any key areas and requirements where standard procedures need to be developed in order to ensure that facilities management services are fully cognisant of physical security requirements, for example for specifying requirements for new buildings and when identifying suitable leased sites.
• Identify where communications may be required between customers (sites on the estate) and facilities management regarding repair requests, security upgrades, new guarding or temporary guarding requirements and feedback on guarding service provision.
• Assess the need for contingency planning for when guarding services may need to be supplemented at short notice.

Strategic view

• To consider the impact of current programmes of work and professionalisation of guarding services on the provision and cost of future guarding services.
• To ensure that those responsible for development of the new Total Facilities Management contract (including those responsible for the impact planning around the contract) are consulted during the SIR and informed of any relevant findings.

The scope will not include how bids for the Total Facilities Management Contract should be assessed, the content of Form 2110 or other aspects of security not directly relating to guarding services in a physical security context. Also, the marketing and awareness of security issues is considered to fall beyond the scope of the SIR.

3. Organisation

3.1 Project Board

David Hill

Chair, Director of Resilience, Compliance and Operational Support

Ch. Supt. Jamie Stephen

Deputy Chair, Head of SO16

Murad Qureshi

MPA Link member (Brent)

Siobhan Coldwell

Head of Scrutiny & Review MPA

Roy Upton

Assistant Director, Resilience, Compliance and Operational Support

Julie Norgrove

Deputy Director, Internal Audit

Bob Farley

Head of Information Compliance DCC10(2-6), Business Development, Liaison & Strategy Group

Nick Chown

Director of Corporate Risk Management Group

Ch. Supt. David Morgan

CW (HQSEN) Westminster Borough (Senior Management), Partnership portfolio and representative for the Superintendents’ Association.

Ch. Supt. Sultan Taylor

Operations Manager, DoR - TS1 (Transport Service Directors Office)

Det. Supt. Andy Campbell

DCC8(4) Professional Standards Directorate Support

Assistant Commissioner Ron Dobson

London Fire Brigade; Chair, Independent Challenge Panel

Mo Bunce

MPS Strategic Disability Team, representing the Diversity Directorate

Details to be confirmed

Police Federation JEC representative

Damian Okonkwo

MET-TUS representative

3.2 Review Team

At the conclusion of the project, feedback will be sought from the sponsor or nominated representative via a quality of service questionnaire.

3.3 Independent Challenge Panel

Ron Dobson

Assistant Commissioner, London Fire Brigade, ICP Chair

Rachel Whittaker

MPA Member

Martin Low

Head of Transport Services, Westminster City Council

Chris Taxis

Head of Corporate Security, Bank of America (International Services)

Trevor Gannon

Regional Head of Corporate Security, Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd

4. Approach

The SIR will follow the 4Cs framework through:

• Comparison with other forces and organisations’ security processes;
• Consultation with key stakeholders across the organisation and outside, in particular customers of the guarding service;
• Challenge the current status quo by identifying and asking pertinent and relevant questions; and
• Competition - Identifying whether there are appropriate, alternative ways of providing the service.

The Review will follow a phased approach with four main stages:

Stage 1: Background research and scope (40 days)

A scoping study has been completed, which performed background research to develop the scope presented in Section 2.2. The scoping study involved consultation with senior MPS stakeholders in addition to the gathering of relevant information and identification of other current MPS initiatives (or imminent pieces of work) that impact on building security, facilities management and provision of a guarding service.

Products from this stage will include the final version of this PID and the final version of the scoping study in addition to an outline consultation plan for the Review.

Stage 2: Identification and definition of issues (50 days)

This will include continued consultation with a range of stakeholders, and may also require benchmarking against other police forces or suitable organisations. Further work will be undertaken to identify the issues arising from current MPS work programs and developments in the ‘professionalisation’ of the guarding industry that may limit or inform the SIR process. It will enable the Project Board to select the specific issues to be addressed in Stage 3.

Stage 3: Solution generation (40 days)

This will involve the identification of feasible solution options for the provision of guarding services and explore the implications of each of these solutions on their management, supervision and integration within the physical security work stream in the MPS.

The main product from this stage will be an Options Paper, which will allow the Project Board to consider which options to explore in detail in Stage 4.

Stage 4: Solution evaluation and recommendations (40 days)

This involves assessing the feasible solution options to determine which will be the most effective in addressing the issues, including determining in more detail how the proposed solutions would work in practice and their associated costs and benefits. A high-level implementation plan will also be devised. These findings will be tested with key stakeholders through further consultation. Finally, Project Board will be asked to approve the solutions recommended in the final report.

It is estimated that the review will take up to 170 days, of which 40 days effort has already been used to carry out the scoping phase for this SIR.

Throughout stages 2 to 4 the Independent Challenge Panel will inform the Review Team’s work by scrutinising its scope, emerging findings and recommendations. ‘Quick wins’ identified at any stage of the Review will be presented to the next available ICP and Project Board meetings.

5. Project plan

6. Products

The principal product from this Review will be a final report, to be completed by 31 May 2005. This report will highlight the findings of the review and offer recommendations for improvement of the current process. A high level Improvement Plan will be produced to support these recommendations.

7. Resources, costs and benefits

7.1 Resources

The Review’s consultation will require input from a range of MPS officers and police staff, notably individuals from Resources, Compliance and Operational Support (DoR), SO16 (including Physical Security Unit), Corporate Risk Management Group, and Information Compliance (DoI).

Senior Designated Officers, Quality Assurance Officers and Building Security Officers will be consulted as appropriate, though this will not be more than half a day for any individual.

7.2 Costs

This work will take up to170 days, which will be deducted from Service Improvement Reviews’ allocation of Internal Consultancy days. ICG does not charge for its work: for information, the total cost of these days would be £76,500.

7.3 Benefits

The potential benefits of this service review will be:

• Understanding of best value in relation to the provision of a guarding service in the MPS
• Identification of a solution options for the provision of a guarding service
• Recommendation of a preferred solution based on the application of cost benefit analysis and other assessment criteria as appropriate
• Recommendations which will ensure that the organisation is fully cognisant of the effectiveness of the guarding service
• Recommendations that will ensure efficient management and supervision of a guarding service as a fully integrated part of the physical security work stream.
• Ensuring the MPS continues to provide a satisfactory and adequate guarding security service – at the sites that it is required - that will not compromise the security of key buildings in the MPS estate.
• Improved guarding services for the customer - both the MPS and staff.

8. Constraints, assumptions and risks

8.1 Constraints

The review must be completed and report its recommendations to the MPA PPRC by 14th July 2005.

The timing of the review, in particular the consultation and challenge stages are constrained by the availability of key stakeholders, ICP panel members and ICG staff.

The timing of key MPS and MPA meetings will determine when specific products will be signed off.

8.2 Assumptions

MPS officers and staff will be able to participate in the initial consultation in Stage 2 and members of the Independent Challenge Panel will be available to assist during the proposed timescales.

8.3 Risks

From an initial assessment of this Review, the main areas of risk are:

• Due to the commercial aspects and sensitivity around this subject, confidentially agreements may need to be agreed between the MPS and members of the Independent Challenge Panel, who may also need to be security cleared to a suitable level. This may impact on proposed SIR timescales.
• Insufficient ICG resources being available during the course of the project in the stipulated timescale, delaying the formulation of recommendations for the Review
• Changes to the scope in the review may impact on the ICG effort required to meet the project deadlines
• Key stakeholders and MPS staff may not be available during the consultation period.
• The limited availability of quantitative data and performance information, to support any qualitative information collected, may make it difficult to assess the efficiency and quality of the current service.

A separate risk register will be produced to enable the Project Board to review and monitor risks at its meetings.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback