Subcontracting is normal in this sector — geography, short notice and demand spikes all make it necessary. What it does not do is move the client's expectations onto someone else. The client contracted with you.
The evidence problem
When your own officer works a shift, you hold their licence record, their screening file and their training history. When a subcontractor's officer works it, you typically hold none of those, and you are relying on an assurance.
- Licence status confirmed verbally, never recorded
- Screening assumed to meet the standard, never evidenced
- Site-specific induction skipped because the officer is "only covering"
- No record of which subcontractor supplied which officer on which shift
That last gap is the one that hurts most in an investigation. If you cannot say who was on site, you cannot begin to answer anything else.
A workable minimum
- Record the subcontractor and the individual officer against the shift, every time
- Hold licence details for subcontracted officers as you would your own
- Agree in writing what screening standard the subcontractor operates to
- Keep site induction as a requirement, not a courtesy
Key takeaways
- Subcontracting moves the labour, not the client relationship
- Record which subcontractor supplied which officer on which shift
- Hold licence evidence for subcontracted officers, not just assurances
- Agree screening standards in writing before you need them
The SecureOptix team
Written by people who work daily with security contractors on SIA licensing, screening and the records that hold up under an inspection.