Vendor-Client Synergy: Resolving Expectation Misalignments in Contract Security
The U.S. contract security market has grown significantly in recent years, from a value of $22 billion in 2014 to an estimated $46 billion in 2025, according to Statista. This growth reflects increasing demand for security officer services across both private industry and government sectors.
A growing issue with this expansion is the misalignment of expectations between contract security vendors and their clients. This misalignment stems primarily from two factors. First, clients often have unrealistic expectations of the vendor and its security officers. Second, vendors can overpromise capabilities and underdeliver on performance.
Misalignment Between Agreed Scope and Service Delivery
Vendor-client misalignment often begins at the very start of the engagement, when the client identifies a need for security services but fails to clearly establish the operational context—the specific security needs, risks, and expectations unique to the site. Without this foundational context, the client is unable to establish a realistic baseline for the scope of the security officers assigned to its account.
A comprehensive site risk assessment is one of the most effective ways to establish operational context. Reputable vendors often offer such assessments as part of their service. However, clients should evaluate vendor site-risk assessments critically, because there is a risk of being upsold on services that exceed actual operational needs. Engaging an independent security consultant to perform the risk assessment and develop the security staffing plan can mitigate this risk. This modest up-front investment can yield more objective recommendations and lay the groundwork for enduring, more sustainable vendor-client alignment.
To avoid misalignment between the agreed scope and the actual services delivered, vendors and clients should have early, honest, and realistic discussions about what the officers assigned to the account can and cannot reasonably be expected to do while protecting people and property. For example, does the client expect security officers to physically block access, detain thieves, or intervene in physical confrontations? These expectations must be made explicit and agreed upon in advance to avoid future frustration, operational inefficiencies, and potential contract disputes. Alignment at this stage ensures both parties operate from a place of realism rather than dangerous assumptions, and helps build safer, more effective security programs.
Further misalignment between agreed scope and the services delivered can also occur if the vendor makes overly optimistic promises during the sales process.
In the effort to win contracts, some vendors may overstate their capabilities and the scope of duties their personnel can fulfill. In practice, the response of a security officer during a potentially life-threatening incident is unpredictable. Will that officer truly put himself or herself in harm’s way to protect an employer’s client when confronted by a motivated criminal determined to avoid arrest? In reality, contract security personnel are often not incentivized—or in many cases, trained, prepared, or authorized—to do so. Clients must look beyond the sales pitch, ask tough questions, and ensure alignment of all contractual and operational expectations.
Part of operational context-setting is creating the security staffing plan. Clients must set realistic expectations about the number of security officers required to secure their people and property. While vendors may have experience operating in high-crime areas and understand the associated risks, businesses in those areas (particularly small to medium-sized organizations that are understandably focused on cost containment) might request the bare minimum staffing level. This situation raises a crucial yet often overlooked question: When faced with an under-resourced request in a high-crime area, will the vendor uphold its duty of care and decline the contract? Or will the vendor prioritize revenue and agree to provide insufficient staffing, knowingly placing security officers at undue risk?
This ethical crossroads highlights the importance of vendor integrity and the need for clients to engage vendors that understand risk and real-world security officer limitations: vendors that will prioritize safety over short-term profit. A professional vendor should not only advise clients on the appropriate staffing levels based on risk, but it also should be willing to walk away from business that compromises the safety of its personnel.
Throughout my years working in security operations across Los Angeles, I have frequently heard security officers express profound relief after being reassigned to safer, more stable posts. These conversations often reveal a troubling and persistent pattern: Officers are assigned to high-risk, “broken windows” neighborhoods, are tasked with unrealistic client expectations, and receive minimal support from their employers.
The stories are sobering. One officer described being stationed —unarmed and alone—at a nighttime shelter on skid row. The security officer was expected to singlehandedly manage violent altercations among community members, many of whom had mental health challenges or were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Another unarmed security officer was posted without backup outside a landmark building on the Venice boardwalk during the night shift.
The client's expectation? The officer should interdict trespassers, vandals, and burglars, despite the area’s notorious issues with violent crime, open drug use, and near absence of police presence at night. In both cases, the vendor accepted the contract and the conditions, despite the obvious risks.
This situation raises a number of serious questions:
- Where was the context setting?
- Where was the appropriate staffing recommendation in response to the threats clearly identified in the vendor’s own risk assessment (if one was even done)?
- Where was the alignment on the realistic scope and service delivery?
- What was vendors’ duty of care for the security officers being placed in these roles?
Security officers’ employers have a legal duty to protect their employees from foreseeable workplace hazards. Under the federal U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), employers must provide a workplace “free from recognized hazards” likely to cause death or serious harm (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1), the General Duty Clause). OSHA also requires hazard assessment, appropriate personal protective equipment, and training where necessary (29 C.F.R. 1910.132). In California, employers must furnish a “safe and healthful” workplace (U.S. Labor Code § 6400) and implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (Labor Code § 6401.7; 8 C.C.R. 3203). In addition, security officers must complete required training, including “power to arrest,” before assignment (U.S. Business and Professions Code § 7583.6).
Regarding protection of security employees, these examples underscore why total alignment between vendor and client is non-negotiable. Alignment doesn’t just drastically improve the likelihood of account success, it’s essential to protecting the well-being and morale of the security officers themselves. If vendors are unwilling to advocate for their workforce—or worse, prioritize revenue over safety—they fail not just their clients but their employees on the ground.
Misalignment on Training Requirements
A second, often overlooked area of misalignment between vendors and clients is training. Clients must understand that training is a strategic pillar of security officer readiness and performance improvement.
Clients often lack a clear understanding of the specific training requirements for effective security operations —both from a regulatory compliance perspective and in line with industry best practices. Many assume the vendor will take care of training. Aside from brief, surface-level discussions during the RFP process, clients often have little to no visibility into the depth, quality, or consistency of the training program being proposed or delivered.
This assumption is frequently reinforced by vendors that may overstate their training capabilities during the sales process. In practice, this leads to significant misalignment. Clients expect training to be regular, site-specific, and fully compliant. In reality, training is frequently minimal, generic, and inconsistent.
Many U.S. states lack uniform security officer training mandates, resulting in minimal, generic, and inconsistent training. A NASCO analysis showed 10 states have no statutory training requirements for unarmed security officers, and several others leave training content entirely to employers or regulators without defined numbers of hours or standards.
Federal audits revealed significant performance and oversight gaps among contracted security officers at federal facilities, including failures to detect prohibited items in covert tests, all pointing to training and qualification issues. Academic research also finds little state regulation or uniformity in security officer training requirements nationwide.
To avoid misalignment, clients should take an active role in evaluating, validating, and challenging the vendor’s training program. These measures should occur well before the contract is awarded and recur continuously throughout the partnership.
In many cases, a vendor’s training program amounts to little more than access to an off-the-shelf online learning management system (LMS). Security officers are assigned generic, one-size-fits-all modules from standard security content libraries. While completion rates are often tracked and presented to the clients as evidence of compliance with the service level agreement (SLA), actual engagement and knowledge retention is questionable at best.
In practice, security officers likely breeze through modules with minimal absorption, especially in the absence of interactive components like live Q&As, scenario-based discussions, or site-specific case studies. Most critically, the training rarely reflects the unique needs, risks, or operational context of the site the officer is assigned to protect. This disconnect severely undermines the training’s relevance and effectiveness.
Clients must also be honest about the realities of training. Even highly motivated, full-time employees with competitive compensation can struggle to stay engaged during mandatory online training. Therefore, it’s unrealistic to expect hourly security personnel—many of whom juggle multiple jobs and receive minimal compensation—to be fully invested in generic LMS-based training programs.
Unfortunately, many vendors treat training not as a strategic enabler but rather an overhead cost to be minimized. To control expenses, training is often reduced to the bare minimum - just enough to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements or loosely defined contractual obligations. On-site or in-person training responsibilities are typically handed off to account managers, who often lack the instructional expertise or available bandwidth to deliver consistent, impactful, context-specific training. As a result, the entire process devolves into a check-the-box exercise.
If a client requires a high-performing contract security force, it must ensure alignment with the vendor on training, and it should be prepared to share or own responsibility for its cost. Clients should work collaboratively with vendors to build a training budget that both includes overtime where necessary and considers staffing dedicated training managers to deliver consistent, high-quality instruction. A well-rounded program should leverage technology as well as incorporate a blend of delivery formats tailored to the specific risks and needs of the client’s environment.
Above all, clients must scrutinize the emphasis vendors place on training during the sales process. Go beyond the brochure. Ask to see the content, talk to the trainers, understand the delivery model, and determine how compliance and effectiveness are measured.
Misalignment on Compensation
The most egregious misalignment in the U.S. contract security industry exists not just between vendors and clients. It lies at the heart of the market itself: security officer pay rates.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the median U.S. security officer wage is approximately $18 to $19 per hour (about $38,000 annually), with many officers earning closer to $13 to $15 per hour. Independent analysis from the Center for American Progress found security officer wages have remained largely flat for over a decade, trailing the broader private-sector median, and often with the absence of benefits.
Clients must be candid with themselves about the operational context and the expectations they place on their security teams. Yet, U.S. unarmed security officer pay rates often hover just above, or even at, the state-mandated minimum wage. Is it realistic to expect a minimum-wage security officer to consistently deliver more than basic deterrence, visitor management, and observation or reporting? From my experience, expecting performance beyond these baseline functions can be met only with investment in recruitment, training, and fair compensation—none of which align with minimum wage labor models.
Clients must also consider what minimum wage compensation reveals about a vendor’s business model. Security officers paid at or near minimum wage typically receive scant training, lack meaningful support, and have few incentives to exceed basic expectations. Yet clients rely on these same security officers to exercise sound judgment, de-escalate volatile situations, demonstrate discretion, and navigate culturally sensitive interactions.
Furthermore, low-paid security personnel tend to have high turnover rates, as they often bounce between accounts in their search for marginal wage increases or better shifts and working conditions.
Industry data consistently link low pay to high turnover in the contract security sector. Workforce management firm TrackTik reported that annual turnover rates for security officers exceed 100 percent, with compensation cited as a primary driver. Belfry Software notes turnover can range from 100 percent to 400 percent in some markets, attributing instability largely to noncompetitive wages. Similarly, Celayix identifies low compensation and limited advancement as leading causes of guard attrition.
This attrition leads to instability, inconsistency, and a higher incidence of performance issues. In turn, it undermines both the effectiveness of the security program and the overall value to the client.
Unfortunately, both vendors and clients often perpetuate unrealistic expectations. Clients may envision security officers as highly capable frontline responders and customer service ambassadors. At the same time, in their zeal to win contracts, vendors may reinforce these expectations—despite knowing the likely actual capabilities of a minimally paid workforce. The result? A dangerous and unsustainable gap between responsibility and compensation.
By contrast, security officers who are offered competitive wages and benefits are more likely to stay with an account long term, demonstrate accountability and professionalism, invest in their own development, and take ownership of their role in protecting people, property, and brand reputation.
Return on Investment
Over the years, I have worked with some outstanding vendors. In nearly every case, the vendors that consistently delivered exceptional service could be classified as premium providers. Yes, their bill rates were higher, and yes, in hiring security teams, we invested more in account leadership and training. But let’s talk about return on investment (ROI).
We had a security force that was fairly compensated with a living wage, treated with respect, and recognized for exemplary performance. Personnel were offered opportunities for growth. In return, they showed commitment, pride, and professionalism. These were security officers who checked that last door, acted with purpose, did the right thing when no one was watching, and had the backbone to step up when it mattered most. Their presence sent a clear message to our employees: Your safety matters, and we’ve partnered with a high-performing vendor to ensure it.
In addition, security turnover was low on our force. This translated to several benefits for us: retention of institutional knowledge within the workforce, stronger relationships with campus employees and stakeholders, less time and money spent on new hire training, lower recruiting costs, and higher recruiting standards overall.
Together, these outcomes delivered a strong ROI—not just financially, but in terms of safety, morale, business continuity, and preservation of competitive advantage. Ultimately, that ROI was a direct result of alignment between vendor and client: shared expectations, shared standards, and a shared commitment to excellence.
Duncan Turner, CPP, PSP, is global head of security and safety at Scopely. Previously, he served as senior manager of global security operations at Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios.
