International Journal on Criminology Volume 5, Number 2, Winter 2017/2018 | Page 14

Contractual Issues in Private Security
complete life cycle of the contractual process: a better definition of what is needed
in the security sector, contracts being awarded to the best bidder, genuine transparency
regarding pricing and the use of subcontractors, and regular and precise
performance monitoring.” 18 However, this charter has not succeeded as hoped: it
reached 268 signatories in 2014 (no numbers are available for subsequent years),
of which fewer than 30 are buyers and nearly 200 are members of the SNES. The
absence of checks on whether the charter’s principles are being met, and fear that
it will nonetheless become a burden on those who sign it, have greatly limited its
adoption. The involvement of the Ministry of the Interior in the market likely also
reached a limit, with some economic actors finding its role too intrusive.
The DISP has also become involved in several standardization projects, in
keeping with its January 2012 mission statement, which required it to “also make
proposals on measures to improve the quality of services provided by businesses
(certifications, quality seals, standards, and qualifications).” 19 The public authority
has clearly involved itself qualitatively in contractual relationships.
The DISP then proposed to look into the establishment of a qualification
scheme for companies based on their skills and experience, based on the “Qualibat”
model in construction, proposing it as part of a legislative reform of the law of July
12, 1983. But this next step was judged to be too complex and to intrude too heavily
on contractual relations, and was not taken.
In parallel with this undertaking, the DISP became actively involved in
existing projects and initiatives, becoming a member of several standardization
committees: the APSAD certification committee for monitoring services, as of
November 2011; the committee for NF certification “Service 241” for safety and
security businesses, as of November 2012; the “Security for Activities of Vital
Importance” (SAIV) certification committee, under the aegis of the certification
body SGS ICS France, as of 2014; and the committee on the certification of private
security and defense services (now ISO/NF standard 18788), as of October 2013.
In conclusion, the DISP has been an active participant in the development of standards
for contractual relationships, but with few genuine achievements to date.
Last of all, though partnerships and cooperation between government bodies,
the fight against illegal labor in private security has reached a milestone with
the signing of the National Partnership Convention to Combat Illegal Labor in the
Private Security Sector on December 12, 2012. Its signatories were the Minister
of the Interior, represented by the Interministerial Delegate for Private Security,
the Minister for Labor, Employment, Vocational Training and Social Dialogue,
18 Ministry of the Interior/DISP. “Charte de bonnes pratiques.”
19 Letter from Claude Guéant, the Minister of the Interior, to the Interministerial Delegate, Paris,
January 9, 2012. This follows recommendations 12 and 18 in the “Blot-Diederichs report”: “The
industry and public authorities should commit, without delay, to drafting a minimal standard for
the profession’s operating conditions, applicable both to businesses and clients, and potentially a
certification system,” and “The future Interministerial Delegate should be entrusted with the task of
examining the question of certification.”
9