Security costs are often driven by legacy decisions — outdated coverage, unclear KPIs, inflated management add-ons, or simply a lack of visibility. FDG Secure benchmarks your contract against market norms and audits “value” based on what is actually being delivered.
FDG Secure does not supply guarding services. We act on the client side — analysing performance, defining requirements, and managing vetted suppliers on your behalf.
What We Benchmark
Rates & Cost Structure
Hourly rates, role types, night/weekend uplifts, management fees, and “extras” that inflate spend.
Coverage vs Risk
Whether the number of hours/posts/patrols reflects the real site risk — not historical habit.
Supervision & Resilience
Quality of supervision, relief cover, recruitment pipeline, and contract stability.
Reporting & Output
Incident reporting quality, patrol evidence, KPI outputs, and whether you’re getting usable intelligence.
What You Receive
- A clear benchmarking summary (where you sit vs market expectations)
- Identification of overspend and “cost leakage” (inefficient cover, unclear extras, weak supervision)
- Value audit observations (service delivery quality, reporting, resilience, compliance indicators)
- Recommendations: optimise existing supplier, restructure cover, or run a controlled tender
Typical Issues We Find
- Pay rates not aligned to role complexity (overpaying for basic coverage)
- “Management” fees with no measurable supervision output
- Static guarding where mobile patrol + technology would reduce spend
- Poor reporting that hides incidents and weakens decision-making
- Vague KPIs with no enforcement or review cycle
If you haven’t completed a recent site risk review, we recommend starting there first. The strongest benchmarking outcomes happen when costs are compared against current risk and operational reality.