Key Points

• Governments routinely emphasize the importance of professional, well trained security personnel — yet most public tenders barely examine a bidder’s training program.
• GSB Pulse data shows that training appears in only a quarter of tenders, and almost never influences who wins, rewarding low-cost bidders that underinvest in training.
• By integrating training quality into procurement decisions, public authorities can strengthen officer competence, improve public safety, and ensure taxpayers receive real value.

Across Europe, governments routinely proclaim the importance of professional, well-trained security personnel. They rely on private security officers to safeguard public buildings, manage crowds, support emergency response, and maintain order in environments where risk is not theoretical but daily reality. Yet when it comes to the one mechanism governments control most directly — public procurement — the level of scrutiny applied to a bidder’s training program is astonishingly thin.

This paradox is at the heart of the International Security Ligue’s latest GSB Pulse: Public Procurement of Security Services (Europe). Drawing on nearly 40,000 tender records, the analysis reveals a procurement landscape in which training — arguably the single most important determinant of service quality — is treated as an afterthought, if it is treated at all.

Many security firms invest heavily in training. Some run sophisticated academies, employ full-time instructors, and deliver scenario based modules that go far beyond regulatory minimums. But as the report notes, “While many security firms have rigorous, even impressive training programs, regulatory minimums are generally set too low to rely upon.” Hours alone provide little reassurance. A guard may have completed a mandatory course yet never passed a written exam, never practiced de escalation, never been drilled in emergency response, and never received training tailored to the site where they will be deployed.

Do Public Agencies Consider a Firm’s Training When Awarding Security Contracts?

Public authorities rarely ask for evidence of training quality. In 2025, training related elements appeared in just 24.9% of tenders — and only 10.6% of tenders included training in the award criteria, the part of the process that actually determines who wins. Requirements for refresher or continuous training were almost nonexistent, appearing in only 1.4% of award criteria. In other words, a bidder’s commitment to maintaining officer competence over time is almost never evaluated.

This omission is not benign. It shapes the market.

Training is expensive. Firms that invest in it carry higher operating costs. When procurement systems ignore training quality and reward the lowest bid, governments inadvertently tilt the playing field toward companies that minimize training to keep prices low. The result is predictable: responsible firms are penalized, undertrained officers are deployed, and the public receives a lower standard of safety than it pays for.

Governments say they want well trained security officers — yet most tenders never examine a bidder’s training program. This omission shapes the market, rewards low cost providers, and leaves the public with less prepared officers.

Security consultant Amotz Brandes captures the stakes succinctly: “Just like technology, the human element of security — which relates to decision making, common sense, and awareness — must be upgraded. And this can only be accomplished through education, training, and drilling of personnel.” Yet the procurement data shows that governments rarely ask whether bidders have done any of this upgrading.

The consequences ripple outward. A well-trained officer can de escalate conflict, spot anomalies, manage emergencies, and protect the public. An undertrained officer cannot. As the report puts it, “The quality of security service a public agency receives ultimately hinges on the skills and readiness of the personnel assigned to it.”

This is where procurement becomes more than a bureaucratic exercise. It becomes a lever — one that governments are failing to pull.

If public authorities required bidders to demonstrate training curricula, assessment methods, refresher cycles, and role specific modules, the market would shift. If training quality carried meaningful weight in award decisions, firms would have a commercial incentive to invest in their people. If tenders demanded evidence rather than promises, the industry would respond with higher standards, better documentation, and more rigorous internal systems.

Instead, by ignoring training, governments send a different message: that training does not matter. That the cheapest bid is the best bid. That the public should accept whatever level of competence the lowest bidder happens to provide. More than a missed opportunity, this is a structural failure that affects officer wellbeing, public safety, and the long-term professionalism of the industry.

The good news is that the solution is straightforward. Procurement can reward training alongside price by asking for proof of competency, not just compliance, and requiring ongoing learning, not one time certification. And it can do so without substantially adding complexity, cost, or administrative burden.

Governments already say they want a well-trained security workforce, but data shows they are not using the tools they have to make that happen. If they did, Europe’s security industry — and the public it protects — would feel the positive impact immediately.

Get all the results from the Ligue's study of 40,000 tenders for guarding services in Europe.