Before You Renew: How to Properly Review Your Security Coverage

Most security contracts renew automatically, without formal review. Usually, security coverage continues year after year because everything seems to have run smoothly, without major incident. The absence of disruption is interpreted as evidence that the program is working as it should. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework identifies ongoing monitoring of service providers as a core element of effective risk governance. The COSO Enterprise Risk Management framework makes a similar point: control environments need to adapt as conditions change, not remain fixed to decisions made two or three years ago. Security is no different. 

The question isn’t whether your program has worked in the past, it’s whether it’s still built for where you are now. 

Has Your Risk Profile Changed?

Risk exposure can change in ways that don’t always trigger a formal review. 

Construction projects transition between phases - from open perimeter risk to high-value material staging. Corporate environments evolve too, visitor and contractor patterns change and credential management practices that made sense at first signing may no longer be adequate.

The FBI and CISA both flag access misuse (using legitimate credentials in illegitimate ways) as one of the most common factors to the occurrence of insider incidents. This underscores the importance of continually reassessing how credentials and access points are managed. 

A contract review should evaluate whether your current deployment still reflects your actual exposure. 

Is Enforcement Consistent?

Security failures rarely stem from lack of written policy. 

Research from the CERT Insider Threat Center at Carnegie Mellon found that many organizational incidents develop gradually, through repeated minor policy violations and weak oversight. In physical security environments, this typically looks like inconsistent verification at access points, staff assuming familiarity with regular visitors rathen that confirming credentials, and reporting that becomes less detailed over time. 

None of these raise major concerns, but that’s exactly why they are worth reviewing. 

Is Supervision Active?

High Reliability Organization (HRO) research, the same body of work that informs safety culture in aviation, healthcare, and nuclear energy - identifies a phenomenon called normalization of deviance: small deviations from procedure that go unremarked because nothing bad immediately happens. Over time, these deviations become the new baseline. 

In security environments, this means asking not just “are people present?” but who is overseeing them, how often, and what happens when a problem arises. 

Are Reporting and Near Misses Analyzed?

High Reliability Organizations treat near misses as data, not footnotes. This is part of the reason why hospitals and aviation have unusually low failure rates. This is because small signals often precede large failures, and organizations track them closely to identify problems before they become major incidents. 

Most security environments don’t uphold this standard. A tailgated entry goes unlogged or a visitor is waved through without credential confirmation. 

The question to ask isn’t whether incidents are being reported, most contracts require it. It’s what happens to that reporting afterward. Are they being reviewed for patterns? Are adjustments being made?

Documentation without analysis is just paperwork and it allows risk to compound quietly. 

Are Lower Rates Justified?

The U.S. private security industry employs over one million guards and is highly fragmented. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts thousands of licensed providers operating under widely varying models. Price differences between providers often reflect structural differences and not just labor cost. 

Lower hourly rates can indicate limited superivsory layers, high personnel rotation, or staffing brokered through intermediaries with minimal oversight structure in place. 

That doesn’t automatically make a lower-cost provider a poor choice. A professional review should include an evaluation of supervision structure, assignment-matched personnel, and accountability processes. 

A Professional Review Provides Clarity

A pricing comparison will tell you what you’re paying for, but it doesn’t tell you what you’re getting. 

Contract renewal windows are the right moment to reassess a vendor’s overall risk profile and whether the original scope still matches current conditions. For physical security providers specifically, that means going beyond the invoice and examining whether the program’s structure still matches your exposure. 

A proper review should cover scope alignment, enforcement consistency, supervisory depth, and staffing fit. All as interconnected elements. New responsibilities and additional exposure can accumulate as vendor relationships develop, making periodic reassessment particularly important. 

With a proper review, you should feel confident that the program you’re paying for is still the program that meets your needs. 

Security programs that automatically renew without scrutiny, can drift gradually. A structured review before renewal can ensure that the right procedures and protocols are in place to maintain control over your environment. 

Before You Renew

The conditions that shaped your original contract may have shifted since you signed. A security contract review worth doing goes well beyond rate comparison. 

Tactical Elite conducts structured contract comparisons for organizations considering our security options (upon availability). When reviewing an existing agreement, we assess how the current scope, supervision model, and staffing framework align with what we would deploy under similar conditions. 

You’ll get a clear, honest picture of where your program stands and what a transition would actually look like. 

If the fit is right and availability allows, we’ll let you know. If it isn’t, we’ll tell you that too. 

Signing a new security contract should be an informed decision, not a default.