SECURITY AGENCIES 24 January 2017 Scope of Presentation Grading - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

OUTREACH SESSION FOR SECURITY AGENCIES

24 January 2017

• Grading Exercise 2016
• Performance
• Common Misperception
• Clarification of Assessment Criteria
• Scoring
• Grading Exercise 2017
• Changes to grading exercise
• Reminders
• Breach of Licensing Condition

Scope of Presentation

Grading Exercise 2016

• Performance

Participation for Grading Exercise

210 220 230 240 250 260 270 2013 2014 2015 2016 Participated Exempted Ungraded 6 5 2 6 11 228 239 242 251

Grading Results - 2015 vs 2016

20 40 60 80 100 A B C D 2015 2016 43 64 81 96 60 84 8 31

Change in Grade - 2016

GRADE IMPROVED 34.1% GRADE UNCHANGED 47% GRADE DROPPED 16.7%

NOT GRADED IN 2015 2.2%

Performance for Individual Pillars 2016

50 100 150 200 PILLAR 1 PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 A B C D

Analysis of Results

• SAs with poorer grade this year were due mainly to:
• Pillar 1 (Operations)
• Pillar 3 (HR and Employment)
• Pillar 1 – main issue was that submission of documents

was not in accordance with PLRD’s requirements

• Pillar 3 - primarily due to infringement(s) of the

Employment Act or the CPF Act

Grading Exercise 2016

• Clarification on Assessment

Criteria

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.1.1 - SOP on Bomb Threat 1.1.2 - SOP on Fire Evacuation 1.1.3 - SOP on Suspicious Person SOP did not include checklist SOPs did not cover :

• Emergency contacts
• Evacuation procedures
• Cordon procedures
• Measures to prevent

re-entry SOP must include a checklist for SO to refer to. SOP must cover these items.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.1.4 - Implementation

• f Technology

Mere submission of user manual

• f

hardware/ software and/or photos of the equipment without any elaboration on how the technology has helped the agency. There must be a clear elaboration on how the agency has leveraged on the technology to become more efficient and/or effective. An example would be how the deployment

• f

Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Vehicles (i.e. Drones) has decreased the number of SO required.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.1 - Continuous training for SO 2.1.2 - Non- security related training Training certificate of SOs were not submitted. Instead, only attendance lists with the course name were submitted. Training certificate of non- SOs were submitted. Only course certificates of SOs will be accepted. Certificate from non-SO staff will not be accepted.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.3 - Refresher training Photos of the purported training were submitted with no information on the following :

• Type of training
• Date and time
• Name of SO who

attended Training details are required.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.4 - Contingency exercises Photos of the purported exercise were submitted with no information on the following :

• Date, time and place
• Type of exercise
• Exercise scenario
• Name of SOs who

attended Checklist was submitted on steps to be taken in an exercise, but there was no indication that an exercise was actually carried out. Exercise details are required. Actual exercise must be carried out. A checklist alone will not be accepted.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.5 - Conduct of After Action Review (AAR) No AAR submitted because nothing “wrong” happened at any of the deployment site. The number

• f

AARs submitted did not tally with the total number

• f

deployment sites declared. Some AARs were submitted

• nly when the agency made

representations. AAR may also be used to document something which an SO did correctly. The idea is to use AAR to share any lesson learnt or exemplary performance. Each site should generate

• ne AAR.

Additional submissions during representation will not be accepted.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.2.10 - Conduct of risk survey Minutes of meeting did not indicate threat(s) identified and/or mitigation measures. Risk surveys must involve identification of threats and the proposed mitigation measures. If the service buyer chose not to participate, agency must show proof of its effort/attempt to involve the buyer.

Clarification of Requirements

Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.2.11 - Regular meeting with client No submission as agency claimed that the service buyer has no time to meet. If the service buyer chose not to meet, agency must show proof

• f

its effort/attempt to arrange for meeting.

Grading Exercise 2016

• Common Misperception

Related criteria:

• Security Risk Survey (1.2.10)
• Minutes of Meeting (1.2.11)
• Security related training (2.1.1)
• Non-security related training (2.1.2)
• Exercise conducted (2.1.1)
• AAR (2.1.5)

Clarifications: Points are awarded based on the following considerations:

• Meeting criteria
• Relevance of submitted documents
• Completeness of information
• SAs will be awarded full points if all the requirements are met. NO

bonus points will be awarded for additional submission.

Bonus points if more documents were submitted

Common Misperception

Related criteria: Exercise conducted to validate SOP Clarifications: Points are awarded based on the following consideration:

• Table top exercise is acceptable (e.g. interview, questionnaire, and role

play)

• Exercise can be done without the participation of premises owner

Exercise of Contingency Plans must involve premises owner

Common Misperception

Grading Exercise 2016

• Scoring

Summary on Scoring

• Grading exercise is conducted based on 3 pillars (P1 – Ops ,

P2 – Training, P3 – HR & Employment)

• Each pillar is given a pillar grade which carries different

weightage

• Overall grade is determined based on the 3 pillar grades
• Overall grade will be affected if there is any infringement(s)
• f the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA), Employment Act
• r CPF Act

Pillar Weightage

Pillar Weightage 1 50% 2 20% 3 30%

Overall Grade Pillar Grades Requirement Example A All Pillars graded A AAA B All Pillars graded B or better BBB AAB ABA BAB C

At most one Pillar graded D Pillar 1 must be C or better

MOM may downgrade the overall grade to “D” if the SA has infringed any relevant employment laws (e.g. Employment Act, CPF Act, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Workplace Safety and Health Act)

ADB – C BDD – D DAA – D AAD – C/D

Pillar Grades

Penalty for Infringements

Infringements of PSIA will be taken into consideration :

• during grading period; and
• after grading period, up till release of final result

Category Pts Examples of some common infringements

(non-exhaustive)

Major 20

• Deploying unlicensed SO (including revoked licence)
• Deploying SO untrained in 2 basic modules

Medium 10

• Deploying unlicensed SO (licence expired)
• Deploying SO to perform function not in accordance

with PWM requirement

• Deploying untrained SO to perform screening

Minor 3

• Failure to notify employment of SO
• Failure to inform change of address / directorship
• Failure to maintain up-to-date deployment site
• Failure to display grading decal
• Failure to maintain occurrence or attendance book

Grading Exercise in 2017

Grading Exercise 2017

• Non-Security Related Training (2.1.2)
• PLRD will only accept certificates issued by ATO or

ATO-PEI (pls refer to Skills Future SG website)

• Each SO must have attended at least 8 hours of

training between 1 Jun 2016 and 31 May 2017

• Gentle reminders
• Read

the notification letter carefully – all requirements are clearly stated

• Submit all required documents on time
• All SOPs must be documented and not through verbal

instructions

• SO on relief duty will be assessed as if he/she were a

permanent SO

• PLRD will inform SAs of the submission venue by Jun

2017

Grading Exercise 2017

• Making Representation on Preliminary Grading Results
• Upon receiving preliminary grading results, SA has 14

days to submit representation

• Outcome of representation will be made known in

mid Dec 2017

• Final results will be mailed to the SAs and also

published on PLRD’s website

• No further representation will be entertained once

the final result has been confirmed

Grading Exercise 2017

Breach of Licensing Condition

Breach of Licensing Condition

• Between 1 Sep and 31 Dec 2016, PLRD has detected 36

breaches of licensing conditions

• Investigations are on going
• All SAs are reminded to take licensing conditions

seriously

Sep - Dec 2016 PWM Training Breaches

2

PWM Wage Breaches

1

Attendance Book related

28

Occurrence Book related

2

Non-Display of Grading Decal

3

Total No. of Breaches 36

Thank you