Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Moderator
    Reputation
    593

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    132

    Default G4S Olympics Woes Continue

    Share
    Although the Olympics was hailed as being a success in virtually all parts it certainly didnít go off without a few hitches and hiccups. One area where many believed there would be major problems was in security especially as G4S admitted to having fallen short of the quota of security personnel that it had agreed to provide LOCOG with. Since then, there has been much debate over the use of G4S and how successful their intervention was with the most recent being a report by a Glasgow newspaper that many workers have not yet been paid by the security company.

    The G4S chief said in July that he regretted taking the Olympics contract following the companyís failure to meet the agreed target of 10,500 security personnel by the end of July. The security company has vowed to meet the payments required in order to draft in the emergency services and armed services to help plug the gap that this shortfall left but the company has subsequently struggled to persuade LOCOG to pay the final instalments of its contract due to these errors.

    G4S was to be heavily involved in arranging security for the games and they agreed to provide LOCOG with 3,000 security personnel by the beginning of July, rising to more than 10,000 by the end of that month. They failed to meet this quota, falling some way short, and had to inform the Olympics Committee that this was the case during the month of July. Eventually, the armed services were called in to fill the void that his shortfall had left. It is estimated that G4S only managed to supply around 7,500 guards for the event.

    On 17th July, G4S Chief Executive Nick Buckles told a committee of MPs that the shortfall in security personnel was such that he was deeply disappointed and wished that he had never agreed to take on the contract. The committee had said that the development was extremely worrying thanks to its timing being so close to the beginning of the games.

    3,500 guards from the army were drafted in while G4S attempted to complete the required ISA training that was needed for anybody wishing to work as security personnel at the games. Buckles blamed the shortfall on a major increase in requirements from the LOCOG committee and the fact that the contract was completely unique and the company had never had to work on anything like it before.

    G4S certainly suffered for its shortcomings. Not only have they agreed to cover the cost of drafting in army guards but this figure has been reported to be at the upper end of estimates meaning it will be equivalent to a £50m hit following the debacle and G4S has had to concentrate their efforts further on developing markets in a bid to avoid much of the damage done to their reputation in the UK. Buckles hopes that their reputation will recover somewhat after the Paralympics and that the security guard mess will not be a problem when attempting to procure new business in developing markets.

    Earlier in September it emerged that LOCOG had not yet paid G4S the final instalments to the £235m contract. Buckles argued that he expected full payment because he reiterated his intention that the company would meet the necessary payments to cover the cost of drafting in the army guards. There are questions over whether or not Buckles himself will still be head of the organisation following a full review of exactly what happened in the build up to and during the Olympics.

    Do G4S deserve full payment of the contract? Should Buckles keep his job following the debacle? Can G4S recover their reputation?

  2. #2
    Longterm Registered User
    Reputation
    8932
    maximuszx12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    GnomeMansland.
    Posts
    848

    Default

    In answer to the last 3 questions.......

    NO.

    NO.

    NO.

    max

  3. #3
    Longterm Registered User My location
    Reputation
    4035
    ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    On Task Security Advisor chesterfield
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    what max said

    G4S had the chance to do a good job and give many professinal security operators an early xmas gift but they choosed to think profit in stread of service

    so as far as i can see they deserve anything they get and if new contracts come to other security companys then thats a good thing all the best to them

    cheers ed

  4. #4
    Longterm Registered User My location
    Reputation
    7853

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    up North
    Posts
    2,657

    Default

    They should be paid for the staff they provided and no more. They can't exxpect to be paid for managing the recruitment when they didn't manage the recruitment.

    Incidentally, were they paid for the training they did for the military or did they do that out of the goodness of their hearts? If so how much did they charge for that? Or did it come out of the fees LOCOG paid them already. Also, did the military have to pay them for the camp at Hainault?

  5. #5
    Longterm Registered User
    Reputation
    9771

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,020

    Default

    Agreed Little. The staff that attended should be paid for. Any part of the contract they failed to deliver, they should not be paid for. (or indeed if they only partialy delivered, they should receive partial payment)

  6. #6
    Longterm Registered User
    Reputation
    13844

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Do G4S deserve full payment of the contract? Should Buckles keep his job following the debacle? Can G4S recover their reputation?

    No

    No

    No

    and No!!!

  7. #7
    Longterm Registered User
    Reputation
    537

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norwich/London/GOA- IO
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Spell check!!! I am a ham fisted, sausage fingered typo expert BUT I always spell check what I post...

    In reply to the post, they would never have had this problem if they had offered the market rate and provided accommodation. They where never going to find 10000 security vetted staff (willing to work for that money) inside the London area and as all the 'cheap' accommodation had/was booked months in advance NOBODY could afford to work for that hourly rate and 1, afford digs within commuting distance. 2, afford to travel in by car or train.
    I'm not,as anyone that knows me will testify a genius BUT even I saw that coming.
    Last edited by davidd; 21-09-2012 at 07:23. Reason: expanded answer

  8. #8
    Full Registered User
    Reputation
    530

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Found this one today calling for a Blacklisting of the company from major government contracts

    Other recommendations from the MPs include:

    :: The company should make one-off payments to applicants who were trained up but did not get work because of G4S's own management failings.

    :: The Government should keep an up-to-date central register of high-risk companies who have failed in the delivery of public services, so that they can be ruled out for further major contracts.


    Olympics: G4S 'Should Be Blacklisted' Say MPs

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Reputation
    10

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hambo_za View Post
    Found this one today calling for a Blacklisting of the company from major government contracts

    Other recommendations from the MPs include:

    :: The company should make one-off payments to applicants who were trained up but did not get work because of G4S's own management failings.

    :: The Government should keep an up-to-date central register of high-risk companies who have failed in the delivery of public services, so that they can be ruled out for further major contracts.


    Olympics: G4S 'Should Be Blacklisted' Say MPs
    yes should be...!




    _________________
    tobeymaguire

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Reputation
    10

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tobeymaguire View Post
    yes should be...!




    _________________
    tobeymaguire




    genemedics.com // www.genemedics.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •