MarchwardServices

Approach

How we work

The method matters more than the brochure. This page sets out how we run an assessment, and what we will and will not do inside any engagement, so that a prospective client can judge us before a conversation rather than after it.

The sequence

  1. Establish the legal envelope first

    What may lawfully be authorised, by whom, under what instrument, and whether the resulting product survives contest. This constrains the option set, so it comes first. An option whose legal or regulatory route is unproven is not an option, it is a hope with a number attached.

  2. Assess against a consistent standard

    Capability examined domain by domain and against the standard lines of development: training, equipment, personnel, information, doctrine, organisation, infrastructure and logistics. A gap that appears in equipment alone is rare. A gap that appears in personnel and training together is the norm, and it cannot be bought.

  3. Score it the same way everywhere

    A simple four-point scale applied identically across the organisation: sufficient, adequate with risk, deficient, absent. The value is not the score, it is the comparability, which is what lets a decision-maker prioritise between competing claims on one budget.

  4. Cost the options honestly

    Three levels of ambition against each significant gap, each carrying the permission it requires and the body that grants it, and each sitting alongside the do-nothing case.

  5. Sequence it

    A small organisation cannot do everything at once, and the order usually matters more than the list.

  6. Model the sustainment

    What the position looks like twelve and twenty-four months after current support, funding or seconded personnel come to an end. This is the question most reviews leave out, and it is usually the one that decides whether a gain holds.

What we will not do

  • Conduct an assessment at arm’s length. Interviews held under supervision produce the answer the institution wants recorded, not the one that is useful. If access cannot be given, we would rather the work were not commissioned.
  • Write a requirement around a product. Where the right answer is to do nothing, or where the work belongs to the client’s own people with no external involvement at all, we will say so.
  • Recommend ourselves. Where a gap could be met by something we supply, the report names the requirement and the standard it has to meet, says plainly that we could meet it, and leaves the choice of provider to the client. Who delivers the work is a decision taken after the report, by the people who commissioned it.
  • Undertake any activity requiring the carriage of arms, any operational or executive role, or anything that places our people inside a client’s chain of command.

Governance

We set this out in full because a prospective client should be able to establish how we operate, and what we are and are not, before speaking to us.

Law, liability and insurance
We work under English law unless a client requires otherwise. Professional indemnity, public liability and employer’s liability cover appropriate to the engagement is in place before work begins, and certificates are provided on request. We do not seek indemnity for our own negligence, and we do not seek immunity from local jurisdiction for our personnel.
Human rights in security and justice assistance
Our work is advice and capacity building to state security institutions, which is the activity the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Overseas Security and Justice Assistance guidance was written to govern. We build an OSJA-style human rights risk assessment into the design of any engagement involving police, military, intelligence or border institutions, following its assess, identify, mitigate and strengthen structure, and we provide it to the client rather than keeping it internal. Where a proposed activity cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level, we say so before it begins, and we decline the work if it cannot.
The frameworks that actually apply to us
We are guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which address companies directly, and by the good practices for states set out in Part II of the Montreux Document, which do not bind companies but which shape what a responsible contractor should expect of itself and of its client.
Why we hold no private security certification
We are not a member of the International Code of Conduct Association and we hold no certification to ISO 18788 or ANSI/ASIS PSC.1. Those standards certify security operations: use of force, weapons handling, vetting and supervision of guards, detention and site protection. We conduct none of that, so a certificate against them would tell a client nothing about the work we actually do. We would rather say this plainly than display an accreditation that does not describe us. Where a client or funder requires membership or certification as a condition of contract, we will obtain it before the contract begins.
Regulatory position
Our work is advisory and training. It is not manned guarding, close protection, key holding or vehicle immobilisation, and it is therefore not a designated activity under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, as designated by the 2006 Order made under it. We hold no armed capability and we do not subcontract one.
Statutory obligations that follow us abroad
As a United Kingdom company we remain subject to the Bribery Act 2010, United Kingdom sanctions and export control law, and the criminal law of England and Wales in respect of certain conduct overseas. Compliance is not discharged by local law alone, and we will not accept an instruction premised on the idea that it is.
Information and client material
We hold client material only for as long as the engagement and any subsequent audit require, and we do not reuse it to win other work. Reports, underlying data and working notes are the client’s property in full.