Security Services · Data Sheet
Security Services Financial Results
An evidence-led view of achieved, negotiated and modelled commercial outcomes across a repriced multi-site security portfolio.
Headline result
Across all recurring lines in the final repricing model, the documented revised fees were approximately 23.2% lower on a weighted basis.
That total combines processed rate changes with supplier-confirmed and revised offers, so the components are reported separately rather than presented as one uniform achievement.
Result classification
Every component, with its evidence status
Scroll table sideways →
| Classification | Evidence status | Result | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Achieved / processed | Supplier confirms revised rates were processed on six recurring lines. | 24.7% weighted | Implemented supplier pricing in the source evidence. |
| Negotiated / supplier-confirmed | Two revised offers retained the stated value-added services. | 17.3% weighted | Negotiated value. Not called processed. |
| Negotiated / supplier offer | A separate provider offered a lower recurring fee and requested acceptance. | 24.1% | An offer, not verified implementation. |
| Combined documented repricing | All nine repriced recurring lines in the final model. | 23.2% weighted | Overall repricing, with component status preserved. |
| Modelled forward effect | Escalation assumptions applied to original and revised rates. | Advantage remains ~23.2% | Modelled only. Not counted again as achieved. |
How the percentage was calculated
Weighted recurring fee reduction = (sum of original recurring fees − sum of revised recurring fees) ÷ sum of original recurring fees.
Weighting matters because a simple average of percentage reductions would give the smallest and largest service lines equal influence. The weighted method reflects the commercial effect across the actual repriced fee base.
Line-level distribution
The spread behind the weighted figure
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest documented line reduction | 17.2% | The result was not created by applying one blanket discount across all sites. |
| Highest documented line reduction | 25.8% | Supplier and account circumstances produced different negotiation outcomes. |
| Median documented line reduction | 24.7% | Half the repriced lines were at or above approximately this level, half at or below. |
| Combined weighted reduction | 23.2% | The best single measure of documented repricing across all affected recurring lines. |
Value retained
What the revised offers expressly continued
The source evidence matters because it does not show price reduction in isolation. The documented coastal revised offers stated that the existing value-added package would continue.
- Medical response support.
- Meet-and-greet service.
- Holiday patrols, booked on request.
Excluded from the headline
Five ways this result could have been inflated, and was not
- No rand values are published in this public-facing data sheet.
- Zero-cost, free or no-service branch arrangements are not converted into artificial savings.
- Irregular historical invoice amounts are not treated as the recurring baseline without normalisation.
- The modelled effect of supplier escalation is not added on top of the recurring fee reduction as though it were a separate achieved saving.
- Supplier-confirmed offers are not described as processed unless the source evidence explicitly confirms implementation.
Evidence basis
The result was reconciled across branch security mapping, historical monthly fee analysis, the final repricing workbook, supplier confirmations and revised offers, and the project sign-off schedule.
The underlying fee model and supplier evidence drive the published percentage. Confidential values and client and supplier identities are not published.