The short answer
Most construction sites should not select armed or unarmed coverage from the value of the equipment alone. The decision should follow a documented risk assessment that considers credible threats, previous violent incidents, location, overnight activity, public access, the officer’s expected duties, client policy, insurance requirements, and the likely consequences of introducing a firearm into the environment.
What to know
Unarmed officers can provide many core functions: visible deterrence, access control, patrols, delivery logs, observation, documentation, and prompt notification of police or site management. Armed coverage may be appropriate when a qualified assessment identifies a level of violent risk that warrants it. An armed assignment also requires careful post orders, properly licensed personnel, supervision, and clear use-of-force expectations. In Arizona, an armed security guard must meet state registration and firearms-training requirements; an armed guard is not given police authority merely by carrying a firearm.
The security provider, project leadership, safety team, insurer, and legal counsel should make the decision together when risk is significant. Arrow offers both armed and unarmed officers, but the final recommendation should be based on the specific jobsite—not a blanket rule.