The short answer
Guard performance should be verified through multiple controls: schedule and attendance monitoring, field supervision, report review, patrol or checkpoint records, client feedback, incident follow-up, and documented coaching. No single GPS point, time clock, or site visit proves that every duty was performed correctly.
What to know
The contract should identify who supervises the assignment, how that person can be reached, how often field checks occur, who reviews reports, and how missed duties or conduct concerns are corrected. Supervisors should compare actual work with the post orders, examine recurring incidents and hazards, confirm officers understand revisions, and document corrective action. Larger assignments may also need an on-site lead or shift supervisor with defined authority.
Arrow’s property-management page describes supervisor site inspections and a custom daily activity reporting app that captures officer location when nightly reports are completed. Those are useful accountability layers, but clients should confirm what is current: whether checks are scheduled or unannounced, whether GPS records routes or only report locations, what alerts exist, and how the client sees results. Performance reviews should include qualitative measures such as report accuracy, professional interaction, escalation judgment, hazard identification, and timely communication—not just whether an officer checked in. A regular client review closes the loop between data, service problems, and improvements.