Working on a SCIF Project and Unsure You’re Interpreting the Requirements Correctly?
- Phil
- Jan 21
- 3 min read
SCIF projects rarely fail because teams aren’t capable.
They struggle because requirements are complex, guidance is sometimes ambiguous, and expectations are not always communicated clearly. Even experienced teams can reach a point where they ask a quiet but important question:
Are we actually right about this?
If you’re working on a SCIF project, SAPF project, or Open Storage Area project and uncertainty is creeping in, you’re not alone
Secure Facility Requirements Aren’t Always Clear
ICD 705 and related secure facility requirements are detailed — but they are not always straightforward.
Teams often encounter:
requirements that feel inconsistent with past experience
guidance that appears open to interpretation
reviewer comments that are unclear or conflicting
design or construction decisions that feel risky, but hard to validate
In these moments, pushing forward without clarity can introduce unnecessary risk. Stopping completely isn’t usually an option either.
What teams often need is independent validation.
Why Validation Matters in Secure Facility and SCIF Projects
Validation isn’t about second-guessing your team.
It’s about confirming that:
interpretations are defensible
decisions align with applicable requirements
risks are understood and managed
assumptions will hold up under review
In secure facility work, confidence is not enough — credibility matters.
Owners, customers, and authorities are often less concerned with perfection than they are with whether teams understand what they’re doing and can explain it clearly.
Where Teams Commonly Seek Validation
In our work, teams most often seek validation when:
design decisions have security implications
construction approaches differ from expectations
feedback from reviewers is unclear or contradictory
an expert is required by contract or expected by the customer
internal teams want confirmation before proceeding further
These moments are inflection points. How they’re handled can affect schedule, cost, and credibility.
Independent Perspective Can Change the Conversation
Bringing in an independent expert can help teams:
confirm whether current approaches align with requirements
identify gaps before they become larger issues
clarify what actually needs to change — and what doesn’t
prepare for discussions with owners, customers, or authorities
move forward with greater confidence and alignment
Importantly, good validation support is collaborative, not adversarial.
The goal is not to assign blame or rewrite the project — it’s to help teams make informed, defensible decisions.
How PSC Supports Secure Facility Validation & Advisory
PSC provides Secure Facility Validation & Advisory services to support teams working on SCIF, SAPF, and Open Storage Area projects when independent perspective and clarity are needed.
This work typically includes:
independent review of requirements interpretation
assessment of design or construction alignment
identification of risks and gaps
practical guidance on corrective options
support for technical discussions and coordination
Our role is not to replace your team, but to work alongside it — helping restore clarity and confidence when it matters most.
A Simple Question Worth Asking
If you’re in the middle of a secure facility project, it’s worth asking:
Are we confident in our interpretation — or just hoping it’s correct?
Would an independent perspective help us move forward more effectively?
Are we addressing uncertainty early, or carrying it downstream?
These questions are often easier to address sooner rather than later.
Need a Second Set of Eyes on a Secure Facility Project?
If you’re working on a SCIF, SAPF, or Open Storage Area project and want experienced, independent perspective, Secure Facility Validation & Advisory may be appropriate.
Comments