MoD Security Clearance

[Incognito]

9 months? I know someone who got DV in less than half that at the start of this year. 9 months is madness.

Clearance is entirely subjective mate, you can't base how long it took Joe Bloggs to get cleared on how long it will take Fred Smith.

[SuperZ]

Some of the public sector roles you see are just re-tendering exercises. Sorry to piss on your fire, but you aren't ever going to get them because they already have someone and they cannot renew their contract without re-tendering the role. It's about government procurement 'rules'.

So the "SC preferred" is just a candidate filter. They really want to filter to zero, with the help of some obscure minor 'skills' as well.

Yep, witnessed that first hand. Five interviewed were just never going to get the contract as the decision was already made, even before the agencies on the PSL were informed of the requirement. That`s life and it happens everywhere (private sector also) and there`s nothing wrong with it either if the person is already the perfect candidate for the contract, just a shame the processes in place mean peoples time has to be wasted.

[malvolio]

No, you wrote a skewed viewpoint that centres on the outside looking in.

I was working in the Cabinet Office at the time...

I'd disagree that your skills are industry neutral. Managing an implemenation for Toys r Us is a bit different to managing a program putting 5000 desktops out in the middle of Iraq with a conflict going on.

That's what you do, is it? I only worked on DII Implementation planning (not that that's anything to be proud of since EDS got hold of it) and had a lead role on assorted minor service implementations, like CAPITAL. You don't know my work history so stop with the cheap jibes.


As for the rest, (a) I do know the rules, having recruited both Civil Servants and contractors into MOD and other places and (b) if you'd stop talking like a spoiled 10 year old I might listen.

Bye bye.

[Incognito]

That's what you do, is it? I only worked on DII Implementation planning (not that that's anything to be proud of since EDS got hold of it) and had a lead role on assorted minor service implementations, like CAPITAL. You don't know my work history so stop with the cheap jibes.


As for the rest, (a) I do know the rules, having recruited both Civil Servants and contractors into MOD and other places and (b) if you'd stop talking like a spoiled 10 year old I might listen.

Bye bye.

It wasn't a jibe at you, it was using an example of 2 roles where the skill sets clearly don't match. One commercial, one defence using the example of programme management and Service Delivery. This was not a discussion on why you in particular can't seem to get a role within the sector, although I suspect this is more the reason why you have your cross to bear.

Sure you know the rules, just as I pointed out in my post.

And I'm not the spoiled 10 year old, you see I have a job in the sector, I'm not the one whining about the rules.

Bye Bye.

[SuperZ]

Malv seems a decent enough fella but his SC related posts to reek a bit of "me me me", and he ruined it a little when talking about paying his taxes and therefore entitled to a role in public sector although it wasn`t quite put like that .

I understand where he is coming from also though. However, I know lots of people who have got themselves re-cleared in the past, even after leaving the public sector for a while. As Malv seems to have an long term ongoing cross to bear,maybe it is a case of the skills not matching what the public sector wants or there isn`t a big enough demand and therefore they`re just not willing to sponsor clearance for the type of position Malv wants.

As mentioned in my other post, some clients that used to clear people no longer do it and it`s not down to the current economy as this happened a few years ago. There are now more candidiates SC cleared than five years ago. Even if everything is changed to match what Malv recommends, it`s still aeasier to pluck a candidates out of the pool of candidates already with SC clearance, it`s simply less hassle and always will be. People are getting cleared though, a few on here only recently I believe went through the process, so it`s not as cut off as it seems to some.

[malvolio]

You guys are missing the whole point.

Clearly if there are two candidates with roughly similar qualifications and experience in the role, nobody would choose the uncleared over the cleared. Who neds the extra hassle?

However, if there is someone out there who is better qualified and/or more experienced and most likely worth the hassle to get him on board, nobody will ever know, because he would not be allowed to apply.

Now tell me that's fair. Or even reasonable

[Mr.Whippy]

Clearance is entirely subjective mate, you can't base how long it took Joe Bloggs to get cleared on how long it will take Fred Smith.

I know mate, my comparison wasn't Joe Bloggs v A.N.Other, but of a full DV in 14 weeks against an SC that is still in progress after 9 months. He must be a right dodgy.....

[SuperZ]

You guys are missing the whole point.

Clearly if there are two candidates with roughly similar qualifications and experience in the role, nobody would choose the uncleared over the cleared. Who neds the extra hassle?

However, if there is someone out there who is better qualified and/or more experienced and most likely worth the hassle to get him on board, nobody will ever know, because he would not be allowed to apply.

Now tell me that's fair. Or even reasonable

I don`t think they really care though, they just want someone to do the job now and it doesn`t have to be the best person on the market hence why contract interviews are less formal. The same is also the case for other sectors. A friend has worked with investment banks and admits himself he`s not the best around yet the big paying contracts land on his doorstep constantly! I`m better qualified, due to my past I have a keen interest in finance, more enthusiastic and even my friend admits I`m the better candidate but I`ve never got a look in, due to no recent experience in the sector.

With public sector people can complain, not much can be done with the private sector. It`s life, life isn`t always fair, focus on sectors where you can get a look in.

If clients wanted the best candidates, we all probably agree that using agencies probably isn`t the best way to do that anyway. Last time I looked for a contract one agency played the game of "okay, I`ll put you forward but I can`t tell you who the client is, but if anyone calls you about a contract in surrey don`t apply for it because I will have put you forward already". I could havebeen the best candidate but that agency tried to stop me applying via another agency. In fact that`s probably why he called me because he knew I was a strong candidate but he had probably already used up his quota

I`ve been told to move into fiance I should go permie. Maybe you should consider the same? If I want SC again in the future I would consider going permie to get it. As a permanent employee you may get 10 years instead of just 5

So what does a government org do when the need someone to start quickly for a SC related project of x months length, be up and running quickly, used to the civil service ways, likely to be less risky and totally trust worthy, and simply less hassle(no escorting), with zero chance of them being pulled off the project because they have failed the clearance process? They hire someone already SC .cleared, simples. They may not be the very best for the job, but they`re good enough to get the job done, which is often the case for most contracts.

Anyway, good luck

[gingerjedi]

Life is full of barriers why pick on this instance?

I know the score with SC and made it a priority to use it at least once within every 12 month period. I'm a bit peeved that I was knocked back for a DV role despite being a perfect fit and knowing the the network manager but I understand why.

In these lean times should the government waste money clearing people when there's plenty about already?

[George Parr]

In these lean times should the government waste money clearing people when there's plenty about already?

I for one would be more than happy to pay for my own clearance but of course I cannot.

Perhaps I should get a permie job with the Government to get clearance then leave, really wasting their time and money

I don't think there is plenty of cleared candidates about already, I have been refused contracts for which I am perfectly qualified because of this, jobs that I see continually re-advertised at above market rates.

The government has a responsibility to get the best people for the job, not the best from a subsection of the talent pool. Artificially restricting the market is in no-one's interest, other than those holding clearence already.

Clearance should be a right for those who are eligible and willing to pay a fee to cover the costs involved, the same as getting a passport or a driving license is a right. At the very least, evidence of being denied a role due to lack of clearance should be reason enough to process an application from a Contractor's own Ltd Co.

Staff shortages at the DVA is a tulip excuse as additional posts could be funded by the fees generated. Compare this with the vast number of waste of space public sector jobs this Government has created that achive nothing for the economy.

The shortage of cleared contractors also leads to the strange setup where SC and DV cleared individuals use their clearance as a marketing advantage and can be searched for in a CV database, how crazy is that form a national security perspective?

Well done Malvolio BTW, keep up the good work