Agency & DV

[Peter Loew]

I applied for a role yesterday and got a callback this morning saying that because I only have SC, I would not be considered for the role at this moment in time because they are only considering the applicant with DV clearance, as required by the role.

I feel so inferior!

P

[malvolio]

I applied for a role yesterday and got a callback this morning saying that because I only have SC, I would not be considered for the role at this moment in time because they are only considering the applicant with DV clearance, as required by the role.

I feel so inferior!

P

You should feel bloody annoyed, actually. That is against Cabinet Office guidellines, even more so if you have SC already. Report them to the DVA - won't do any good, but it will strengthen PCG's ongoing case that the rules are being openly ignored and most contractors are shut out of a large part of the market.

[Peter Loew]

You should feel bloody annoyed, actually. That is against Cabinet Office guidellines, even more so if you have SC already. Report them to the DVA - won't do any good, but it will strengthen PCG's ongoing case that the rules are being openly ignored and most contractors are shut out of a large part of the market.

I agree completely. I am annoyed because I am more than capable of doing the role advertised.

Do you know the process for reporting them to the DVA?

[malvolio]

I agree completely. I am annoyed because I am more than capable of doing the role advertised.

Do you know the process for reporting them to the DVA?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...tTheAgency.htm

Main website is at www.dva.mod.uk BTW

[Peter Loew]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...tTheAgency.htm

Main website is at www.dva.mod.uk BTW

Thanks. I will do.

P

[ratewhore]

There are certain sensitive agencies (including parts of the cabinet office) where you will not be considered if you do not currently have a live DV clearance.

That's life and also, imho, understandable.

[malvolio]

There are certain sensitive agencies (including parts of the cabinet office) where you will not be considered if you do not currently have a live DV clearance.

That's life and also, imho, understandable.

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the Cabinet Office, GCHQ and Thames House on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

[ratewhore]

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the Cabinet Office, GCHQ and Thames House on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

Blimey, that was a bit sharp Mal. When I said 'that's life', I meant that is the way it is.

Consider the alternative, the PCG are successful in getting the rules adhered to. Whoever is reviewing CV's will bin it straight away, as is their prerogative, net gain = zero.

[malvolio]

Blimey, that was a bit sharp Mal. When I said 'that's life', I meant that is the way it is.

Consider the alternative, the PCG are successful in getting the rules adhered to. Whoever is reviewing CV's will bin it straight away, as is their prerogative, net gain = zero.

And build up a history of that happneing - just like we've done over the last year since the rule changes an their ineffectiveness - and agencies will be getting sued for restraint of trade.

It's not going to change quickly, obviously, but it must change. The agencies are only doing what they're told, so we'll go after the prime contractors. Believe me, HMG are getting seriously teed off at not being able to fill crucial roles when there are people out there who can do them.

Anyway, I don't do "That's life". If its wrong we should try and change it.

[ratewhore]

And build up a history of that happneing - just like we've done over the last year since the rule changes an their ineffectiveness - and agencies will be getting sued for restraint of trade.

It's not going to change quickly, obviously, but it must change. The agencies are only doing what they're told, so we'll go after the prime contractors. Believe me, HMG are getting seriously teed off at not being able to fill crucial roles when there are people out there who can do them.

Anyway, I don't do "That's life". If its wrong we should try and change it.

While I think it is admirable what the PCG are doing, I don't believe it will change anything and I certainly can't see agencies getting sued for restraint of trade.

All IMHO of course...