Security clearance!!!

[sparkymark]

Clearance requirements on posts



I could understand if people were complaining that they have been refused a permanent position on the grounds that they don't have security clearance ( that would be unfair ), but this is about HMG posts for contractors.

Isn't a posted advert a request for a contracting company to provide a suitable resource to fulfill a short term need. If my company has an employee fitting the bill & yours doesn't then that is to my companies advantage.

Why should an agency waste their time & effort representing your company in the hope that the resource you provide may ( or more importantly may not ) pass vetting? Maybe the way around this whole issue is to have the agency take a deposit to cover the vetting fee, refundable on succesful contract signing. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasted effort.

As a colleague stated - "This is a business to business relationship"

[TheFaQQer]

Why should an agency waste their time & effort representing your company in the hope that the resource you provide may ( or more importantly may not ) pass vetting? Maybe the way around this whole issue is to have the agency take a deposit to cover the vetting fee, refundable on succesful contract signing. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasted effort.

The reason that they should do it is because that is what the government guidelines say they should do! In an attempt to open up the closed-shop of SC cleared roles, the Cabinet Office issued guidelines to agencies and the appropriate government departments that said that the only time they are allowed to say that you must be already cleared is if the work is of such a short-term nature that it will be completed before clearance is through (SLA is 6 weeks, IIRC).

Certain government departments have bemoaned the fact that some of the contractors they get are not up to the job - but they are handicapped by the agencies that refuse to even consider someone who is not cleared.

FWIW, I'm already cleared, so I don't really care about it (at the moment). But I still report the adverts because I believe that (as a taxpayer) I want government projects to be using the best resources possible, rather than picking from a small pool.

[SuperZ]

time they are allowed to say that you must be already cleared is if the work is of such a short-term nature that it will be completed before clearance is through (SLA is 6 weeks, IIRC).

Isn't it also the case if an immediate start is required <x days, not just if the position is likely to end before clearance is gained?

I still think this is not just the agencies, if clients made it clear to agencies that candidates don;t have to be cleared, well I don't think 90% of agencies would be advertising for SC cleared folks only.

Personally my experience in the past of working with SC cleared IT contract staff is that they have been very capable, but less so for the permies already on site (often there just for a job and been moved from other areas of the business so IT might not be their bag).

I sometimes see permanent positions advertise with "must be SC cleared" - now that is totally unacceptable

[BolshieBastard]

I could understand if people were complaining that they have been refused a permanent position on the grounds that they don't have security clearance ( that would be unfair ), but this is about HMG posts for contractors.

Isn't a posted advert a request for a contracting company to provide a suitable resource to fulfill a short term need. If my company has an employee fitting the bill & yours doesn't then that is to my companies advantage.

Why should an agency waste their time & effort representing your company in the hope that the resource you provide may ( or more importantly may not ) pass vetting? Maybe the way around this whole issue is to have the agency take a deposit to cover the vetting fee, refundable on succesful contract signing. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasted effort.

As a colleague stated - "This is a business to business relationship"

What 'more time' does an agency waste when submitting a contractor for an SC role than they would for any other role where the contractor may not have some element of the job spec? None!

The agency doesnt do any more work. The agency doesnt perform any of the SC vetting.

When I went for a role with the Home office CRB, I had no clearance. I was successful at the interview and got the role. I was submitted for SC on the job which came through after about 10 - 14 days.

In any event as Faqqer states, its the Vetting Agency who issue the guidelines that not having SC shouldnt be an obstacle.

I dont think anyone has a problem with someone already having SC for an urgent role but, even that can be manipulated to appear urgent and circumvent the guidelines.

And really, what level of SC is required and how important is it? Yes, for an MOD role it may be important but, I know for a fact that some Government Dept's admin are asking for SC clearance (again, what level?) for some basic roles.

In other words, the SC level required is very low and wouldnt prevent anyone working on site while waiting for SC.

[malvolio]

Just to add to that, most clearances are risk assessed anyway. If the sponsor believes you have a reasonable chance of gaining clearance - say, for example, you have held it befiore - he is perfectly at liberty to allow you on site pending clearance coming through. There are established and well understood processes for managing that scenario.

The problem is not HMG, it is both the prime contractors and the agencies (who, to be fair, are only doing what their clients ask for). The gradual erosion of the skills available to HMG by recycling the same old tired faces has been noted and needs to be addressed.

The rules are pragmatic and fair. What we need iis for people to work to them. And there are very few places where you need high-level clearance to get through the door.

[TheFaQQer]

I've had SC three times now.

First time - probably needed it.

Second time - definitely didn't need it. Never saw anything that was protectively marked. Probably needed CTC based on the client, but not SC.

Third time - definitely needed it.

I now need to apply again for CTC (even though I already have SC) because the department "likes to do their own checks". So, I need to apply and wait to get clearance that is lower than the clearance I already have

[BolshieBastard]

Just to add to that, most clearances are risk assessed anyway. If the sponsor believes you have a reasonable chance of gaining clearance - say, for example, you have held it befiore - he is perfectly at liberty to allow you on site pending clearance coming through. There are established and well understood processes for managing that scenario.

The problem is not HMG, it is both the prime contractors and the agencies (who, to be fair, are only doing what their clients ask for). The gradual erosion of the skills available to HMG by recycling the same old tired faces has been noted and needs to be addressed.

The rules are pragmatic and fair. What we need iis for people to work to them. And there are very few places where you need high-level clearance to get through the door.

I agree agents and clients need to work to them. I mean the ultimate scenario for this is that there are insufficient UK contractors with SC so we get a load of intra company transfers or SC work effectively offshored.

I know that wont happen but, its the end result if they carry on as they do. And how ludicrous would that be?

[malvolio]

Pretty ludicrous, I agree. Except ICTs won't get the work, since they'll fail the residency qualification. so not all bad news then...

[SuperZ]

I agree agents and clients need to work to them. I mean the ultimate scenario for this is that there are insufficient UK contractors with SC so we get a load of intra company transfers or SC work effectively offshored.

I know that wont happen but, its the end result if they carry on as they do. And how ludicrous would that be?

Wouldn't happen.
Regarding insufficient contactors, I believe they would open the doors a bit more if that really was the case. The last time I had SC was when there was a shortage, so even though there was an urgent requirement the client waited 7 or so weeks for me. I didn't know I needed it until after the interview.In recent years though (recession times) I believe there has been a good pool of SC cleared candidates to chose from and during such times I doubt I would have found a contract that would given me the clearance. Post recession, when the clearance for many might have probably expired ,I expect more opportunities to get SC cleared and advice to others is to pursue that route if they want. However, when other sectors pick up I expect many simple go back to their own kind of expertise sectors.
The agency/client who worked with me back then these days both prefer candidates with SC and I'm assuming that has been led by the client, because I see no reason really why the agency would start requesting SC cleared contractors otherwise when they had sole supplier privilege.

[The Agents View]

What 'more time' does an agency waste when submitting a contractor for an SC role than they would for any other role where the contractor may not have some element of the job spec? None

Well Any agent who is doing that, is not a very good agent. If you don't supply what the client wants/needs, then you won't get the deal. End of. Putting you forward for an urgent job, requiring SC clearance would be a waste of my time.

The agency doesnt do any more work. The agency doesnt perform any of the SC vetting.

No - But they do end up waiting for 6 weeks for the clearance - by which point, contractors have got bored of waiting - again, it's just a waste of time if we're not going to get paid on it.

When I went for a role with the Home office CRB, I had no clearance. I was successful at the interview and got the role. I was submitted for SC on the job which came through after about 10 - 14 days.

You got lucky - I've seen SC clearance take 90 days easily.

I dont think anyone has a problem with someone already having SC for an urgent role but, even that can be manipulated to appear urgent and circumvent the guidelines.

Do you have a solution to this? If not - why bother bringing it up? Give us solutions, not problems.

And really, what level of SC is required and how important is it? Yes, for an MOD role it may be important but, I know for a fact that some Government Dept's admin are asking for SC clearance (again, what level?) for some basic roles.

In other words, the SC level required is very low and wouldnt prevent anyone working on site while waiting for SC.

If the client wants it, then they need it - there is a case for pushing back, but that comes at a stage where you have a good relationship with the stakeholder - not when you're working across an organisation.