Security Clearance (SC) Q&A Read first before asking questions

[SimonMac]

Had had SC clearance and it was due to lapse , so started a new job worked on SC site for 8weeks but they did not transfer it from previous and now it has lapsed can I sue the company for not transferring it time, now I have to get another company to sponsor me so have missed out on a good contract which I obtained

Yes you can sue anyone, and 9 times out of 10 you will win as the other party just doesn't bother to show up.

The question to ask is should you sue, that is a different matter.

I could give you a long winded response asking about what the pertinent details of the contract between yourself and the client are (as the original post is lacking of certain key information), which i assume is what you will be suing for breach of contract.

As you can't sue for loss of earnings without proving you would have been out of pocket, as I (again) assume you had told the "good contract" you already had SC which in this case you didn't so that was a lie. (I would need to elaborate on the fact that SC only goes with the role, you do not hold SC, you have a role which requires SC so when you left the original sponsor you gave up your SC).

Anyway back to the original matter, you can sue for breach of contract if the client did not fulfil their obligations, however if they did not transfer the CV I would guess the role at the SC site did not need the clearance (not all roles on an SC site do) and this they did not need to transfer, however the problem would be unless are direct you do not have a contract with the client, you have a contract with the agency in each case, so you can't sue a company for breach of contract when you didn't have a contract.

TL;DR

Don't be such an eejit and move onto the next role

[northernladuk]

The key word is 'in time'. They turn up I court (after you've shelled out a lot of money) and prove it takes longer than you had and you will lose.

[MatKezman]

Risk on taking new post when SC clearance is in doubt

Hi all, Ive read through the posts here and just looking for some advice on taking a chance on a SC cleared job.
Ive been offered a post, and can start on BPSS which has already come through- but I am worried about SC clearance and if I am rejected.

No criminal record, but 6 defaults on my account, all unsecured, and all from the same month in mid 2013 after a split where I basically buried my head in the sand. All in 10k owed, and now all incorporated in a DMP( debt management plan). I have had no adverse credit issues since this date with my other providers.
I intend to detail to the last penny what I am due.

Im giving up a permanent job for this role, moving a significant distance- am I mad for taking such a huge risk, I also read at the start of this thread I would be frog marched out without warning, I know its all situational dependant but I'll never know unless I risk it- any advice out there?

[northernladuk]

Be honest and see what happens. Same advice as all the other situational questions. We just don't know enough to be able to give you any answer, let alone one you might act on.

[MatKezman]

Re: thanks

Yeah your right, thanks for the reply, if there's nothing else to be done than suck it and see is the only way to tell.

[ITmark]

Hi all, Ive read through the posts here and just looking for some advice on taking a chance on a SC cleared job.
Ive been offered a post, and can start on BPSS which has already come through- but I am worried about SC clearance and if I am rejected.

No criminal record, but 6 defaults on my account, all unsecured, and all from the same month in mid 2013 after a split where I basically buried my head in the sand. All in 10k owed, and now all incorporated in a DMP( debt management plan). I have had no adverse credit issues since this date with my other providers.
I intend to detail to the last penny what I am due.

Im giving up a permanent job for this role, moving a significant distance- am I mad for taking such a huge risk, I also read at the start of this thread I would be frog marched out without warning, I know its all situational dependant but I'll never know unless I risk it- any advice out there?

Just be honest and disclose. An old colleague of mine got through with huge debts, all they did for him is give him initial 1 year then he renewed and got 5 year. Main thing about SC is honesty and integrity.

[BlackCountryContractor]

Okay folks help me out here as I'm nearly bambozzled by a odd situation that just occurred:

Work: Your SC clearance is non-transferable

Fellow contractor with same clearance on team: Hey guys got a job on Project X with Agency A but Agency B also doing recruitment for the same job so join me. (We promptly sign up through either agency A or B)

Agency A: Police SC clearance no problem and welcome to the project!

Agency B: SC Clearence not valid.

And I even seen the email from Agency A authorising SC clearance transfer and the other half the team soley applied to Agency B to avoid issues (Due to not wanting to get rejected out of hand if we applied for both) . So my question is Agency B bulltulipting us on SC Clearence not been valid or the coordinator from Agency B lying on matter?

[malvolio]

Police SC has different criteria to MOD SC and Home Office SC. They are not necessarily interchangeable. It could well be one of your agents doesn't know that. No idea which one though, you'll need tho ask the client.

[Quokka]

Police SC has different criteria to MOD SC and Home Office SC. They are not necessarily interchangeable. It could well be one of your agents doesn't know that. No idea which one though, you'll need tho ask the client.

That's not strictly true.

The police do have their own types of vetting - FMV and EMV - which are not equivalent to SC or DV.

They also use national security vettings - the SC and DV. These now only come in three types - MOD (DBS), FCO, and SIA (the intelligence agencies).

SC and DV have a process for 'transferring' - for changing the sponsor. It is slightly more complicated if the sponsor uses a different provider (i.e. they use FCOS not DBS, and it is a List X DBS held SC), but still do-able.

Some sponsors don't like to take on a clearance where the risk decision was maybe made by a different sponsor - for example, the intelligence agencies are known not to transfer in DBS or FCOS clearances, but rather to require a new SIA-managed clearance. This is despite policy stating they are interchangable - that they are done to a common standard - but in practice it is a bit like university degrees. An intelligence agency clearance is a bit Oxbridge, an MOD-sponsored List X one middle of the road, and a Department of Culture sponsored SC will likely get noses turned up... (This is because, although DBS and FCOS produce the vetting report and handle the admin, it is the government-sponsor that makes the ultimate decision on whether to grant the SC or DV - they are the risk owner, and they can be as strict or relaxed as they feel appropriate).

The 'transfer' process is a 'pull' one: the new sponsor has to request the clearance is moved to them. The existing sponsor can block that. I know much of this from having worked inside a government security unit, sat alongside the vetting team, but I also have experience from my own clearance.

For example, I did for many years hold an SC through one of the intelligence agencies, although I was mostly contracting elsewhere. I had one client - BAE Systems - try to transfer the clearance to themselves rather than merely verify it - and then complain to me that the transfer was refused.

However, when the reason for having the SC with the intelligence agency was up, they contacted me and suggested if I was relying on it for any work elsewhere that I should then transfer it.

[malvolio]

That's not strictly true.

The police do have their own types of vetting - FMV and EMV - which are not equivalent to SC or DV.

They also use national security vettings - the SC and DV. These now only come in three types - MOD (DBS), FCO, and SIA (the intelligence agencies).

SC and DV have a process for 'transferring' - for changing the sponsor. It is slightly more complicated if the sponsor uses a different provider (i.e. they use FCOS not DBS, and it is a List X DBS held SC), but still do-able.

Some sponsors don't like to take on a clearance where the risk decision was maybe made by a different sponsor - for example, the intelligence agencies are known not to transfer in DBS or FCOS clearances, but rather to require a new SIA-managed clearance. This is despite policy stating they are interchangable - that they are done to a common standard - but in practice it is a bit like university degrees. An intelligence agency clearance is a bit Oxbridge, an MOD-sponsored List X one middle of the road, and a Department of Culture sponsored SC will likely get noses turned up... (This is because, although DBS and FCOS produce the vetting report and handle the admin, it is the government-sponsor that makes the ultimate decision on whether to grant the SC or DV - they are the risk owner, and they can be as strict or relaxed as they feel appropriate).

The 'transfer' process is a 'pull' one: the new sponsor has to request the clearance is moved to them. The existing sponsor can block that. I know much of this from having worked inside a government security unit, sat alongside the vetting team, but I also have experience from my own clearance.

For example, I did for many years hold an SC through one of the intelligence agencies, although I was mostly contracting elsewhere. I had one client - BAE Systems - try to transfer the clearance to themselves rather than merely verify it - and then complain to me that the transfer was refused.

However, when the reason for having the SC with the intelligence agency was up, they contacted me and suggested if I was relying on it for any work elsewhere that I should then transfer it.

All very true, but it only serves to cloud the substantive point. As I said elsewhere recently :-

As I keep saying it's a risk assessment for a specific set of circumstances. That's why there are no black and white answers. And why a lot of discussion about clearance is actually pretty pointless.