Reply to: Client putting through SC but new contract in the meantime

[malvolio]

Had this earlier this year. Current SC and NPPV3 in place, got approached for a HO role that was interesting so I went for it. HO wouldn't accept a transfer of my current SC (normal practise for them) so said they would put me through a new one.

SC processing took longer than anyone thought (UKSV were seriously backlogged but I think they've cleared things up recently) and the role I was currently on offered me an extension.

Called the agency for the HO role and explained I'd been offered the extension and was taking it - they said they understood but was it ok to keep the HO SC application on the go - I had no problem.

Had a call few months later from the HO agency saying the clearance had come though and was I available? I wasn't, but I've now got a valid HO SC that is useable until next March or April(ish). Plan is to transfer it to my own Ltd company before it expires (I'm a CoreVet sponsor so can hold clearances myself).

My advice: let the SC application run, take the other role. See what happens.

So hardly the typical scenario then, is it...

Clearly the HO want you specifically and will wait until you are available, and YourCo can hold clearances for itself anyway (assuming you are working on sensitive material of course) which a non-sponsored contractor can't.

Every situation has its outliers. I've gained SC in two weeks and NPPV3 in three before now. Then again I worked out in a near 30 year career as a contractor, I've been through clearance 8 times as well as kicking off a whole CO investigation into the system that resulted in where we are now (i.e well defined but largely ignored!). I'll give advice based on the run of the mill, not the extremes.

[David71]

Had this earlier this year. Current SC and NPPV3 in place, got approached for a HO role that was interesting so I went for it. HO wouldn't accept a transfer of my current SC (normal practise for them) so said they would put me through a new one.

SC processing took longer than anyone thought (UKSV were seriously backlogged but I think they've cleared things up recently) and the role I was currently on offered me an extension.

Called the agency for the HO role and explained I'd been offered the extension and was taking it - they said they understood but was it ok to keep the HO SC application on the go - I had no problem.

Had a call few months later from the HO agency saying the clearance had come though and was I available? I wasn't, but I've now got a valid HO SC that is useable until next March or April(ish). Plan is to transfer it to my own Ltd company before it expires (I'm a CoreVet sponsor so can hold clearances myself).

My advice: let the SC application run, take the other role. See what happens.

[SimonMac]

I believe that is the theory yes but in practice it clearly isn't. They wouldn't be asking for active SC clearance and allow transfers if that were true, but they do and there appears to be evidence of people on here transferring SC. So, lets assume I'm aware that could happen and that it may also not transfer between police and defence for example but work on the practice that it is possible for someone that has left a role, is on the bench, applied for a new SC gig within the year and it was possible to transfer, which we have evidence has happened.

It wont transfer between police and defence, as its two difference scheme (police use NPPV not NSV).

Also if you are hoping to get the clearance but not take the role, where do you think the clearance will be transferred from in the future? The team who are putting you through clearance won't continue to hold if if you don't take up the offer.

[SchumiStars]

Out of interest how long does it take to get SC clearence? and then is it another application for DV?

I have read the sticky but just wondering in the current market what the current timescales are.

[Samskills]

really?

Every client I've had that needed SC was happy for me to be in contract, and being paid, whilst waiting for the clearance.
And they can fast track SC if they pay the vetting agency more money. That gets the timing down to around 2-3 weeks.

So you're not all that to them if they are making you wait 5-6 weeks. They'd have you on board already if they really wanted to keep you. There's likely loads of stuff you could be getting on with that doesn't require SC. Reading documentation for a start.

This is the first time in many many SC roles I've ever seen them willing to put through. All the others say the usual 'due to urgent requirement valid SC is required'. No SC and the phone goes dead.

Would be good to know that other clients will do it but this is the first time I've seen it in years.

No chance of starting early without it. It's straight in the deep end so start date has to be after clearance has completed.

[Samskills]

Read it again. If you don't take the gig, you don't get the clearance and the file will be closed. It's only transferable if you have it and used it in a real role. And, as I said, you personally don't get it anyway, the person in the role does.

Aw bum. Thought my plan was a bit too good to be true. Well I've got until late October to make a decision but with the extra money, locality, and duration of gig the outside one is the better. I'll park it and see what happens once it comes through thanks.

[b0redom]

Depending on the role as well, I've also seen people start "at risk" whilst their SC is pending - although it's unlikely you'll have solo access to production systems in that case. It's down to the security controller, the sensitivity of the project and every's attitude to risk IME

[Lance]

Seems win win but really shafts the SC client who have actually tried to do the right thing for a change.

really?

Every client I've had that needed SC was happy for me to be in contract, and being paid, whilst waiting for the clearance.
And they can fast track SC if they pay the vetting agency more money. That gets the timing down to around 2-3 weeks.

So you're not all that to them if they are making you wait 5-6 weeks. They'd have you on board already if they really wanted to keep you. There's likely loads of stuff you could be getting on with that doesn't require SC. Reading documentation for a start.

[malvolio]

The new gig is potentially a long burner. Could be a year or two based in what they are trying to achieve. Yes notice periods, budget and all that but it's a big programme of work.

I get what you are saying Mal. I've read your comments on what is supposed to happen but I need to make a decision on what actually happens and SC is generally transferable in reality.

So do I stick with the long gig, wait until SC is given, decide not to accept and hope SC is still valid. Seems win win but really shafts the SC client who have actually tried to do the right thing for a change.

Read it again. If you don't take the gig, you don't get the clearance and the file will be closed. It's only transferable if you have it and used it in a real role. And, as I said, you personally don't get it anyway, the person in the role does.

[Samskills]

The new gig is potentially a long burner. Could be a year or two based in what they are trying to achieve. Yes notice periods, budget and all that but it's a big programme of work.

I get what you are saying Mal. I've read your comments on what is supposed to happen but I need to make a decision on what actually happens and SC is generally transferable in reality.

So do I stick with the long gig, wait until SC is given, decide not to accept and hope SC is still valid. Seems win win but really shafts the SC client who have actually tried to do the right thing for a change.

[malvolio]

I believe that is the theory yes but in practice it clearly isn't. They wouldn't be asking for active SC clearance and allow transfers if that were true, but they do and there appears to be evidence of people on here transferring SC. So, lets assume I'm aware that could happen and that it may also not transfer between police and defence for example but work on the practice that it is possible for someone that has left a role, is on the bench, applied for a new SC gig within the year and it was possible to transfer, which we have evidence has happened.

I've spent a long time on this - the Cabinet Office guidelines on what is supposed to happen originated with work I was doing for IPSE (PCG as was) twenty years ago. To summarise, bearing in mind this is SC, not DV:

1. You can transfer clearance for a limited period and from a similarly cleared role, if both sides cooperate and if the criteria are fairly closely matched. That is for a year (at most) and is purely a money saving convention.

2. As soon as you leave a role, the clearance lapses. End of. Point 1 only means that having held clearance very recently, you may well not be a security risk.

3. Regardless of both, you are never labelled as "Security Cleared". You may hold a pass that says you can access secure material but you give that back when you leave.

4. You don't need clearance to apply for a role. That is just the agencies being lazy (gosh...)

5. Yes totally agree that the whole rule set is routinely ignored by people who really should (and occasionally do) know better. Its because they are rules and guidelines; they aren't laws because then you would have to document and publish the entire processes, which is kind of against the whole purpose.

So what happens in reality is not what is supposed to happen, Nevertheless when people who have little or no idea of the rules ask questions, I'm not about to do anything other that explain how it is supposed to work so they can fight their own battles.

[Snooky]

I've had a few 3 mothers waiting for things to happen

You rogue!

[hobnob]

In the meantime I've bagged another piece of work at 70 quid a day more and outside, travel to the next city here in the North but three days. No bigge with the travelling really so not a deciding factor.
[..]
it seems daft to give notice on a long solid outside contract just for a lower paid inside SC contract

How long is the alternate contract? If it's for 3 months, I think it would be reasonable to take it, then switch over to the SC contract rather than extending. If it's for 12 months, that won't really work.

I think you can also be upfront with the SC contract. I.e. do they want you to start work as soon as the clearance comes through, or are they willing to wait a while? Since they don't know how long the clearance will take, that implies that they're willing to be flexible, so if you told them "I'm taking a short-term contract and I won't be available until the end of November" then that shouldn't be a problem. If you're upfront with both agencies/clients, that resolves any ethical dilemma.

[PerfectStorm]

The SC is absolutely transferrable as you say - the whole "it dies with the role" thing doesn't match experienced reality. Agents don't speak that language either.

There are sometimes enormous lead times until these roles start - I've had a few 3 mothers waiting for things to happen (on roles that also annoyingly ended sooner than they should've).

My analysis of that way of doing things is that they end up with the people they get. Which isn't the markets best, because the markets best are off getting paid rather than sitting around waiting for a laptop on £0/day for months on end.

[Protagoras]

I assume the thing to do is start the new work, see how it goes and I've got the SC one in the backpocket and make a decision in a few months time. Kind of makes me feel bad waiting right until SC comes through and an offer is made to say thanks but no thanks and they are back to square one after waiting months. I assume most of the forum wouldn't have those quams and would drop it at the time without a second thought. Would anyone take the new job, give it a few weeks and if it looks good turn down the SC cleared role at that point? Is that a stupid idea?

So a client has a role that requires SC, wants a worker and expects the worker to wait until SC is obtained to start work and get paid.

This isn't about morals, it's about a market economy! If said client wants to secure the worker, the worker should be paid and perhaps given other duties pending SC. Or the client accepts the risk that the worker might go elsewhere while the worker accepts the risk that the role may be cancelled.

Simple bird in the hand situation. I don't know about 'most' but I'd take the contract assignment. If after X weeks this is all fine, that's great, and decline the SC worker role. If it's not, there's a fall-back to the worker role with SC if and when it materialises.

Where Contract Rate = (Assignment Rate + £70), this makes the contract engagement pretty much compelling.