Reply to: SC required but start date 1 month off.

[Mr.Whippy]

I know someone who was canned because he failed the DV vetting process, he admitted to downloading the odd movie to watch on holiday.

I also heard of someone who was canned from a DV role for having a stolen tax disc, he'd only bought the car weeks before and had no idea.

Those things might not necessarily have been why they failed DV though. As far as I know, they won't tell you why.

As for contractors getting DV, I know a couple who've managed to get sponsored for it recently....Jammy so and so's....

[gingerjedi]

I worked with two last year who were going through the process.

One was canned about 7 months into the vetting process, the other one was canned about 5 weeks after getting it.

Genius planning.

I know someone who was canned because he failed the DV vetting process, he admitted to downloading the odd movie to watch on holiday.

I also heard of someone who was canned from a DV role for having a stolen tax disc, he'd only bought the car weeks before and had no idea.

[The Wikir Man]

Having SC doesn't help when applying for DV roles at the moment even if you've been DV cleared before. I've only heard of permies getting DV cleared recently, you have no chance as a contractor.

I worked with two last year who were going through the process.

One was canned about 7 months into the vetting process, the other one was canned about 5 weeks after getting it.

Genius planning.

[gingerjedi]

Here's another.

This time client wont wait to sponsor applicants. No, but they'll sure take my ******* taxes! No waiting there, eh!?


DV Cleared Test Analyst
Contract
An opportunity has arisen for a test analyst who currently holds DV level security clearance.

Technically you will have a good knowledge of Windows security technologies and a familiarity with Test Director and Quality Center.

You should also be ISEB certified and ideally have an understanding of Military systems.

Key to the role is DV level clearance, candidates will not be considered unless they hold this currently as the client is not willing to sponsor individuals.
Location Berkshire
Country UK
Start Date ASAP
Duration 3 months +
Rate Name your price

Strictly speaking DV should lapse with the role so there shouldn't be any DV cleared people looking for work unless they're already in a DV role which means government agencies are poaching from within. In reality they say 6 months leeway is given as the clearance can easily be resurrected in that time, any longer and you might as well of never had it.

Having SC doesn't help when applying for DV roles at the moment even if you've been DV cleared before. I've only heard of permies getting DV cleared recently, you have no chance as a contractor.

[BolshieBastard]

Here's another.

This time client wont wait to sponsor applicants. No, but they'll sure take my ******* taxes! No waiting there, eh!?


DV Cleared Test Analyst
Contract
An opportunity has arisen for a test analyst who currently holds DV level security clearance.

Technically you will have a good knowledge of Windows security technologies and a familiarity with Test Director and Quality Center.

You should also be ISEB certified and ideally have an understanding of Military systems.

Key to the role is DV level clearance, candidates will not be considered unless they hold this currently as the client is not willing to sponsor individuals.
Location Berkshire
Country UK
Start Date ASAP
Duration 3 months +
Rate Name your price

[malvolio]

They better have a budget for that. Part of the tender process includes the requirement to reserve funds to manage clearance for staff when necessary, and that includes the costs for uncleared staff (including an allownce for escort duties, incidentally...). If they haven't got the money, they are in breach of thier contract.

[TykeMerc]

Of course one thing that people never mention in these debates is that the Client may not have a budget to pay to get people cleared. I realise it's not that much, but it's still money they don't have to find if they get candidates that're already cleared.

Plus no risk of the cost/time involved in hiring a replacement or bringing a new person upto speed if the original fails clearance.

[Wanderer]

The agencies should be able to submit the CVs and let the client have the argument about clearance when they have a workable shortlist.

Perhaps the agent and client shouldn't be allowed to know if a worker has clearance or not when they are considered for interview? That way the decision about suitability could be made purely on the merits of the consultant.

Previous projects on the CV could hint at clearance though...

[Worzel]

What I object to, is not being able to be considered for an interview because the SC I held has lapsed or I dont have SC but the next chap has.

This has always been the case though and it's as much to do with the mindset of agents as anything else. Theres no way they'll take a punt on a non-cleared candidate unless they have no cleared candidates left - very unlikely in this market!

[BolshieBastard]

Just to be clear, I know the rules, both theoretically and from practical experience recruiting teams into the MOD. I also authored the original white paper that was the trigger for the recent clarification of the rules issued by the Cabinet Office (it took a few years, but then we were working in civil service time). I'm continuing to chip away at the subject.

I also accept the need to be pragmatic; while there is over supply of workers, of course some are going to lose out. Doesn't make it right though.

And the underlying problem that HMG projects are probably not seeing the best qualified staff for a given role still stands. The agencies should be able to submit the CVs and let the client have the argument about clearance when they have a workable shortlist. If there is a high quality but uncleared candidate in that list, I'll give you good odds the clearance problem will go away. However, as it stands, that guy wouldn't even be in the room. Tha's what the argument is about.

WHS. It is, in a nutshell, what the argument is about.

At the moment, its doesnt matter how good a prospective candidate is for the role, its all about whether the candidate has SC. As you say, without it, you wont even get to the interview.

I've no problem with someone getting an interview instead of me where they have a necessary skillset or they are better than me (although it always pisses one off to be rejected).

What I object to, is not being able to be considered for an interview because the SC I held has lapsed or I dont have SC but the next chap has.

This is clearly not a skillset decision.

[malvolio]

Just to be clear, I know the rules, both theoretically and from practical experience recruiting teams into the MOD. I also authored the original white paper that was the trigger for the recent clarification of the rules issued by the Cabinet Office (it took a few years, but then we were working in civil service time). I'm continuing to chip away at the subject.

I also accept the need to be pragmatic; while there is over supply of workers, of course some are going to lose out. Doesn't make it right though.

And the underlying problem that HMG projects are probably not seeing the best qualified staff for a given role still stands. The agencies should be able to submit the CVs and let the client have the argument about clearance when they have a workable shortlist. If there is a high quality but uncleared candidate in that list, I'll give you good odds the clearance problem will go away. However, as it stands, that guy wouldn't even be in the room. Tha's what the argument is about.

[SuperZ]

Bollocks. By that logic nobody would ever get a new starter in the Civil Service.

No as I said, 8 weeks start date, sure, anyone should be able to apply and be cleared before they start. First time I applied, I had to sit on the bench for 6 or 7 weeks as the well respected government service decided themselves that it was not practical to have me on site. What rules? Should I have stated to them to read these rules and then demand they put me on site, paying me a contract rate while their own staff then become less efficient due to escorting me everywhere and ensuring I don't read certain docs or have any access to certain systems etc. Should I have just sat there for 6 or 7 weeks?

You believe too much of these rules, probably designed to keep people quiet (I say jokingly)In my experience reality is a little different, and understandably so. Full management backing as we all know can be a little BS, such as not really understanding the implications.
However, if an org is recruiting say 10 folks then sure, yeah, they can justify setting up a special room and sticking them all in there until their clearances comes through, accompanied by an escort. And yes I know that has been done.

I do kinda agree with you, about being able to apply. But what difference would that make in reality. ANd who is the dickhead? The agency (who may only be going on what the client has given him), or the client co procurement (who should be followiing the rules).
And yes, as a previous cleared person yourself I agree you should be getting through to the client, especially in the case where you couldn't return to do the work you had previously started.

Who knows I may be complaining myself soon, but I doubt it. I work with some good agencies who I know will put me forward to clients without clearance with good justification to the clients. So if I want clearance again, I'm sure I'll get it. Good agency connections are worth having.

More concerning is the fact that some permanent roles are advertised with the SC requirement. The related agents and client co reps should be hung and quartered

[ratewhore]

That ad does not meet the guidelines set by the DVA, and for DII(F), the DVA IS the relevant clearance authority.

Sentinel IT is, I believe, a small company so probably doesn't understand the requirements it should be working under in terms of security clearance...

[malvolio]

Forget all the rubbish about being able to work on-site while the clearance is going through, in most cases that isn't practical and quite understandably so.

Bollocks. By that logic nobody would ever get a new starter in the Civil Service.

The rules for uncleared personnel on site are there and supported by a full management process. Also, if you bother to read the Cabinet Office guidelines, they state clearly that pre-clearance will be required in a very small proportion of cases, basically those where informed supervision cannot be given.

More to the point, I'm quite willing to lose a job to a better qualified candidate, it happens to everyone. What I object to - and what the whole point of this debate is about - is not being able to present my credentials in the first place because of the actions of some dickhead who can't be bothered to follow the rules.

[northernladuk]

You are forgetting a very important point here. Applying DOES NOT automatically mean you will get it. You put a guy thru and 30 days later he fails. Where does that leave youl!