Reply to: Current Market for Security Cleared Engineers (Windows Server)

[smatty]

That's true it'll be an easy migration for anyone who has their security in order, properly documented and a network provider who won't gouge them for the change of service.

Call me a pessimist but....

[DaveB]

I reckon they would just claim to be implementing the govts austerity policy, especially given the budget slashing and amount of cash govt organisations are being told to spend on changes like GSi->PSN migration, GSC, etc.

The Cabinet Office can issue as much guidance as they want but there is only so much money in the pot.

Slight point of order. Transition from GCF to PSN is only costing money if the organisations involved have been dragging their feet in their security obligations in the past. The requirements under the old GSi and GCSx codes are close enough to PSN that compliance with the old regime would give compliance with the new one. The major change is that that the PSN regime is actively enforced and failure to comply carries consequences. Organisations having to spend money on compliance now are having to do so because they didn't spend it previously. In part this is due to failings in the compliance regime under GCF but they still knew what they were supposed to do, and didn't.

GSC is an interesting one in that unless you are handling material subject to the SENSITIVE caveat or marked as SECRET or above you don't actually need a mechanism. To enforce the marking scheme as there is no official marking at OFFICIAL, so it should actually be easier to implement. Actually educating people about it and getting correct behaviours established is another matter of course.

[mornando]

Erm...nope, quite a bit more, actually?

It depends what role you are offered and on what site. I said upwards of 300 a day. That means it COULD be quite a bit more but some are on that rate.

The ATLAS project are recruiting every man and his dog with SC at the minute. That's why the OP is struggling to recruit.

[Scruff]

Defence projects are offering in excess of £300 a day...There is your answer.

Erm...nope, quite a bit more, actually?

[mornando]

Defence projects are offering in excess of £300 a day...There is your answer.

[Brenning]

So did the OP find their SC cleared Engineers? Only ask as I might be interested....

[smatty]

More guidance from the cabinet office just issued.

link

Interesting bit in it:
Contractors will - Refer to PCG guidance regarding the information which will be needed, in order to
complete vetting forms.

[psychocandy]

Are you sure this isn't just a reason they picked on because the excuse that you are Welsh is illegal?

Or perhaps because I shag sheep?

[northernladuk]

EXACTLY. Does my chiunk in?

I've been knocked back for SC roles becuase my SC has expired.

3 months later you still see it on jobserve.

Are you sure this isn't just a reason they picked on because the excuse that you are Welsh is illegal?

[psychocandy]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if anyone tested it in court though.

As per my other post, if its just a guideline every single client will ignore it becuase its inconvenient for them and only applies to 'less critical' instances in their head and not them at all.

Cant see how to test it in court though? Pimp refused to send my CV, or client chucked it in the bin because I didnt have SC. Impossible to prove.

[psychocandy]

You know it is illegal to advertise for SC cleared people only? Why aren't you looking for people and then put them through the clearance?

Totally agree with you. Its nuts but I bet if you go on jobserve now there'll be literally 100s advertised where it says you must have current clearance.

I've argued with agents who've spoken to clients until Im blue in the face about this and the fact it doesnt take that long. I guess it all comes from the clients attitude that I want a contractor, they've got to be SC, and I cant wait.

Just an extension of usual client attitude I guess. You know the ones - interview today start tomorrow or else (and forget about the contract!).

Then again, are clients aware of this rule or do they even care? Im betting most clients in this situation convince themselves that their piece of work is so special and so urgent that they cant possibly wait.

After all, ever been to a client whos told you that the work they want you for is easy, their systems are straightforward, and theres no rush? IMHO, every client is convinced they're got the most urgent, important work in the world on the most complex, involved system known to man. Never is though.

[psychocandy]

Have you considered:
Do they 'really' need SC? e.g. are they likely to work on systems where data requiring SC is accessible?
Can you get somebody in with BPSS whilst you wait for SC to be processed?
What does your security officer think?

I recently had a contract where most of the permies had SC but didn't really need it. I was on BPSS for the whole time which took about the same time as my QDOS contract review.

It may also get to a point where you've spent so much time on interviewing a tiny pool of unsuitable candidates, that you could have put the ideal one through full SC in the time wasted.

EXACTLY. Does my chiunk in?

I've been knocked back for SC roles becuase my SC has expired.

3 months later you still see it on jobserve.

[smatty]

I reckon they would just claim to be implementing the govts austerity policy, especially given the budget slashing and amount of cash govt organisations are being told to spend on changes like GSi->PSN migration, GSC, etc.

The Cabinet Office can issue as much guidance as they want but there is only so much money in the pot.

[northernladuk]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if anyone tested it in court though.

[northernladuk]

TF is quite correct as usual... And I am wrong as usual..

It is indeed against guidelines and I thought it pushed the discimination rules but the latter doesn't seem to be the case as pointed out in these articles. My apologies...

http://www.contractoruk.com/security..._guidance.html

The PCG guide does mention it isn't legally binding but does mention it is discrimination.
https://www.pcg.org.uk/advice/security-clearance-advice