RE: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances

["Lippincott, Rick" <Rick -dot- Lippincott -at- flir -dot- com>]

Bonnie Granat said:
>The requirement that one already possess a security clearance is an
unfair
>requirement. That is precisely the point of my post. They should permit
>otherwise qualified people to *get* clearances.

The requirement for a clearance may actually be a very fair requirement.


Remember, it takes about a year to get a clearance. Sometimes longer.

What if you're being hired for a project where the deliverable is due in
six months? It would be impossible to put you through the clearance
process and get it completed in time for the deadline.

Sound far-fetched?

The company I'm working for now, we're working on a project for the
military. Although the tech writing aspects do not involve classified
data, the actual hardware specifications and system capabilities are
classified.

The contract was awarded in May 2003. The article is due in January
2004. Eight months total. Not enough time to get -anybody- the
clearances needed. If we didn't have people here with active clearances,
we would not have gotten the contract in the first place.

Consider that some of these jobs may be for fairly short-term,
high-intensity projects. Right now, my sense is that there is a lot of
emphasis on getting these things done and out into the field quickly.
And there just may not be enough time to run new people through the
clearance cycle.

--Rick Lippincott
  FLIR Systems
  Billerica, MA