Comments on: Flaw In Defense Contracting Of Information Technology Staff

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:38:04 +0000

Good site! Those salary figures are outrageous. And all for the sake
of a security clearance?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:09:25 +0000

Agreed – check out sites like ClearanceJobs.com and ClearanceJobs.com/salary and you can see the salaries that cleared candidates are getting. Way more than similar candidates without active clearance.

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:27:03 +0000

Scuba? Awesome. I have an old PADI rescue cert. If you're in Japan
next spring/summer/fall — let's dive!

By: finkel

finkel — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:02:53 +0000

not particularly, no, but I wasn't paying that much attention to headcount numbers — I was mainly interested in the scuba diving ;) (and I was also pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, working for a very mousy, keep-your-head-down individual)

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:47:16 +0000

Thanks for the heads up on MP!

Like the old cliche — throwing good money after bad. On Kwajalein, did it look like Raytheon was throwing more bodies at the contract as it progressed?

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:20:16 +0000

Scary. Why would a small business need to go to a big business for a government security clearance. Sounds ripe for an audit.

Let me know when you ramp that blog up — I'll be first in line to sign up!

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:10:59 +0000

What a mess on that sponsor stuff. Government — fully knowing that clearances are mandatory for access to their own facilities — need to fix this kind of goat rope and stop shirking the work.

By: Rich Chuckrey

Rich Chuckrey — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:01:09 +0000

Definitely makes sense from a profitability standpoint. It's too bad though you had to dump good candidates because of the red tape in doing security clearances. 2500 resumes in the trash — wow.

I'm in the camp that government can [and should] make clearances a more transparent routine — taking the burden off the defense contractor — who — for good reason — is looking to make a buck.

By: Scott Jarkoff

Scott Jarkoff — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:46:35 +0000

I see your point about small companies requiring sponsorship (which I was not aware of, so good looking out on the new information) however that does not mean the larger contracting firms like BAH, CSC, SAIC, etc. are simply off the hook. They help perpetuate this problem because they're too interested in making a quick buck rather than investing in the long term.

This is why Wall Street is screwed – too many people want a quick turnaround on their investment so they opt for the short con rather than working the long con. Largely, the long cons work better and yield greater results, but patience is required. Wall Street, by and large, has no patience.

By: Scott Jarkoff

Scott Jarkoff — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:43:50 +0000

I have had similar experiences – companies outright discount highly qualified candidates simply because they do not have clearances, as a way of cutting costs in the short term. If these same companies had any sense of vision they would find the turnover to be a lot smaller had they opted to earmark the requisite funds necessary to conduct background investigations on these highly qualified candidates rather than hiring the barely-qualified-but-holding-a-TS-cleared individual.

Sad but unfortunately a very standard business practice. Short-sightedness seems to be a virus which most contractors are afflicted with.