Security clearance costs come up frequently, and one of the most common misconceptions is that defense contractors pay for their employees to obtain security clearances. While the topic has been considered, the security clearance process is currently born entirely by the government – the government decides who needs and gets a clearance, and then ponies up the funds to pay for it.
What Kind of Costs Do Contractors Incur?
But just because the government pays for the cost of a background investigation doesn’t mean clearances don’t come with a cost for the contractors supporting the federal government. Maintaining an industrial security program means every cleared employer needs to employ someone to act as a security officer, there are time and onboarding costs, and a number of ancillary costs that apply to the cleared population that wouldn’t apply to other individuals. There is also the opportunity cost – if a contractor incurs the time (perhaps paying an employee who is awaiting a clearance determination), because they are unable to clear multiple contractors ‘just in case’ – it’s critical the employee they put forth to the government sticks it out, in order for them to be able to perform the task before them.
Contractual Requirements and Clearances
So while it may be tempting for employers to make their cleared employees stay put for a bit after sponsorship, it’s uncommon to see contractual requirements tied to clearances. Many employers do require employees to stay with the company for a period of time after obtaining a company paid-for certification, graduate degree, or other benefit. But while being put in for a polygraph or higher level clearance is certainly a new – and valuable – career credential, it’s rare to see employers make contract requirements based on it.
But while it’s uncommon, it’s not unheard of. Recently someone asked if their employer could make them sign a contract requiring them to work for a set number of hours based on their sponsoring the individual for a polygraph. Whether or not the contract is valid would be based on state employment laws, but it would likely be difficult to enforce. In today’s competitive candidate market, it would also be difficult to get individuals to agree to. Besides the nuance behind what cost a contract employer really incurred to sponsor the individual, the reality is that with cleared candidates in such high demand, ‘stay to sponsor’ contracts are not likely to engender the loyalty or long-term benefits they imply.
Get a Lawyer
Should you sign a contract requiring you to stay a certain amount of time for a company who upgrades your clearance? You’d need to consult with an attorney privy to employment laws in your state to determine the legality. When it comes to the practicality or benefit, that really depends on how much you like the employer and how much of a hardship the new term of service would be. It’s certainly a rare play for an employer to make, but with many companies fighting hard to keep every cleared employee they can, it’s not surprising to see.
