What’s in a name? That’s what some background investigators are asking after seeing new guidance clarifying that government contractors should avoid using the term ‘special investigator’ but should instead identify themselves as ‘contract investigators’.
One subscriber on the ClearanceJobsBlog is concerned that having to be identified as a “contract investigator” could make contacting subjects even harder:
Anyone know what’s behind the reasoning for why DCSA is mandating contractors to introduce themselves as a Contract Investigator vs. a Special Investigator after 09/30/22?
Seems like a way to make the contractors job more difficult when dealing with sources and record providers by removing the title of Special Investigator from their contractor workforce which competes and conducts 70% of the national workload work anyways. The general public are already leery of us to begin with and now you hamstring us even more. Contract Investigator vs. Special Investigator = less clout and authority in my opinion.
As a federal agency, they are doing their due diligence in having investigators identify themselves to subject interviewees and security clearance applicants if they are government direct or a contractor.
One commenter notes, “the majority of the investigators are contractors. I, personally, never experienced any issues getting anyone to cooperate during an investigation regardless of how I identified myself.”
Both special agents and contract investigators must show their credentials when introducing themselves to subjects – a badge is a badge. For individuals concerned if the person contacting them is legit, you can contact DCSA Security at dcsa.boyers.bi.mbx.investigator-verifications@mail.mil or 724-794-7186.
