Comments for Counterfeit Parts

Comment on An Imbalanced Approach to Counterfeit Prevention – Proposed DFARS rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” by Mike Sharkey

Mike Sharkey — Wed, 22 May 2013 00:51:58 +0000

Mr. Deis,
You and Rochester Electronics are to be commended on your track record and impeccable credentials on traceability back to the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM) for your first generation sales.

Rochester isn’t the only player in the game here though. Over the lifespan of circuit card, or module, the possibilities of original manufacture or subsequent repair with substandard or counterfeit parts build upon each other within multiplicative factors. How would you propose to sustain mil-spec requirements over the 30+ years expected of deployed systems?

A citation from your post, “Authorized First and buying product with OCM warranty when available” leaves a giant gap in coverage. What occurs when “NOT AVAILABLE”? Traceability of the lineage of components on a repairable circuit card is quickly obscured on any repair. The initial cost involved of a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) survey are already insurmountable.

Numerous CAD programs available able to generate initial reports of every component on a board, every board in a panel, every panel in a system.. A major issue is deploying and maintaining the records over the cradle-to-grave life cycle.

I wish you and Rochester Electronics continued success in distribution and tracking of OCM modules, but honestly feel a concerted effort needs to be made by the entire Semiconductor Industry Association to join in a shared database of traceable parts.

The penchant and financial gains made by substandard manufacturers of knock off parts is pervasive. How do you eliminate the caveat emptor mentality of the bottom line for bench stock repair centers?
Very Respectfully,
Mike Sharkey

Comment on Definition of ‘legally authorized source’ in the proposed DFARS Rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” by Rob Leibrandt

Rob Leibrandt — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:59:25 +0000

I agree with Henry. The term "legally authorized source" resulted from discussions at the Federal level in the OMB IPEC led Anti-counterfeiting working group from 2010-2012 of which their were 6 subgroups. The term was chosen to address the technical/design authority as the entity in control of the design and production more than the sale and distribution, however I believe it is flexible enough to address authorized/franchised distributors, but really wasn't designed to address independents. The proposed rule is where that is described. Having chaired two of those subgroups (risk and traceability) I can tell you a lot of thought and discussion went into their definitions and until Sep 2012, when I retired from OSD, we stuck to them fairly well. The subgroup on definitions was led by the Department of Justice so they have a bias toward distinguishing counterfeit from fraudulent activity since they both have their own prosecutorial paths. I don't think the definitions weill be modified given the pedigree of their DOJ roots. Recent OSD issuances seem to have blurred that line more than DOJ intended. Rob

Rob was previously Senior Program Analyst for Traceability and Information Assurance within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Comment on An Imbalanced Approach to Counterfeit Prevention – Proposed DFARS rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” by Dan Deisz

Dan Deisz — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:18:22 +0000

Henry – well stated. It really comes down to buying Authorized if available first, followed by a lot of rigor when buying Independent only when product is not available through any Authorized channel. Vague language won’t get this done (ie “Trusted” or “Trustworthy” or “Approved Supplier”). As we have seen with DLA, this does nothing to promote Authorized First and buying product with OCM warranty when available.

Comment on Definition of ‘legally authorized source’ in the proposed DFARS Rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” by Henry Livingston

Henry Livingston — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:48:49 +0000

Bill’s proposal simply incorporates ‘authorized / franchised distributors’ into the definition of ‘legally authorized source’.

Looking at the proposed rule as a whole, including the definitions (with Bill’s recommendation), the proposed rule is very generous with respect to accommodating independent distribution —particularly how it is silent with respect to the responsibility of independent distribution given how counterfeits tend to find their way into the supply chain of DoD and DoD contractors.

Comment on Definition of ‘legally authorized source’ in the proposed DFARS Rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” by Owen Peters

Owen Peters — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:33:12 +0000

Henry, Given the importance of Independent distributors to the military market I am curious to hear your take on the proposed rule, and or Bill’s suggestion, and how it would impact their participation in providing obsolete parts.

Comment on A Problematic Definition of ‘Counterfeit Part’ within the Proposed DFARS Rule on Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts by Henry Livingston

Henry Livingston — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:04:30 +0000

A number of us, I am sure, will be engaged in preparing and submitting comments during the review period.

My purpose here is to identify and socialize issues to consider when preparing responses to the proposed rule and to prepare for implementation of the final rule.

Comment on A Problematic Definition of ‘Counterfeit Part’ within the Proposed DFARS Rule on Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts by Cynthia Gordon

Cynthia Gordon — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:57:21 +0000

the real question here is, it’s open for public comment, to verify if further scrutiny is needed. Did you send your concerns on during the public commentary period, Henry?

Comment on Example of Counterfeit Prevention for Bare Die Products by John Wilson

John Wilson — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:42:22 +0000

I often wonder about the numbers of die counterfeit reported. Worked for years buying die and hybrid micro electronic assemblies. Still keep in touch with many engineers in the industry. Do have any idea how many die parts have been reported over the last 5 years ?

Comment on DoD Instruction 4140.67, DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy (April 26, 2013) by Henry Livingston

Henry Livingston — Sat, 11 May 2013 20:22:56 +0000

Thanks, Owen. If this article were an 'appetizer', look for the 'main course' coming very soon .... "New DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy: Resolves Responsibilities Within DoD But Leaves Many Contractor Questions" By Bob Metzger, of Rogers, Joseph O’Donnell Federal Contracts Report Bob Metzger has written a number of other papers on supply chain security and counterfeit parts. He too is a member of The Task Force on Counterfeit Parts of the Committee on Acquisition Reform and Emerging Issues of the American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law.

Comment on DoD Instruction 4140.67, DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy (April 26, 2013) by Owen Peters

Owen Peters — Sat, 11 May 2013 19:16:00 +0000

Here’s a related analysis from Foley & Lardner LLP…

New DOD Internal Policy Guidance on Counterfeit Parts: A Preview of Contractor Regulations?

http://www.foley.com/new-dod-internal-policy-guidance-on-counterfeit-parts-a-preview-of-contractor-regulations-05-07-2013/