Unfortunate use of the term ‘Trusted Supplier’

The use of the term trusted supplier within Section 818 of the FY2012 NDAA is an unfortunate choice of words on the part of Congress. It’s use here differs significantly from its current use with respect to the “DoD Trusted Foundry Program”, an accreditation plan for design, fabrication, packaging and test services across a broad technology range for specialized governmental applications.

I speculate this new application for ‘trusted supplier’ came from those who were very much aware of the trusted foundry program and began extending the concept to the counterfeit parts issue. Case in point…

During an industry meeting in May 2007 where I presented counterfeit part findings and observations linking the problem to riskier elements of the supply chain, attendees described our findings as a business case for expanding the scope of the trusted supplier concept. A number of us close to the counterfeit parts issue have cautioned people about confusing the two issues, but this seems to have taken on a life of its own and confusion abounds today.

Some companies who operate trusted foundries have contributed to this confusion. I have attended several Government / Industry meetings and conferences over the past few years where companies who operate trusted foundries presented their capability as the solution to the counterfeit parts problem. These companies also toured The Hill with this message. If you review the transcript from the 8 November SASC hearing, questions from committee members to industry panelist reveal that they have been lead to believe the ‘trusted foundry’ equates to ‘the trusted supplier solution to the counterfeit parts problem’. The end result was dialog between panelists and committee members talking over each other’s heads.

Do we honestly believe that the capabilities of the trusted foundries can fill the gaps where OEMs and DOD are vulnerable to counterfeits? Here is an example where industry can be its own worst enemy.

Henry Livingston

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Unfortunate use of the term ‘Trusted Supplier’

  1. Anonymous says:

    Henry,

    I completely agree with you. The OCM obsoleted the components because of inadequate sales to keep it going.There are hundreds of different processes and thousands of part numbers and no way feasible for Trusted Foundries to offer these at reasonable price and delivery and probably equivalent electrical performance, even if they wanted to. Look at the prices and delivery times of authorized re-manufacturers, i.e. Rochester, Lansdale, etc trying to delivery the same product..

    To totally different alligators.

    Leon Hamiter

  2. Anonymous says:

    A “trusted supplier” program with a reasonable set of requirements and vetting of those organizations selling aftermarket components (e2v, Rochester, Lansdale, etc.) makes good sense, but should not get intertwined with the “Trusted Fab” and on-shore requirements. Provided these aftermarket vendors can show die traceability and proof of acceptable quality systems (DSCC Laboratory Suitability to MIL-STD-883, QML Certification to MIL-PRF-38535, QML Class V Certification, AS9100 / ISO9001 Certification, etc) would provide value to contractors and taxpayers. It makes sense to have DMEA run this as an adjacent program the existing program.

  3. I agree, this is extremely confusing. The trusted foundry / program is completely different than what the NDAA seems to be referencing, which probably could be worded “verified unauthorized sources” to avoid the confusion.

  4. […] In its comments, the TSSG offers recommendations to avoid confusion between the requirements of the proposed DFARS and the existing “DoD Trusted Supplier Program“. […]

  5. […] The House approved S.2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. S.2943 includes language to further amend the original counterfeit part legislation by eliminating use of the term ‘trusted supplier‘. […]

  6. […] The House approved S.2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. S.2943 includes language to further amend the original counterfeit part legislation by eliminating use of the term ‘trusted supplier‘. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: