A recent Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) briefing on “Counterfeit Items Detection & Prevention” includes an assessment of counterfeiting activity discovered within DLA’s supply chain. This assessment could be used to set the foundation for risk-based and application focused approaches to counterfeit avoidance. While industry market analysis tends to report counterfeiting risks associated with a subset of products falling within one Federal Supply Group (electronic components), this analysis covers sixty-nine (69) Federal Supply Groups managed by DLA. The end result is DLA’s assessment of “low”, “moderate” and “high” counterfeiting risk across all of these Federal Supply Groups and 505 Federal Supply Classes falling within these Federal Supply Groups.
Here is a summary of DLA’s assessment …
The Federal Supply Groups (FSGs) identified as the highest risk for counterfeiting (appearing “red” in the stoplight chart) are those associated with incidents discovered by DLA through testing or reported by DLA customers. FSGs identified with a moderate risk (“yellow”) are other FSGs associated with incidents reported by other DoD organizations, GIDEP, or industry organizations; or include goods associated with “Notorious Markets“. FSGs identified with a “base level risk” appear “green” in the stoplight chart.
The “Top 5” high risk Federal Supply Groups (those with the highest number of incidents) are:
1. Electrical and Electronic Equipment Components (FSG 59)
2. Engine Accessories (FSG 29)
3. Pipe, Tubing, Hose, and Fittings (FSG 47)
4. Hardware and Abrasives (FSG 53)
5. Vehicular Equipment Components (FSG 25)
In addition to the briefing on “Counterfeit Items Detection & Prevention”, Ms Christine Metz (Technical & Quality Process Owner reporting within the DLA) provided DLA’s risk ranking of 505 Federal Supply Classes within the 69 Federal Supply Groups managed by DLA.
DLA’s analysis helps to establish a foundation for risk-based and application focused counterfeit avoidance solutions. [See “Understanding Threats and Developing Countermeasures“] DLA’s risk assessment helps to quantify the potential for a counterfeit incident associated with specific products. Armed with this sort of foundation data, a user could focus on areas where the greater risks lie and proceed with assessing the effects of counterfeit threats (failure modes and performance degradation), assessment the extent equipment is vulnerable to these threats, and determine the impact of vulnerabilities for specific end use applications.
Kudos to DLA for performing this assessment and thank you, Ms Metz, for your permission to make this material available.