Update From DLA re DNA Authentication Marking

“DNA Marking requirements are unique to FSC 5962 and are being instituted for the safety of our service men and women. Effective immediately, only trusted sources who comply with Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) marking requirements in DLAD 52.211-9074 are eligible to receive FSC 5962 awards from DLA. There are no exceptions. …”

More at DLA

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Update From DLA re DNA Authentication Marking

  1. This announcement includes what DLA has defined for the term ‘trusted source’. This definition includes independent distributors who meet new DLA requirements for counterfeit mitigation practices and quality assurance procedures (i.e. suppliers on the QTSL).

    Here are the details on QTSL and QSLD.

    http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/Offices/Sourcing_and_Qualification/Offices.aspx?Section=QTS

    http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/offices/sourcing_and_qualification/offices.aspx?Section=QSL

  2. Dan Deisz says:

    It never was about the cost of DNA marking so this won’t do much for the OCM’s or the fully Authorized channels. The logistics are the largest issue followed by the belief that marking known good Authorized parts makes no sense to the OCM’s and Authorized channels. If parts have to be marked, mark the non-Authorized sources!

  3. Owen Peters says:

    According to George Karalias, another Rochester employee, cost was indeed part of problem. Here’s a quote from his article in EE Times not too long ago: “Some companies are working on developing sophisticated identification technologies that can be included in the production of components, but these are also extremely costly.”

  4. Anonymous says:

    I still fail to see how this will prevent counterfeit parts. Is the thought that if a company has to mark a part, they will do everything they can to ensure that it is not counterfeit? However, if the parts were not procured from the OCM or their authorized sources, there is no sure fire way to know they are not counterfeit since the counterfeiters are getting more sophisticated. I think someone earlier made a good point. Make sure all parts NOT from the OCM or authorized distributors are marked so we can tell the diffierence! It is sad if the DLA will not buy from the OCM or authorized distributors if they do not mark the parts with DNA. That is a threat to the warfighter in my personal opinion.

  5. 21 Feb 2012 Update…
    Since my 25 January post, I observe from DIBBS that of 67 awards for Federal Supply Class 5962 products (microcircuits), 58 included the requirement for DNA marking. Most of the suppliers associated with these awards are Independent Distributors; a few are OCMs and authorized distributors.

    • Anonymous says:

      Henry,
      I am trying to find this information on DIBBS. But I could not. I could see so many RFQs/solicitations for FSC 5962 products but not that many awards. Are you talking about RFQs/solicitations or awards. For every RFQ there is the requirement for DNA marking. But I dont see APDN making much money from these solicitations.

  6. Dan Deisz says:

    …and so we have gone to a world where most 5962 purchases for DLA are through Independents. This is the exact opposite needed (and recommended) to ensure the least counterfeit, but by golly those parts have DNA on them! We have seen the price they are now paying has significantly increased from the same part available through Authorized that they had been buying for more than a decade. It’s maddening.

    • Perhaps it is too early to judge since DLA is still getting push back from OCMs and authorized distributors about the DNA marking issue. Perhaps DLA, for the time being appears to have stood up 3rd party arrangement to fill the DNA marking requirement. This is consistent with what I heard at the AUSA meeting in DC from the SIA ACTF chair.

    • I have idea for you to consider, Dan…
      Last year, you prepared and presented an analysis of parts identified in GIDEP reports concerning counterfeiting incidents. In that analysis, you discussed the proportion of parts that were available through OCMs or their authorized distributors vs. parts that were obsolete.
      It would be interesting for you to perform a similar analysis of DLA procurements from award data posted in DIBBS.

      • Dan Deisz says:

        Henry – good idea. I’ll look into getting that data together. Nothing bought through an Independent comes with any OCM warranty. It hardly seems the desired purchasing process or behavior for our war fighter.

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: