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

The proposed DFARS Rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” includes the term ‘legally authorized source.’

“Legally authorized source means the current design activity or the original manufacturer or a supplier authorized by the current design activity or the original manufacturer to produce an item.”

In his comment submitted in response to the proposed rule Bill Palladino, Manager Quality Compliance for Arrow Electronics, submitted an excellent recommendation concerning this definition of ….

“Legally authorized source means the current design activity or the original manufacturer or a supplier authorized by the current design activity or the original manufacturer to produce or distribute an item.”

Bill observes “The electronics industry consists of various type of electronic component distributors who offer product. However only those distributors known as “franchised or authorized” distributors are permitted to supply parts acquired directly from the manufacturer with manufacturer warranty. Therefore it is important to properly identify those suppliers authorized for distribution.”

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Definition of ‘legally authorized source’ in the proposed DFARS Rule on “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts”

  1. Owen Peters says:

    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.

    • 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.

  2. 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.

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: