TechAmerica Brief: LEGISLATIVE ALERT – National Defense Authorization Act

“At 10:00 a.m. ET, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) began a markup of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. …
… TechAmerica has aggressively sought liability protections for counterfeits found in obsolete parts, and has partnered with freshman Congressman Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma to include an amendment via an en bloc package during markup today. This will be a major win for contractors doing business with the Department, and we will continue to seek similar language in the Senate version of the bill. … ”

More at TechAmerica Brief: LEGISLATIVE ALERT – National Defense Authorization Act.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “TechAmerica Brief: LEGISLATIVE ALERT – National Defense Authorization Act

  1. Cynthia Gordon says:

    so much for the problem of 21% of counterfeits come from Authorized Dealers, let’s just overlook it. What is really misleading is the lack of reporting it, don’t want the word to get out.

    • Site your data source please…

      “21% of counterfeits come from Authorized Dealers”

    • Anonymous says:

      Be careful with the term “Authorized Dealer”. This term is used by brokers to deliberately mislead you into believing they are “FRANCHISED”.

      The term “Authorized” means the OEM is willing to sell directly to the broker, but there is no contract in place preventing the broker from going to Chinese markets. In other words, they are “authorized” to buy directly from the OEM, but not required to do so.

      Therefore every broker will uses the term “Authorized”, knowing that you are hearing the term “Franchised”. And what do they care? They got the sale and rang the bell.

      All the while, the Marine on the ground in Afghanistan who is calling for fire just had his radio fail because you bought from an “Authorized” dealer who wasn’t “Franchised”.

  2. Dan Deisz says:

    Cynthia – let’s hear what your sources are for this information. Your 21% does not correlate with GIDEP or ERAI data.

  3. Owen Peters says:

    Henry, I could be wrong but I believe the reference is to:
    “OCMs that experienced counterfeits most frequently cited parts brokers as a source of counterfeit parts, followed by independent distributors and Internet-exclusive suppliers. Of particular note is that 21 percent of affected OCMs identified authorized distributors as having sold counterfeit parts…” A passage (along with graphic) found on page 18 of the DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: COUNTERFEIT ELECTRONICS:
    http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarketresearchrpts/final_counterfeit_electronics_report.pdf

    • Thanks, Owen.

      If your speculation about the source of information described in initial comment is correct, this would be yet another common misinterpretation of DOC/BIS data.

  4. Owen Peters says:

    Be that as it may, the number is “of particular note”.

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: