Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/270052
96 SMT Magazine • March 2014 I drafted a letter to the supplier including the alert I was about to report to GIDEP. By being proactive and complying with this reporting, I was able to provide a greater number of par- ties with a heads-up about this part and also served to minimize potential liability due to the protection offered under Section 818 relative to "reasonable effort." Obviously, no contrac- tor wants to be assessed with the penalties ad- dressed under the section, as they can climb as high as $15 million—and even imprisonment— for individuals who intentionally or recklessly facilitate the availability of counterfeit goods in the supply chain. While, according the Federal Register, Vol- ume 78, Number 95, Section II, "the intent of Section 818 is to hold contractors responsible for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit electronic parts or suspect coun- terfeit electronic parts," there were some spe- cific areas that were identified requiring either modification or additions to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation System (DFARS). The register identified these areas as: • Definitions—several definitions includ- ing "electronic part, legally authorized source, counterfeit part" are waiting to be finalized • Contractor responsibilities for detection and avoidance of electronic components • What are unallowable costs of rework and corrective actions? • Government's role—in reviewing and mon- itoring contractors' processes and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts Due to the confusion and lack of clarity in parts of Section 818, the Department of De- fense held a public meeting for the industry at large to contribute their concerns with the leg- islation. Along with other leaders in the supply chain, Secure Components sent Vice President of Sales Travis Thoman to Washington D.C. to provide input into the discussions relative to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Sup- plement: Detection and Avoidance of Counter- feit Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2012-D055). Thoman had the opportunity to provide tes- timony which can be read here. Upon return from the conference, he and I discussed his per- ception of what is to be proposed by DoD. It appears DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS in partial implementation of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and a section of the National De- fense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, relating to the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. The implementation of the changes is di- rected by the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS), which develops and maintains acquisition rules and guidance to facilitate the acquisition workforce as it acquires the goods and services the DoD requires ensuring Amer- ica's warfighters continued worldwide success. They are working on implementing portions of the section 818 of NDAA for 2012 to add: 1. Definitions specific to counterfeit parts 2. Definitions of contractors responsibilities 3. Clarification of the government's role action is critical I believe the need for immediate and swift action is essential from all levels of the supply chain. The evidence of counterfeit material en- tering the U.S. military's supply chain is over- whelming. I am hopeful that the DoD will adopt clear language and guidance for industry in order to defeat the counterfeit threat. The Defense Lo- gistics Agency has led this fight with swift action of its own with the DNA marking requirement KraMer on CoMponenTS INvESTIGaTIONS, EvIDENcE, aND aN UNcLEar SOLUTION FOr 2014 continues figure 4: Industry and governmental reporting will help minimize potential disasters.