Investigations, Evidence, and an Unclear Solution


Reading time ( words)

In November of 2011, when the United States government publicly got involved in attempting to curb the epidemic of counterfeits in the supply chain, it was a little too late. The Senate Arms Services Committee, led by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, gave Americans their first glimpse into the catastrophic dangers that our Department of Defense and the aerospace community was facing. The Committee on Armed Services held a hearing regarding the investigation of counterfeit electronic parts in the defense supply chain and revealed alarming facts about how easy counterfeit components can infiltrate the supply chain.

At the request of McCain and Levin, an investigation was performed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which involved the creation of a fictitious company with the intent of gaining membership in two Internet platforms offering electronic components. This false company was provided with an owner, employees, mailing address, e-mail addresses, a website and a listing on the Central Contractors Registration.

Report: Counterfeits in the Supply Chain

As a result of this investigation, the GAO-12-375 report was released to the public on February 21, 2012. Heavily involved in this project was Tim Parsons, chief scientist of the GAO. Recently, I had the opportunity to catch up with Parsons and discuss what he felt were the most important findings uncovered or learned as a result of this investigation. He said, “To summarize the key findings of our investigation report, we found that counterfeit electronic parts were indeed found in the supply chain of a number of key weapons systems (which often have multi-decadal life cycles), were relatively easy to acquire through internet platforms, and were increasingly sophisticated such that advanced inspection and authentication techniques were required to classify them as suspect counterfeit.”

Read the full column here.

Editor's Note: This column originally appeared in the March 2014 issue of SMT Magazine.

Share

Print


Suggested Items

IPC Standards Development: Business Challenges and an Inside View

10/28/2020 | Graham Naisbitt, Gen3 Systems
With increasing frequency, standardising the standards, such as ISO 9201, imposes certain rules that must be met to ensure “fair play” amongst the supply chain. There will be those familiar with hearing about “false positives/negatives” and “never trust the salesman,” so mitigating these is no easy task. However, there is the chance for each 5-30 Task Group to review industry requirements and set out the work program for the ensuing period. With that in mind, much of what follows is based on comments we learn about from our industry around the world, many of whom are not yet IPC members. Yes, this is a membership recruitment drive, unashamedly, as well as a search for volunteers willing to help create the standards of tomorrow.

Real Time with… SMTAI 2020: Women’s Leadership Program Cruises Through Important Topics

10/09/2020 | Michelle Te, I-Connect007
The virtual environment didn’t stop a large gathering of women (and men) from learning, sharing, and enjoying the Women’s Leadership Program during SMTAI 2020. Michelle Te shares her experience.

Process Ionic Contamination Test (PICT) Standard Roundtable With Industry Experts

04/22/2020 | I-Connect007
With standards committees set to release the first of four new test standards, industry experts discussed the process ionic contamination test (PICT) standard, which was recently approved by the IEC for publication. Roundtable participants included Teresa Rowe, senior director of assembly and standards technology at IPC, Graham Naisbitt, chairman and CEO of Gen3, Jason Keeping, corporate process development at Celestica, and Doug Pauls, principal materials and process engineer at Collins Aerospace.



Copyright © 2020 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.