Section 889 Prohibition on Covered Telecommunications Equipment

At a Glance

Who it applies to

All contractors and subcontractors — a governmentwide prohibition, not limited to IT or DoD

What it obligates

Don't provide, and (Part B) don't use, covered telecom/video-surveillance equipment or services; represent your status

Governing authority

Section 889 of the FY2019 NDAA, implemented in FAR 52.204-24 / -25 / -26 and Subpart 4.21

Covered companies

Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, Dahua and their affiliates (plus certain others named by the government)

The stakes

A false representation can void eligibility and expose you to False Claims Act liability

What It Is

Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 is a governmentwide prohibition on 'covered telecommunications equipment and services' — telecom and video-surveillance products from a short list of Chinese companies (Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, Dahua, and their affiliates and successors) that Congress identified as national-security risks. It has two parts. Part A (in effect since August 2019) prohibits the government from procuring or obtaining equipment, systems, or services that use covered equipment as a substantial or essential component. Part B (in effect since August 2020) goes further: it prohibits the government from contracting with any entity that uses covered equipment or services anywhere in its operations — not just in the work it does for the government. The FAR implements this through three provisions/clauses: FAR 52.204-24 (the representation about providing covered equipment), FAR 52.204-25 (the actual prohibition and flow-down clause), and FAR 52.204-26 (the SAM.gov annual representation covering use). In practice, you make a representation in SAM.gov (and often in each offer) about whether you provide or use covered telecommunications equipment. If you do, you generally can't receive the award unless a waiver applies. The prohibition covers not just obvious network gear but common video-surveillance cameras — a security camera or two from a covered brand in your own office can put you out of compliance with Part B. Because the representation is a certification, getting it wrong is a false statement, not a paperwork slip.

When It Applies

• On every federal solicitation and contract — Section 889 is governmentwide and not limited to IT, DoD, or a dollar threshold.
• When you complete or update your SAM.gov annual representations and certifications.
• When you submit an offer and must represent whether you provide or use covered telecom or video-surveillance equipment.
• As a flow-down: FAR 52.204-25 must be included in subcontracts, including for commercial products and services.

Key Features

The SDVOSB Angle

Section 889 is a low-cost, high-consequence compliance item that a small SDVOSB can fail without realizing it — most commonly through a covered-brand security camera in its own office, not through anything it sells the government. Do a genuine inventory before you certify: check your network equipment, phones, and especially your video-surveillance cameras against the covered-brand list, and replace anything covered. Because the SAM.gov and per-offer representations are certifications, a careless 'no covered equipment' answer that turns out to be wrong is a false certification with False Claims Act exposure — a disproportionate risk for a small firm. And remember the flow-down: your similarly situated subcontractors and teaming partners are within scope too, so build the representation into your teaming due diligence. Getting this right is cheap; getting it wrong can end an award and your eligibility.

How to Comply

1. Inventory your telecom, network, phone, and video-surveillance equipment against the covered-brand list (Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, Dahua and affiliates).
2. Replace or remove any covered equipment before you certify — including office security cameras.
3. Complete the Section 889 representations accurately in SAM.gov and in each offer.
4. Keep records of your reasonable inquiry so you can support the representation if challenged.
5. Flow FAR 52.204-25 down to subcontractors and confirm partners' status before teaming.

Watch Out For

• Overlooking video-surveillance cameras — a covered-brand camera in your own office violates Part B.
• Certifying 'no' without an actual inventory — the representation is a certification with False Claims Act exposure.
• Assuming it's a DoD-only or IT-only rule — Section 889 is governmentwide and applies regardless of what you sell.
• Ignoring the flow-down and teaming partners — a covered-equipment subcontractor is your compliance problem.

Frequently Asked

Primary Sources

• FAR 52.204-25 — Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• FAR 52.204-24 — Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications
• FAR Subpart 4.21 — Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance

Plain-English reference, not legal advice. Cybersecurity and information-safeguarding rules are fact-specific and change often — the FAR, DFARS, NIST publications, and the CMMC program rule are amended and phased in over time. Always read the current FAR/DFARS text and the safeguarding clauses in your specific contract, check the version of NIST SP 800-171 your contract requires, confirm the SPRS and CMMC requirements with the contracting officer, and consult qualified counsel or a cybersecurity professional before relying on a compliance position or making a certification.

Related Safeguarding Requirements

Systems You’ll Use

Clauses That Apply

How It Plays by Contract Type

Forms You’ll Use

Put It Into Practice

Terms Used on This Page