The covered telecommunications equipment prohibition — what it covers, what to do, and where contractors get caught out.
Last reviewed on May 12, 2026.
Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) prohibits federal agencies from procuring or using certain telecommunications equipment and services from specified Chinese entities. The two parts of the prohibition implement different scopes and have different implications for contractors.
The companion FAR implementation is at FAR Subpart 4.21 and the contract clauses at FAR 52.204-24, 52.204-25, and 52.204-26. DFARS includes parallel coverage for DoD-specific applications. Section 889 has become a standard compliance topic in nearly every federal solicitation and SAM.gov registration.
The statute names specific covered entities and their subsidiaries and affiliates:
"Subsidiary or affiliate" is broad. Many product lines and rebadged equipment trace back to these manufacturers; vendors selling equipment must verify supply chains carefully.
Effective August 2019. Prohibits federal agencies from procuring covered telecommunications equipment or services as a "substantial or essential component of any system" or "critical technology." Implemented through contract clauses requiring vendors to disclose whether the products or services being offered include covered equipment.
Part A is the older, more familiar prohibition. Vendors offering products through SEWP, Schedule, or other vehicles must confirm their offering is Part A compliant.
Effective August 2020. Prohibits federal agencies from contracting with any entity that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system. This is the broader and more disruptive prohibition.
Part B is not limited to what the contractor sells the government. It reaches the contractor's internal use — meaning a firm with Huawei or Dahua equipment in its own network may not contract with the federal government regardless of what it is selling.
The statute and regulations leave the phrase "substantial or essential component" largely undefined in operational terms. Guidance and practice have developed around a few principles:
The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and individual agencies have issued additional guidance interpreting the phrase in their own procurement contexts. Contractors with significant federal business should track this guidance.
Three FAR provisions carry Section 889, and contractors regularly mix them up. They do different jobs:
| Provision or clause | Where it appears | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| FAR 52.204-26 Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services — Representation |
The annual representations in SAM.gov | The entity-level annual representation. Paragraph (c)(1) is the Part A "does / does not provide" representation; paragraph (c)(2) is the Part B "does / does not use" representation. |
| FAR 52.204-24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment |
Individual solicitations | The offer-level representation for that specific procurement. Where an offeror represents "does provide" or "does use," the provision requires additional disclosure detail about the equipment. |
| FAR 52.204-25 Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment |
The awarded contract | The operative prohibition clause. It carries the reporting obligation when covered equipment is discovered during performance, and it is the clause that flows down to subcontractors at all tiers. |
A "yes" to either representation triggers additional disclosures and may render the contractor ineligible for award absent a waiver. A "no" is a binding representation; submitting "no" while using covered equipment exposes the contractor to False Claims Act risk and contract termination.
The representation is entity-wide, not per-contract. It covers the whole company's use of covered equipment, not just the division performing the federal work. Update it in SAM whenever the answer changes rather than waiting for annual renewal.
See SAM.gov registration for how representations work in the broader registration context.
The statute provides for waivers under narrow circumstances:
In practice, waivers are rare. Most contractors approach Section 889 as a hard prohibition and remove covered equipment from their environments rather than pursue waivers.
Part A (effective August 2019) is about what you sell the government: agencies may not procure covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system. Part B (effective August 2020) is about what you use: agencies may not contract with an entity that uses covered equipment in its own operations, regardless of what that entity is selling. A landscaping firm with Hikvision cameras at its yard has a Part B problem even though it sells no technology at all.
The statute names five companies: Huawei Technologies, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, and Dahua Technology — plus their subsidiaries and affiliates. It also reaches any entity the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the FBI Director, reasonably believes is owned, controlled by, or connected to the government of the People's Republic of China. Because the prohibition follows subsidiaries and affiliates, rebadged and white-labeled products from these manufacturers are covered even when sold under an unfamiliar brand name.
The prohibition attaches to covered telecommunications equipment or services used or provided as a substantial or essential component of a system, not to the subject matter of the purchase. So the content of a procurement — advertising, catering, landscaping — does not put it outside Section 889. What matters is whether the vendor provides covered equipment (Part A) or uses it (Part B). A newspaper selling advertising space still makes the Part B representation about its own systems.
Section 889 is not waived by dollar value the way some FAR requirements are, and agencies generally instruct cardholders to obtain the vendor's Section 889 representation before making a purchase card buy. Agency-level purchase card guidance varies on documentation mechanics and on the treatment of intra-governmental payments, so follow the specific policy your agency's purchase card program issues rather than assuming a small-dollar exemption exists.
A "does use" representation does not automatically bar you from every federal contract, but it means the contracting officer cannot award unless a waiver applies, and in practice it removes you from most competitions. The provision then requires you to disclose details about the equipment. The realistic path for most firms is to remediate — replace the covered equipment, document the removal, and update the SAM representation — rather than to represent "does use" and hope for a waiver.
The statute prohibits covered equipment used as a "substantial or essential component of any system" or as "critical technology." Primary network infrastructure — routers, switches, firewalls, telephony, video surveillance — is generally treated as substantial or essential. Harder cases involve covered components embedded deep in a third-party product. The regulations do not define the phrase in operational terms, so document your analysis and get counsel involved on the marginal calls rather than making an undocumented judgment.
Yes. FAR 52.204-25 flows down to subcontractors at all tiers. A prime that has remediated its own environment can still create a compliance problem by putting a non-compliant subcontractor on federal work, so verify a sub's Section 889 status — and include matching flow-down language — before subcontracting.