Any video project that touches federal money eventually produces the question “is it NDAA compliant?” The phrase almost always refers to NDAA Section 889, which is Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232). The rule behind it is shorter and more binary than the bid paperwork suggests.
What does Section 889 prohibit?
Section 889 has two parts. Part A took effect on August 13, 2019 and bars federal agencies from buying any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment as a substantial or essential component. Part B took effect a year later, on August 13, 2020. It bars agencies from contracting with any company that uses that equipment anywhere in its business, whether or not the use has anything to do with the federal contract.
The FAR defines a substantial or essential component as any component necessary for the proper function or performance of the equipment, system, or service. A covered camera, recorder, or switch in a video system would meet that test.
Which companies are covered?
The FAR lists four categories:
- Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation
- Video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company, when used for public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, or other national security purposes
- Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by those companies or using their equipment
- Equipment or services from entities the Secretary of Defense identifies as owned or controlled by, or connected to, the government of China
Subsidiaries and affiliates of the named companies are covered too. The last category can grow, so the FAR has offerors check the excluded-parties list in SAM.gov before they make their representation.
What does the bid ask?
FAR 52.204-24 turns Section 889 into two yes-or-no representations. The first asks whether you will or will not provide covered equipment or services to the government under the contract. The second asks whether, after a reasonable inquiry, your company does or does not use covered equipment or services.
A “will” or a “does” triggers a disclosure. It covers the company that produced the equipment, the brand and model of every covered item, and an explanation of the proposed use and why it should be permitted. A “will not” or a “does not” means there’s nothing to disclose, and the contracting officer may rely on that representation.
Every Section 889 answer lands in one of two places: you disclose because you provide or use covered equipment, or you have no disclosure because you don’t.
Whose answer is whose?
The first question is about what you deliver, and manufacturers answer it for their own products. That’s the job of the Section 889 statements server and camera makers publish.
The second question is about your own company: its phones, routers, switches, and any camera watching your own office. A manufacturer’s statement about its own operations says nothing about yours, because the answer depends on what your company runs.
If you work as a subcontractor on a federal job, the prime has to carry the substance of FAR 52.204-25 into its subcontracts. That brings the prohibition on providing covered equipment down to your scope of work.
Does it reach projects that aren’t federal contracts?
Yes, when federal grant or loan money pays for them. Under 2 CFR 200.216, recipients and subrecipients of federal grants and loans can’t use those funds to procure covered equipment or services, and the rule applies to awards issued after August 13, 2020. A school district, city, or county paying for a camera project with federal grant money works under the same restriction, even when the purchase runs through local procurement.
What counts as a reasonable inquiry?
The FAR defines it as an inquiry designed to uncover any information already in your company’s possession about who produced or provided covered equipment or services you use. It doesn’t require an internal or third-party audit. In practice, that means checking what you already know: purchase records, asset lists, and the equipment on your own network.
What Section 889 doesn’t cover
Section 889 is about who made the equipment. Country of origin and place of assembly fall under separate rules, mainly the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act, so an NDAA statement says nothing about either.
The FAR also carves out two exceptions. The first is services that connect to a third party’s facilities, such as backhaul, roaming, or interconnection arrangements. The second is telecommunications equipment that can’t route or redirect user data, or see the data packets it handles.
Where Arxys stands
Arxys has no Section 889 disclosures on either question. Our VideoX servers contain no covered telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services, and after a reasonable inquiry, Arxys doesn’t use any in its own operations, including phones, routers, and switches. Our federal and military work requires both answers, so we maintain both. The statement is published on our Made in the USA page.
