1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Gift that Keeps on Giving: FAR Council Attempts to Reduce Burden of Representation Requirement for Covered Telecommunication Offerings

The Gift that Keeps on Giving: FAR Council Attempts to Reduce Burden of Representation Requirement for Covered Telecommunication Offerings

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.16.19

Following an August 2019 interim rule that implemented a ban on government procurement of any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services (CTES) from certain Chinese companies including Huawei and ZTE, effective December 13, 2019, the FAR Council issued a second interim rule authorizing companies to annually represent whether they provide CTES to the Government in the System for Award Management (SAM) registration. This new provision at FAR 52.204-26 would allow offerors to avoid the offer-by-offer representation requirement in FAR 52.204-24 (currently required under the first interim rule).

FAR 52.204-26 applies to all acquisitions, including simplified and commercial item acquisitions, and requires companies to review SAM and validate whether any products or services originate from CTES prior to completing their required representations. To facilitate compliance, the Government will update SAM to list the Chinese companies that provide CTES and annotate where prohibitions are limited to select products and services instead of the entire company.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26

Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief

A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy. ...