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 | 4 min read | 12.30.25

Are All Baby Products Related? TTAB Says “No”

The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) recently issued a refreshed opinion in the trademark dispute Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, where Naterra International, Inc. petitioned the TTAB to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for the mark BABIES' MAGIC TEA based on its own BABY MAGIC mark. On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the TTAB reconsidered an expert’s opinion about relatedness of goods based on the concept of “umbrella branding” and found that the goods are unrelated and therefore again denied the petition for cancellation....