Under the Wire: FAR Council Announces Interim Rule to Implement NDAA Procurement Ban on Huawei and Other Chinese Telecommunications Equipment
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.13.19
On August 13, 2019, the FAR Council published in the Federal Register an interim rule, FAR Subpart 4.21, effective immediately, which implements a portion of section 889 of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, specifically, the ban on government procurement of any equipment, system or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services from certain Chinese companies. The interim rule defines covered telecommunications equipment and services to include any telecommunications equipment or services from Huawei or ZTE (or any affiliate) and certain video surveillance and telecommunications equipment or services from three other Chinese companies (or their affiliates). The interim rule also provides for expanding the ban to other companies that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, reasonably believes to be owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the Chinese government. Unless a waiver is granted, the rule will broadly apply to all contracts including commercial item procurements and acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold. The implementing clauses, FAR 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment and FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment,must also be added to any existing contracts before those may be extended or renewed.
Contacts

Partner and Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.08.26
Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21: Good Faith in the Boardroom
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Mr Francesco Costa, former chairman of Spring Media Investments Limited, in the first Supreme Court judgment to consider the scope of the duty under section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006. The foundational position is that good faith requires honest conduct as well as honest thinking. A director's genuine belief that they are acting in the company's best interests will not excuse covert or disloyal conduct in pursuit of that belief.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.08.26
IRS Takes Aim: Proposed Rule Threatens Tax-Exempt Status of Private Schools
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.03.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.03.26
FDA Seeks Input for Regulating GenAI-Powered Medical Devices

