Video Surveillance and Federal Procurement Rules

If your organization holds a federal contract, or is bidding for one, the video surveillance equipment in your buildings is a compliance question and not only a purchasing preference. The rule reaches further than most buyers expect, and the surprise is usually unpleasant because it arrives after the cameras are installed.

What the obligation is

Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 is implemented in federal contracting by FAR 52.204-25. The clause defines "covered telecommunications equipment or services" to include, "for the purpose of public safety, security of Government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities)." It also covers telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, services provided by any of those entities or using their equipment, and equipment or services from entities the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the FBI, reasonably believes to be owned, controlled by or connected to the government of a covered foreign country. The clause defines "covered foreign country" as the People's Republic of China.

The clause creates two prohibitions, and the difference between them is what catches organizations out.

• Section 889(a)(1)(A), from 13 August 2019. A contractor is prohibited from providing to the Government any equipment, system or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services "as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system."
• Section 889(a)(1)(B), from 13 August 2020. An executive agency may not enter into, extend or renew a contract with an entity that uses such equipment or services. The clause then adds the sentence that matters most: "This prohibition applies to the use of covered telecommunications equipment or services, regardless of whether that use is in performance of work under a Federal contract."

Read that second one carefully. It is not about what you sell to the government. It is about what is running in your own buildings.

What it means in practice

Cameras in an unrelated building can affect your eligibility. The (a)(1)(B) prohibition attaches to your use of the equipment, not to the federal work. A distribution center with prohibited cameras is in scope even though no federal contract is performed there.

The brand on the housing is not the answer. Video surveillance equipment is widely manufactured by one company and sold under another company's name. Establishing who actually produced a camera, and whether the producer is a subsidiary or affiliate of a named entity, is a question to put to the supplier in writing before purchase. A supplier who cannot answer it has given you an answer.

There are narrow exceptions, and they are narrower than they sound. The clause does not prohibit providing a service that connects to a third party's facilities, such as backhaul, roaming or interconnection arrangements, nor telecommunications equipment that "cannot route or redirect user data traffic or permit visibility into any user data or packets that such equipment transmits or otherwise handles." A networked camera is not obviously in that second category, and treating it as though it is would be an optimistic reading of a clause with contractual consequences.

Discovery triggers a reporting clock. If a contractor identifies covered equipment during contract performance, or is told of it by a subcontractor or any other source, it must report to the contracting officer, and for Department of Defense contracts through dibnet.dod.mil. The clause requires the contract number, supplier name, brand, model number, item description and any readily available information about mitigation within one business day of identification, and further information about mitigation within 10 business days of that.

This is also why the question belongs in procurement rather than in facilities. Replacing a camera is inexpensive. Discovering during a bid that your estate disqualifies you is not.

Who is accountable

In practice the obligation lands on four desks, and it goes wrong when each assumes another has it.

• Contracts and legal own the representation being made. They are the only people who can say whether the clause is in your contracts.
• Procurement owns the question reaching the supplier before the order, and owns getting the answer in writing.
• Facilities or security own knowing what is actually installed, including the cameras inherited with a leased building.
• IT usually owns the inventory that can answer the question quickly, because the cameras are on the network whether or not anyone treats them as IT assets.

If you are a subcontractor, the clause flows down. Your prime will ask, and the answer needs to be based on a record rather than a recollection.

How to evidence it

1. Inventory every camera and recorder, by site, with manufacturer, brand, model and firmware. Include devices installed by landlords and by previous occupants.
2. Get manufacturer attestations in writing from suppliers, covering the equipment and its substantial components rather than the brand on the box.
3. Record the date of each check. Corporate ownership changes, and a statement that was true in one year is evidence of diligence rather than a permanent fact.
4. Write the check into purchasing. A required question at requisition costs nothing and is the control that actually prevents recurrence.
5. Have a reporting path ready. One business day is not long enough to work out who to tell while also working out what you have found.
6. Keep the evidence where contracts can reach it. The inventory is only useful if the people answering a bid question can produce it the same day.

LABUSA can inventory what is installed across your sites and document the manufacturer position for each device as part of a site assessment. Request a free site security assessment. For buildings where this applies most directly, see video surveillance for government and defense facilities; for the questions to put to a supplier, the buyer checklist; for the wider technical risk video surveillance security and risk, and for what we install our video surveillance solutions.

This page describes a federal contracting rule in general terms. It is not legal advice, and whether a specific clause is in a specific contract is a question for your counsel and your contracting officer.

Sources

• General Services Administration, FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (Nov 2021). Establishes every quotation on this page: the definition of covered telecommunications equipment and the three named video surveillance manufacturers, the definition of covered foreign country, both prohibitions and their effective dates, the exceptions, and the one business day and 10 business day reporting requirements. acquisition.gov. Accessed 18 August 2026.
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 48 CFR 52.204-25. Establishes the same clause as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, for readers who need the regulatory citation. ecfr.gov. Accessed 18 August 2026.
• Federal Register, Federal Acquisition Regulation: Prohibition on Contracting With Entities Using Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, 14 July 2020. Establishes the rulemaking that implemented section 889(a)(1)(B), the prohibition on contracting with an entity that uses covered equipment. federalregister.gov. Accessed 18 August 2026.